HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.H. 01 Z.C. 92-001 05-04-92- - - - PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
;A
5-4-92
3- ATE: MAY 41 1992 n t e r- c O 111
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
Fti0r\A: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
UBj EC:T: ZONE CHANGE 92-001, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-288,
VARIANCE 91-019 AND DESIGN REVIEW 91-048
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
After a public hearing held on March 23, 1992, the Planning
Commission took the following actions, at a regular meeting on
April 13, 1992, related to a specific development proposal for the
property located at 14442 Holt Avenue:
1. Adopted Resolution No. 3014 recommending to the City Council
denial of Zone Change 92-001, a request to change the zoning
designation of the subject property from E-4 (Residential
Estate District) to R-1 (Single Family Residential District);
2. Adopted Resolution No. 3015 recommending to the City Council
denial of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 91-288, a request to
create four numbered lots and one lettered lot for the purpose
of developing four single , family detached dwelling units on
the subject property; and
3. Adopted Resolution No. 3016 denying Design Review 91-048, a
request to approve the proposed site plan and architectural
design of the four -unit single-family development; and denied
Variance 91-019, a request for a variance to reduce the front
yard setback on two easterly flag lots and to reduce the
minimum lot width on all four lots of one subject project.
Copies of all Planning Commission resolutions are attached for the
City Council's information as Attachment A. Detailed discussion of
the setting of the project site and background information on each
of the discretionary requests is included in Attachment B (Planning
Commission staff report dated March 23, 1992).
On April 20, 1992, the Community Development Department received a
request for an appeal of the Planning Commission's actions from
Councilman Edgar on the applicant's behalf. A copy of this request
is provided as Attachment C.
City Council Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-0288, VAR 91-019 and DR 92-048
May 4, 1992
Page 2
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site and the
Police Department. The applicant and property owner were informed
of the availability of a staff report on the matter.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission cited various reasons and concerns for
their denial of the proposed project. A copy of the minutes for
the Planning Commission meeting of March 23rd is provided as
Attachment D. In addition, the applicant's justification for the
project as well as letters opposing the project are included as
Attachment E. The following summarizes the Planning Commission's
key points:
1. That the E-4 (Residential Estate District) zoning should
remain since the property could potentially be developed with
three homes instead of the four proposed without the
processing of a Zone Change.
2. That Warren Avenue provides a good buffer and boundary for a
change in zoning districts rather than setting a precedent for
mid -block zoning.
3. That the development plan is too tight for the development of
four homes since various street deviations will be required in
addition to several variance approvals for deficiencies in
meeting the R-1 (Single. Family Residential District)
development standards; therefore, the site is not suitable for
the R-1 (Single Family Residential District) density.
4. That economic factors could not be considered in land use
decisions and that the property owner and/or applicant would
still be able to develop the property under the current E-4
(Residential Estate District) zoning.
5. That the housing type and lot size proposed would be
incompatible with surrounding single-family development to the
north, east and west of the project site.
6. That approving a Zone Change for this property would set a
precedent for properties north of the site to also be re -zoned
to R-1 introducing a new land use pattern to the area.
City Council Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-0288,
May 4, 1992
Page 3
VAR 91-019 and DR 92-048
7. That the project does not meet the objective of the City's
Housing Element to conserve an existing neighborhood as the
inward orientation of the project is inconsistent with
surrounding single family development.
8. That two flag lots are being created resulting in a disorderly
development -pattern in comparison to adjacent single family
development which maintains lots which meet or exceed the
minimum lot width at the street.
9. That there are no special circumstances unique to the
property's physical characteristics that warrant the approval
of variances as the property could be developed under the
existing E-4 (Residential Estate District) in that the
existing lot configuration is similar to adjacent single
family development.
CONCLUSION
Based on direction to be provided by the City Council at their
meeting on May 4th, staff will be prepared to provide any required
resolutions for the City Council's meeting on May 18th. The City
Council's action should, therefore, be limited to providing staff
direction on resolution preparation with formal action on the
project by the City Council to be deferred until completion of all
necessary resolutions and appropriate findings as required by State
law.
jAk
A e E. Bonner
Associate Planner
CAS:AEB:nm\zc92001
Attachments:
Christine A. Shi eton
Assistant City bWnager
Community Development
A - Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3014, 3015
and 3016
B - March 23, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report
C - Appeal Request
D - March 23, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes
E - Justification and Correspondence Regarding the
Project
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 3014, 3015 AND 3016
1
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. 3014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 92-001
A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14442 HOLT AVENUE FROM E-4
(RESIDENTIAL -ESTATE DISTRICT) TO R-1 (SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows: ,
A. That Zone Change 92-001 was submitted to the
Planning Commission by J. P. Greubel Company
for consideration.
B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called
and held on said application by the Planning
Commission on March 23, 1992. The public
hearing was closed on March 23, 1992, and the
item was continued to April 13, 1992, as a
consent calendar item.
C. That the proposed Zone Change to R-1 (Single -
Family Residential District) is not in the
best interest of the public health, safety and
welfare of the surrounding area as evidenced
by the following:
1. The proposed zone change would be
incompatible with land use densities in
the vicinity as it would permit an
increase in density from four (4)
dwelling units per acre to six (6)
dwelling units per acre which is
inconsistent with properties north, east
and west of the site, which are limited
to densities ranging between two (2) and
three and one half (3.5) dwelling units
per acre.
2. The proposed zone change would not be in
the best interest of the surrounding area
in that a precedent would be set for
development north of the site to also be
re -zoned to R-1 (Single Family
Residential District) which would
ultimately result in the introduction of
a new land use pattern for properties
north of Warren Avenue on the east side
1
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. 3014
Page 2
of Holt Avenue inconsistent with
properties on the west side of Holt
Avenue.
3. Tie change would create a zoning district
boundary at mid -block rather than at
Warren Avenue. Warren Avenue, as a
street, provides for a more natural,
orderly separation between a zoning
district rather than a mid -block
location.
D. That the proposed zone change to R-1 (Single
Family Residential District)'is not consistent
with the Housing Element of the General Plan
in that the change would be inconsistent with
the predominate character of the surrounding
area and would not conserve the existing
neighborhood. Properties immediately adjacent
to the subject site (to the north, east and
.west) are comprised of very low density
residential development with large setbacks
and considerable open space. The change would
encourage larger buildings, and considerably
smaller setbacks from Holt Avenue.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council denial of Zone Change 92-001 a request
to change the zoning designation of the property
located at 14442 Holt Avenue from E-4 -(Residential
Estate District) to R-1 (Single -Family Residential
District).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of
April, 1992.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
1
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. 3014
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
3014 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of
April, 1992.
od"i L4&�
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording'Secretary
rj
t t
1
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. 3015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING.TO THE TUSTIN CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 91-288
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows:
A. That Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 91-288
was submitted to the Planning Commission by J.
P. Greubel Company for consideration.
B. That a public hearing was duly noticed,
called, and held for - said map on March 23,
1992. The public hearing was closed on March
23, 1992, and the item was continued to April
13, 1992, as a consent calendar item.
C. That the proposed subdivision is not in
conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan,
particularly the Housing and Scenic Highways
Elements as evidenced by the following:
1. The map proposes a lot layout with a
predominantly inward orientation which is
inconsistent with adjacent single family
development to the north, east and west
of the site which primarily addresses
Holt and Warren Avenues. The Housing
Element identifies an objective to
conserve existing neighborhoods and the
proposed map would introduce a
contrasting character of neighborhood by
directing access to each of the lots from
an internal private street, rather than
from Holt or Warren Avenues.
2. The proposed map has a lot layout that
results in rear and side yards along Holt
and Warren Avenues creating a need to
provide privacy walls for these yard
areas. The Scenic Highways Element
identifies an objective to design walls
and other barriers along arterial streets
that provide a pleasant and scenic effect
to the area. The walls for this
development would be at least six feet
high and border Holt and Warren Avenues
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14�
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
i
22
23'
i
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3015
Page 2
breaking the visual corridor currently
maintained along Holt Avenue, a secondary
arterial.
D. Pursuant to Section 9335.03 and 9335.09 of the
City of Tustin Subdivision Ordinance, the
subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map is
inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that
only three units are permitted on the site by
the site's current E-4 Zoning and the subject
site could not be developed with four units
without approval of a zone change and multiple
variances to the City's Zoning Ordinance.
E. That the site is not physically suitable for
the type of development proposed as evidenced
by the following:
1. The existing boundaries of the subject
property is such that the subdivision
includes the creation of two flag lots
resulting in an disorderly development
pattern in comparison to adjacent single
family development.
2. The proposed access to the subdivision
combined with the type of development
results in the creation of a substandard
street in comparison with adjacent single
family development.
F. That the site is not physically suitable for
the proposed density of development as
evidenced by the following:
1. The minimum lot size required for R-1
(Single Family Residential District)
zoning can not be achieved without the
approval of deviations from the City's
Private Street Standards, which includes
providing a paved street width of 28 feet
where 36 feet is required, eliminating a
five-foot wide sidewalk along one side of
the street, eliminating a cul-de-sac
terminus design and providing a shared
drive approach for Lots 2 and 4.
1
1
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. 3015
Page 3
2. The minimum lot size required for R-1
(Single Family Residential District)
zoning must be met and the lot layout
proposed to accommodate this standard
results in variances for front yard
setbacks and minimum lot widths. Without
the approval of these variances the
minimum lot width could not be achieved;
therefore the map layout is not
considered suitable for the R-1 (Single
Family Residential District) density
proposed.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council denial of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
No 91-288.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of April, 1992.
/PLbEN L. BAKER
Chairman
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I. KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
3015 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 Secretar
I
21
31
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:
A. 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.
B. 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 ha_.znonious development of the area, the
present or future development therein, and the
occupancy as a whole, evidenced by the
following:
1. 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.
2. 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
6
7
8
9
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3016
Page 2
characteristic of surrounding single
family residential development.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
* D. 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:
1. 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 ds excessive and
would be considered a special privilege.
1'
3''
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
141
15',
16
17!
18'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3016
Page 3
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 PlanningCommission 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 47
Recording Secretary
Chairman
1
3
4
5
6'
/I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3016
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATPLEEN 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 Secret y
I
ATTACHMENT B
MARCH 23RD PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
ITEM #4
sport to the
Planning Commission
�LSTt�
DATE: MARCH 23, 1992
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 92-001, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
91-288, VARIANCE 91-019 AND DESIGN REVIEW 91-048
APPLICANT: J. P. GREUBEL COMPANY
19642 VISTA DEL VALLE
SANTA ANA, CA. 92705
OWNER: IRA AND PATRICIA THELEN
TRUSTEES OF THE THELEN TRUST
14442 HOLT AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CA. 92705
LOCATION: 14442 HOLT AVENUE
ZONING: E-4 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS
PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
REQUEST: 1. RE -ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM E-4
(RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT) TO R-1 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT);
2. CREATION OF FOUR NUMBERED LOTS AND ONE
LETTERED LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
FOUR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS;
3. APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK ON TWO EASTERLY FLAG LOTS AND TO
REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON ALL FOUR LOTS;
AND
4. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Commission.
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-0011. VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval to change the current zoning
designation for the subject site from E-4 (Residential Estate
District) , which requires minimum lot sizes of 10, 000 -square feet,
to R-1 (Single Family Residential District), which requires minimum
lot sizes of 71200 -square feet. The subject site, located at the
northeast corner of Holt and Warren Avenues, is comprised of two
parcels each approximately half an acre in size. Currently the
subject site is developed with one single-family detached residence
located on the most westerly lot and a citrus grove remains on the
most easterly lot.
In conjunction with the requested re -zoning of the subject site,
the applicant is concurrently processing a vesting tentative parcel
map for a four -lot subdivision, a number of variances and a design
review application. Each of these applications is contingent upon
the City Council approval of the Zone Change.
The project proposes the construction of four single-family
detached dwelling units averaging 21224 -square feet in size. The
structures are proposed to be two-story with three -car garages.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting the approval of two
variances: a reduction from the required 20 -foot front yard
setback to 5 feet on the two proposed interior, easterly flag lots
of the proposed subdivision, and a reduction in the minimum lot
width of 60 feet to widths between 14 and 45 feet on all four lots
within the subdivision.
Surrounding properties to the north, east and west are designated
on the Orange County General Land Use Plan as Medium -Low Density
Residential which allows for a density range of 2 - 3.5 dwelling
units to the acre. The North Tustin Specific Plan has zoned these
adjacent residential areas as RSF (Residential Single Family).
Adjacent properties are developed with single -story, single-family
residences, maintaining deep setbacks on lots averaging
approximately 12,000 square feet in size.
To the south of the project site, properties have been developed
with two-story, attached multiple -family dwelling units with
minimum lot sizes of 21,800 square feet. These properties are
designated MF (Multiple Family Residential) on the Tustin General
Land Use Plan and zoned R-3 (2800) - Multiple Family Residential.
Specific Plan No. 6 was also approved in 1981 for these properties
to provide development standards and regulations regarding land
use, circulation and design guidelines. Attachments A and B
indicate current zoning and land use designations of the subject
site and surrounding properties.
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 3
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site and the
Police Department. The applicant and property owner were informed
of the availability of a staff report on the matter.
DISCUSSION
Zone Change
The proposed re -zoning request would increase the maximum allowable
density of development on the subject site from four dwelling units
per acre to six dwelling units per acre. Based on the size of the
subject site, the re -zoning request would allow the applicant to
construct a total of four dwelling units rather than the maximum of
three dwelling units permitted under the site's current zoning of
E-4 (Residential Estate District). The following table summarizes
the development standard differences between the subject site's
current zoning designation of E-4 (Residential Estate District) and
the requested R-1 (Single Family Residential District) zoning.
Development Standard
Maximum Height:
Minimum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Width:
Maximum Lot Coverage:
Front Yard Setback:
Side Yard Setback:
Rear Yard Setback:
Current E-4
35 feet
10,000 -square feet
80 feet
40 percent
20 feet
Proposed R-1
30 feet
71200 -square feet
60 feet
40 percent
20 feet
8 feet 10 feet (corner) ,
5 feet(interior)
25 feet 5 feet, not less
than 1,000 -square
feet clear on rear
1/3 of lot.
In considering a Zone Change, an evaluation must be made concerning
consistency with the City's General Plan and how the change will
effect the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding
community. The project site maintains a General Land Use Plan
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 4
designation of Single Family. According to the City's current Land
Use Element, this designation allows for single-family development
on lots ranging in size from large four -acre estates to smaller
31600 -square foot building sites. The project as proposed would
allow single-family detached residences with a minimum lot size of
71200 -square feet, which is consistent with the range of the Single
Family Land Use designation of the City's General Plan.
In addition to consistency with the Land Use designation, a Zone
Change must also be evaluated against the stated goals and
objectives of all the elements of the City's General Plan. The
following goals and objectives would be relevant to this project:
1. To provide a variety of housing accommodations with
emphasis upon single-family residential areas. (Land Use
Element, Page 11)
2. The promotion and encouragement of owner -occupied housing
for the purpose of correcting the unbalanced number of
rental to owner -occupied units. (Housing Element, Page
68),
3. The conservation and improvement of existing residential
neighborhoods. (Housing Element, Page 68)
4. To develop programs and techniques to encourage private
land owners to provide an aesthetically pleasing urban
scenic roadway throughout the City. (Scenic Highways
Element, Page 6)
5. Walls, fences and other barriers along arterial streets
shall be so designed top rovide a pleasant and scenic
effect to the area. (Scenic Highways Element, Page 8)
6. When reviewing subdivisions and site plans, control
access onto major and primary arterial highways by
minimizing driveways and local streets so as not to
impair the function and capacity of the system.
Circulation Element, Page 16)
The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the goal to provide
single-family residential development encouraging owner -occupied
dwelling units in that the proposal is for four single-family
detached dwelling units. Although the proposal is for new
construction and improvements, the development does propose to
increase density for the subject site from a lower designation of
E-4 (Residential Estate District) to a higher designation of R-1
(Single Family Residential District) and it could be argued that
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 5
this change contrasts with the goal to conserve existing
neighborhoods.
It could be argued that the development would provide a transition
site, halting the alteration of the land use pattern edging
northerly along Holt Avenue that is evident in the multiple -family
development to the south. The project site could serve as a buffer
and confirm future development proposals northward to single-family
detached product types. However, traditionally a street such as
Warren Avenue would normally be considered a more appropriate
boundary for a land use and zoning designation.
The submitted development plan, evaluated in conjunction with the
requested Zone Change, is consistent with the goal to limit access
from a subdivision onto an arterial in that the project proposes
one private street to serve the four lots, rather than maintaining
individual curb cuts for each lot increasing the potential for
interruption of the street system. The submitted plans do propose
required right-of-way improvements which include street trees along
Holt Avenue and a 20 foot building setback. Therefore, it could be
argued that the project would contribute to the City's objective of
providing scenic corridors provided that the Commission does not
agree with the applicant's request for a six-foot high perimeter
wall immediately adjacent to Holt Avenue. This visual impact would
be most visible while travelling northbound on Holt Avenue,
approaching the southwest portion of the subject site.
Development Plan
In conjunction with the re -zoning requested, the applicant is
proposing to subdividethe project site into four, 7,200 -square
foot minimum building sites. Each of the four lots are proposed to
take access from private street identified as lettered lot "A."
The City's Private Street Standards would require this development
to provide a private street with a minimum paved width of 36 feet,
with 5 -foot wide curb adjacent sidewalks on both sides, provide a
cul-de-sac at the terminus and maintain a minimum of 2 feet between
property line and top of the curb depression for a driveway. The
applicant is proposing to deviate from these standards by providing
a paved street width of 28 feet, with a 5 -foot curb adjacent
sidewalk on one side only, terminate the street without a cul-de-
sac and provide a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 4. Without these
deviations, the minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet for the
proposed R-1 (Single Family Residential District) zoning
designation for the site could not be met. The width of the street
would not allow for any on -street parking; however, the applicant
has provided three -car garages where two -car is required.
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 6
The street design is acceptable to the Engineering Department
because it will be private and it eliminates individual driveways
directly on Holt Avenue, which is not desirable as Holt Avenue has
a secondary arterial status. Additionally, the Fire Department has
found the street design acceptable due to the short length,
eliminating the need to require a cul-de-sac for turn -around
purposes. Conditions would be imposed for Lots 2 and 4 to provide
an automatic sprinkler system and record a reciprocal access
agreement. There has also been previous policy direction
established by the City Council for these types of deviations in
the East Tustin Specific Plan area.
A twenty -foot building setback is proposed along Holt Avenue. this
compares to the average ten -foot setback south of the project and
the average fifty -foot setback north and west of the project.
Along Warren Avenue, a five-foot landscaping setback to the
project's perimeter walls is proposed adjacent to the' right-of-way
to coordinate with streetscape established by the multiple -family
development to the south.
The proposed layout of the structures maintain a predominant
orientation towards the development's private street especially
since the rear yards of Lots 3 and 4 face out towards Warren
Avenue. The applicant, however, has proposed building elevations
along Holt Avenue attached with additional window elements and a
dormer element so that they read closer to a normal front
elevation. Properties to the north and west are oriented towards
Holt Avenue and the property immediately adjacent to the east is
oriented towards Warren Avenue. The multiple -family development to
the south across Warren Avenue maintains a perimeter wall and is
oriented internally to the private street system.
The existing single-family residences to the north, east and west
are predominately single -story. However, the current development
standards for these properties would allow the construction of
homes up to a maximum of 35 feet. The submitted plans propose two-
story residences at a maximum height of 26 feet, where the R-1
(Single Family Residential District) development standards would
permit 30 feet. The multiple -family development to the south is
developed at two -stories.
The project will require the approval of variances related to
deficiencies in meeting the development standards stated for front
yard setbacks of 20 feet and for minimum lot width of 60 feet.
"Lot Front", as defined in the City Code, means the narrowest
dimension of a lot fronting on a street. Based upon this
definition, the front property line for Lots 2 and 4 begins at the
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 7
terminus of the private street. However, due to the definition of
"Yard Front" the line for structural setbacks must be taken from
that point where the full width of the lot begins. Due to the f lag
lot condition, that point is not established until 13 feet into the
lot for Lot 2 and 50 feet into the lot for Lot 4. It is from that
point that the 20 -foot setback must be taken. Rather than adjust
the location of the structures on these lots, the applicant is
attempting to provide larger rear yards than if the dwellings were
moved easterly an additional 15 feet. Attachment A is provided
describing parcel by parcel where these setback deficiencies occur
with a corresponding graphic.
The minimum lot width for the R-1 (Single Family Residential
District) development standards is 60 feet. The Code requires that
this measurement be taken at the shortest property line abutting a
street. All four of the proposed lots are deficient in meeting
this requirement. Lots 2 and 4 do not meet this standard due to
the flag lot configuration; and Lots 1 and 3 are deficient due to
the corner cut-off for public right-of-way dedication requirements.
While the four lots being created do not satisfy the definition,
the 60 -foot minimum is either met or exceeded in all cases,
satisfying the intent of the width requirement; thus providing lots
of sufficient width for the construction of structures and
maintenance of yards. Attachment B is provided describing parcel
by parcel where these lot widths are deficient with a corresponding
graphic.
In considering the variances requested, the Commission must find
that the adjustment will not result in the grant .of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is
situated. Additionally, a finding must be made that due to special
circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
of the Zoning Code is found to deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification.
Architecture/Design
The architectural style of the proposed project is a contemporary
interpretation of the "Ranch" style. The structures will have
simulated shake concrete tile, stucco walls, wood trim and cultured
stone veneers. The architectural details include the use of wood
balconies, exposed rafter tails, eave overhangs, wood planter
ledges and various architectural recesses and pop -outs to provide
a break in the building mass on the long elevations.
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 8
The architectural plans propose two building types. The structures
are all two-story and are a maximum of 26 feet tall, including the
chimney, which meets the R-1 (Single Family Residential District)
development standards. The two different floor plans, providing
three bedrooms and an alternate den/bedroom on the first floor,
range in size from 2,165- to 2,282 -square feet of living area.
Plan A is proposed for Lots 3 and 4 and Plan B is proposed for Lots
1 and 2.
Although the project proposes two-story structures, sensitivity has
been given to the placement of windows along second -story
elevations facing existing rear yards of adjacent properties. The
project only has one elevation with a second -story window
potentially viewing into an adjacent rear yard. This condition
exists for Lot 2. In order to alleviate concerns for privacy, the
Commission could consider a condition requiring glass block at this
location.
The colors for the project include one base stucco color, a light
beige, with varying shades of taupe and tan trim accent colors.
The four accent color schemes are proposed to differ for each
dwelling, thereby keeping in character with surrounding properties
which all vary.
Interior property line walls shown on the submitted site plan will
be five feet. Project perimeter walls are proposed along Holt
Avenue and Warren Avenue at a height of six feet. The walls are
currently proposed to be setback twenty feet from the Holt Avenue
right of way and five feet from the Warren Avenue right of way at
the direction of staff. However, the applicant disagrees with this
layout, as they have indicated a desire to place the walls adjacent
to the sidewalk, with no landscape separation. All of the walls
are proposed to have a color -coated plaster.f inish to match the
stucco color of the residences and will have a wood cap stained to
match the eave ends. Six foot pilasters will break up the long
wall elevation every 24 feet or will vary due to corner conditions.
The pilasters will match the cultured stone veneer proposed for the
main buildings.
The applicant has not included a proposal to provide landscaping,
since the development will have individual owners. However, in the
event that the Commission approves the subject project, it is
desirable to have this new development blend quickly into the
existing community to minimize impacts. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to include conditions of approval to have the applicant
provide landscaping within the five foot edge along Warren Avenue
and within the twenty foot edge along Holt Avenue. Since this
development already proposes a Homeowner's Association for
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 9
maintenance responsibility of the private street (Lot "A"), it
would be appropriate to have the Association bear responsibility
for the landscape edges along the project's perimeter.
Additionally, a deed restriction will be required to be recorded
against Lots 1 and 3, preventing the construction of any structure
over three feet in height within the landscape easement area. This
condition would assure the community that the project would not
have the appearance of turning its back on the community in the
future.'
Environmental Analvsis
Based upon the review of Zone Change 92-001, Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map 91-288, Variance 91-019 and Design Review 91-048, staff
has prepared a Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The
mitigation measures identified throughout the Initial Study
Supplement for the project have either been incorporated into the
plans or would be imposed as conditions of approval mitigating the
potential impacts that this project could have to a level of
insignificance. Any changes or elimination of the measures
identified and imposed on the project would require re-evaluation
of the Initial Study.
Community Input
As a result of the public noticing on this project, staff has
received both oral and written response from surrounding property
owners. Attachment E includes two letters, which were received at
the time of this report preparation, to the Commission expressing
objection to the proposed Zone Change. The general concerns are
related to the Zone Change to R-1 (Single Family Residential
District) which would result in reduced lot sizes of 7,200 square
feet where neighboring properties to the north, east and west
average 12,000 square feet, the proposal to have two-story
dwellings and the resultant potential for a lack of privacy, and
the incompatibility of the project's setbacks and orientation.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the analysis provided in this report and as a result of
the testimony received during the public hearing, there are several
options available to the Planning Commission which may include one
or more of the following:
1. Provide direction to staff for resolutions of approval to
be prepared for consideration at the April 13, 1992,
Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission Report
ZC 92-001, VTPM 91-288, Var 91-019 & DR 91-048
March 23, 1992
Page 10
2. Provide direction to staff for resolutions of denial to
be prepared for consideration at the April 13, 19920,
Planning Commission meeting.
3. Provide direction to the applicant to revise development
plans to address concerns of the Planning Commission and
continue the item to the April 13, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting.
E. Bon r
Associate Planner
CAS : AEB : rrn\zc92001
Z4
Christine A. S i gleton
Assistant City Y4anager
Community Development
Attachments: Statistical Summary
A - Current Zoning Designations
B - Current Land Use Designations
C - Variance Exhibit - Setbacks
D - Variance Exhibit - Lot Width
E - Community Input Correspondence
Submitted Plans
Initial Study
Statistical summary
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 91-288
Development Standard
Maximum Height:
Minimum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Width:
Maximum Lot Coverage:
Front Yard Setback:
Side Yard Setback:
Rear Yard Setback:
Resident Parking
Guest Parking
(R-1) Requirement
30 feet
7,200 -square feet
60 feet
40 percent
60 feet
10 feet (corner),
5 feet ( interior)
5 feet, not less
than 1,000 -square
feet clear on rear
1/3 of lot
8 spaces
( 2 garage
per unit)
N/A
Proposed
26 feet
7,238 -square feet
14 feet
26 percent
5 feet minimum
10 feet (corner),
5 feet ( interior)
28 feet minimum
12 spaces
(4 Attached
3 car garages)
4 spaces
PLAN NO. OF UNITS PERCENTAGE SQUARE FEET DESCRIPTION
A 2 50 2165 3 BD, 1 Alt Den, 3 BA
B 2 50 2282 3 BD, 1 Alt Den, 3 BA
TOTAL 4 100
AT" kCHMENT A
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
AT ACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
AT ,HMENT C - VARIANCE - SET' _X<s
LOT NO. REQUIRED SETBACK
1 20 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (North)
10 Foot Side (South)
16 Foot Rear *
2 20 Foot Front
5 Foot Sides
14 Foot Rear
PROVIDED SETBACK
20 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (North)
17 Foot Side (South)
31 Foot Rear
5 Foot Front
5 Foot Sides
38 Foot Rear
3 20 Foot Front 20 Foot Front
10 Foot Side (West) 20 Foot Side (West)
5 Foot Side (East) 5 Foot Side (East)
18 Foot Rear * 28 Foot Rear
4 20 Foot Front 5 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (West) 5 Foot Side (West)
5 Foot Side (East) 7 Foot Side (East)
17 Foot Rear * 37 Foot Rear
* Note: Requirement states 5 foot minimum, 1,000 square feet clear on
rear 1/3 of lot. Setback established by figuring each individual lot's
width into 1,000 square feet to meet clear requirement.
W
D
z
LU
a
F -
WARF�ZN AVENUE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA BY DEFINITION
ATTACHMENT D - VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH
LOT NO. REQUIRED WIDTH
1 60 FEET
2 60 FEET
3 60 FEET
4 60 FEET
I
46'
LOT 1
ol
LOT A 14'
Hna alw ,14'
.43.19'
LOT 3 LOT 4
WAIN AVENUE
PROVIDED WIDTH
45
FEET
14
FEET
43
FEET
14
FEET
LOT 2
������ LOT WIDTH AT FRONT PROPERTY LINE BY DEFINITION
Kirk Hahn
14431 Holt Ave.
Santa Ana, California
92705
March 10, 1992
-- RECEIVED -
O '
'i
A. ,, f t-)1.3
COMMUNITY DEVIEOPMENT
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposed
rezoning of.the parcel on the corner of Holt and Warren, and the
additional changes to the requirements of this zone classification.
The proposed development of this parcel is out of character for this
neighborhood and would cause a degradation of the quality of life
for the neighboring homes.
The proposed development is attempting to place 4 houses on a
parcel of land which should have only 2 houses. This attempt has
caused the developer to almost eliminate any set backs from the
property lines. This design will reduce the privacy between
the neighbors in the development and the surrounding houses (single
story houses with backyards), and the houses will have increased
noise levels from the busy traffic on Holt.
This neighborhood is at a cross-roads and the type of
development on this parcel will determine its direction. An
appropriate development (2 houses with yards) will maintain the
character of the neighborhood and reassure home owners that their
houses will continue to increase in value. It is only with this
reassurance that home owners will invest money into remodeling and
home maintenance.
If the proposed development is approved, the home owners will
know that this is the end of the neighborhood and this type of
development will continue to spread. The neighborhood will spiral
downward as home owners sell to developers and eventually.it will
become a hodge-podge of high density housing and crowded 'houses.
I urge you to turn down the proposed rezoning and help the
people living in this neighborhood maintain a quality'of life. This
decision will cause the developer to propose an appropriate plan for
this parcel, rather than a plan which will cause a severe negative
impact.
I have lived on Holt Ave. for 40 years and I hope to live here
for many more years. Unfortunately, the decision made on this
matter will have a profound effect on whether I remain in this area
or whether I move to another region to find those qualities that are
presently in this community. It would be a shame to lose those
qualities that make this neighborhood enjoyable, just so a developer
can have a few dollars more in profit.
Please say "No" and help us keep our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kirk Hahn
ATTACHMENT E
March 9, 1992
-- RECEIVED
Tustin Planning Commission �4�
15222 Del Amo MAR 1 f t.032
Tus tin , Ca . 92680 COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT
Re; Zone change 92-001, Tentative Parcel Map 91-288, Variance
91-019 and Design Review 91-'048
Dear Ann;
I would like to express not only my opinion on the rezoning
of the parcel on Holt and Warren, but those of my neighbors.
When we bought our homes and moved to this area many years
ago - we did so because we enjoy the country lifestyle. The
lots were big. We could have a pool or chickens without bothering
each other. The person selling this parcel raised minks and pigeons.
Some people still have the original orange trees that were planted
many years ago.
About thirty-five years ago we could see this was going to
change when three tracts of homes were built in the Holt area in
a six month time. The only way we could protect our property was
to change the zoning to E-4 so the builders would have to use
larger lots. We do not want you to start another trend of smaller
lots by going to R-1. It is not needed or wanted by the majority.
This zone change, variances and design has so many illegal as-
pects to it we can't believe you would even consider it. Look at
all the trees and open space that will be obliterated. This is
Tustin country and we love it, cherish it and will fight for it.
You know yourself that this really is an illegal SPOT ZONE CHANGE,
and we know it too. We have strong feelings about R-1 coming into
our area and we will take this as far as we have to. There is no
other R-1 around here, just because the City Council let Multi-
family condos creep up Holt does not justify this action. We did
not want Multi -family units on Holt and we still don't. We feel
we are being pushed into a corner.
Please make this developer obey the laws of our Er -4 zoning. We
reall.y appreciate your position on this issue because we know you
are caught between the City Council. the developer and us. We are
the most deeply affected by your decision. Everybody else will move
on and care less - but we will still be here until we die. We have
lived here for rorty years and our life assets are in our homes -
please be careful - please care about us because we wish to be in
Tustin someday. But not until Tustin lets us live our way,not theirs.
Thank you
Q, 0 V_,
Otto Hahn
ATTACHMENT E
SIJ
_ _ TLE99L. • EE09-ItLIML
NOISIAIGanS NI1Sni 00916 ^'mPir • usig+l • a+uyw uod.,Dv It9r,
8uuaau�8u3 . 8u�uucld atnlaaliyaJy
ANd J'A'O^ �3An
1L3NN38•Jg1NO(]koM Of '
uo
QQ _t
E
LLOO
i•1
N m
O
3S t @�Lg' ES
C:§IS €■
°0 e C
W l0 p
a
i €•� Rt E
§a� �
7E !
fit
A
�.
Q v a w
W
LU p �
�
� r a3a si tY ee!!�¢ ad d
.. °4t97
�
Jill =!S
C.)
pp< r
Z N < 14
<
N
W
Cy Y� r° 7 ��•dt�id=ES �� 3•i
i cY
t: t pt 9•RC i C f' 4: Rf
�'
p p
R8a
er
W
.2
.2��
u
W O < n
J
p�;itY8ey63r�a�: 4
a egt tri Rr
cc
u '+
>_ q i
Q
W6F66�.�;
t =' i� t�7EE�Riia IRF RRQ :• iiEi !°�
IpRp�:a p ea 3' x�a �S e
g�e
EiEE ElH:iLERS�E7 i _i: Ei i:iIn
gtt�
t J
J O
"8 3C F7
•ice :u •� +s,iayj/,
t �.
'�
UA
>m
Z
V O <
J
W
p
;
Q
~ <
' Lo Z
ss �� � ■i
ty.•i M O)
N
d
d
LL
"�
�
¢
W
W
o<
W
W
C7
>
OZ
6!
�-
N
t7
♦
b
O
A
IE`� o i
d
F
Q
:21h g.. .i
F
a� 5
¢
Z
W
Z
Z
W
a
O
OW
J
z w
= b
JL)
I _
F A
N
�z O
W
< ~ > <
`_
/
V C -C
� :i
-j
1- q O Z
IU
`W <
J
m
z
d N <
3
..
<�. z
W
IM
Z
zCD
aD
_
O
N
N
1
U)
w
o
P
L J
=
2
cr- ~¢W
!--
D
Q
> r
ISL w z
Z
d
V
J .-
~r4¢
I'-
W
O O
= <
CIA}
W W
(, Z N
J
W
OU
' ¢ a
a
e
cc
a
� <
cc = c
aCidJ
a
■
■CL
<
d
<
J
C1
�
W
<
V
J
uj
V
¢
N
Z
<
J
d
W
�
K
W
<
Z
Z N J
-UJ CZ
Z
Z
Z Z
J p .J
=
a ZO
41
<
UJ W
CL
p > LL
U)
4
WaAdNJ t .
d
i,
__j
...•
}
Z
•� nwic9r+u�,
_
V
p
;
N
W
�
LL
"�
�
¢
W
W
W
C7
>
�-
N
t7
♦
b
O
A
�
d
F
commommum
811111111
IL£9-I£L16,11 • £f09-I£LA IL
NOISIAiaignS NLLsn.L 0"M 1nu"11cD • yus+i • „+yjt^v uodmw.1 Irer1
Sul—ul2u3 . 8uluucld
ANddWOO -»an--iao •d•r
» \ �u
( 13NNVH0 3NIANI - VN3()OW 13 )
c5
t', �ll�t� Z�. � Yt\ �., ,_r � IIP-1,•£�u �; .,., �,:% �� .�'�
'3AV 110H
ZE
t1L11 t,.
6-
•n
f
h
ZE
t1L11 t,.
6-
•n
h
� 1
L_.'` • _
\. Kms,.fin
� � t
ol
•
3== =l;l <
i L 1
=;M lastz
4
LLfZ
w•• iY=
fly >
a W a
ii f)
• �,=
Q
Q
nt �\ I
1
J,
3!i b
.YY . .
zi Z
o
3
TO S\
_:Y
•
J 2
es
�
M
NOISIA1aenS Nusni
ANddWOO 139n3HO Vr
ILt9-ILLKIL •(I Wit LA, IL
(8926 r'ujoplr-) • wm1 . anu2AV uodA�2N INZI
8uuaau�8u� . 8uluueld aml�any»y
113NN38 -AgI NO(I !`kf i
X91111
,
M
NOISIA1aenS Nusni
ANddWOO 139n3HO Vr
ILt9-ILLKIL •(I Wit LA, IL
(8926 r'ujoplr-) • wm1 . anu2AV uodA�2N INZI
8uuaau�8u� . 8uluueld aml�any»y
113NN38 -AgI NO(I !`kf i
N N N N
W
K C
I O
(tZ to
K
D
OK
0 ..7ga
K V
..
' m 0 4.
z = o
i 0 I c j
i
Z l
,r
r� � �� ° _a
O \
e
O W
O O X111
OC
� I a
I
Q d
m I i OO
•P•:) 1l..lrl � J
Y
a. t -r
---
I
c � 1
! I I i r•�
I ,
� o o -- o
o
El -,� I ;
♦ n o O I I a 2
m I a
0 I 'b 0 ¢ r I ( d
I� C I r, crir
F m
O
LL
G
I Z
1 Y I U
-O_4I--
I` -ice
I
,
N N N N
W
K C
I O
(tZ to
K
D
OK
0 ..7ga
K V
..
' m 0 4.
z = o
i 0 I c j
i
Z l
,r
r� � �� ° _a
O \
e
O W
O O X111
OC
� I a
I
Q d
m I i OO
•P•:) 1l..lrl � J
Y
a. t -r
---
I
c � 1
! I I i r•�
I ,
� o o -- o
o
El -,� I ;
♦ n o O I I a 2
m I a
0 I 'b 0 ¢ r I ( d
I� C I r, crir
F m
O
LL
G
I Z
1 Y I U
-O_4I--
I` -ice
I
LliIIIIiI
DUN I
ILMICLNIL •LCUO-ICLIML
NOISIAia8f1S NLLSfIl 099M InumM • UI—.Li —a -y ucd--N IZO
8uuaautsu3 • 8utuusid • am»artyai
__w �NddWO� 139n380 •d'r IJ3NN39-N
Q
i
®®
I
1 Z
w Q
v J >
i W J
Ix ujW
O Q
i
a u¢i i t
C j = ❑ Et
W < � I I]
•� 0 < ~ _ G�
' I � Z
® 0
�• - W'
c00i�o31: t
1 i X 0 IL K .j
I� W 1.-0
W xx 0< E
Nt>s 1S
i is ' '' I • I ® g Fii i '8
yi;� i � t 1•I
� Z
oLLI
;I
W w J
W W
W
N 2
F. N
= i
C7 ( LLL
W
J '
• I - I -- I — i
li-G L
gnommonot
NOISIAiaanS Nusni
ANVdWOO iAsn3HO 'd'f
ILC9-ItL,I ii--if09-ItLA,IL
MW6 nwoplc) . unan1 . aouaey uod.wa� IiRZI
Nuuaaw8u3 8wuueld . ajn»»ly»y
<:MK)HV V 4
LL3NN38•�1NO(] �„
r�
a
r
=
�ya
a
r
=
�ya
J
a
.i
v
d
ag
N.
I
rl
c
��
I
I
I
I
I
L -
ml(L
1
�
At
I v,
I
axles
v
1 I
. I
Z
------------
j
a
ol
a
UMICL/rIL • CC09'ICL/4,IL
NOisiniaens Nusn.i 09916 NUIO WD •'"' l - anuaW uod""N TM
8uuam8u3 . 8anuuryd
g
_ I
7C,
o;
I I H I—
z
vJ
v.
I
-4 -- - ---- -I ------- ------1
_
Y p
O Q
z4 s a'
t
I � , h• I W I W I �6 ! a
1 p �• 11� O
0
O I IL
I
l '� IL
j
P� tv e e e e
2
0
0
O
W
m
fI�@111111,
a
UMICL/rIL • CC09'ICL/4,IL
NOisiniaens Nusn.i 09916 NUIO WD •'"' l - anuaW uod""N TM
8uuam8u3 . 8anuuryd
g
_ I
7C,
o;
I I H I—
z
vJ
v.
I
-4 -- - ---- -I ------- ------1
_
Y p
O Q
z4 s a'
t
I � , h• I W I W I �6 ! a
1 p �• 11� O
0
O I IL
I
l '� IL
j
P� tv e e e e
2
0
0
O
W
m
� � � ��� � iLCS-it!!�._•CC09-lCL/�iL ):
NOISIAmenS NUSnI 09996 M"09+1TD • Uteri • 371UW V LwdmaN tzezi N
a SutiaautSu3 • Sutuuetd am»ajtyaiy� ,� (i` • C
== ANddW00 -»9n�a� •d�r sMUHZW
' - 1A3NN39•A31NOQ,
a
m
z
a
J
. . . .,
a
In N�
�1 •: 't.S' 61t %
' �• � �' ,J:J .. G..'h [ !bl ^:-C.. _rte �
it
III 1a � .~ .�� �. Cg �•
='e
,.
1 Iti
•I,. 1, ' .I 1 Z � I' I t ..
04
I�•III•I �,• , 1, 1 11 Q � _ 1"•1
;li I II ,r4
W}o Ir' >
W
1
W J
R I Q
` U. Inc
ju 4c
f. II• _ •�� S C
me
t
2
II• -c- apO 11
C
a.0
3
0
N ~ O p O am ~
I. J Vb O 3 :j
i
VM.O
!O- O ant K K < •�.
II I, III: a I
1 11 IiltI
it �jI' .i .: '' 'It. � • I
.,01 , jl
Ililt
I• I��I I �11 i
I f�- .• r I � I I I
unII Z
0 W WWw
[DOD
t.4 l
II LLLU
I I I
I
l[C9 ffU�lt •CC09 ICU�IL
NOISIAiaim NLLsni ORM N-Ol wD • W-1 • --v uod-W tzertR-FR
= �=_ �rvddwoo Caen 8u„�aa,8a3 • au,uas,d
y aao -d-r S� HJHV _ ti
NOISIA1aenS NUSU
ANddWOO l3onMiD -d•r
IL19-ICLi,._ •CC09-1CL OL
099Zo n=uggr] • unml . -UV-Y -Ri-3N IMI
8uuaaui8u3 . 8uluurld . alniaaliyajy
S EX -M H D w V, of ri
I-L3NN99-AgINOCI i I
( 13NNVH0 3NIAUI-'VN3Q0N1 13 1
3
_
ri
6
t
O
H
Y P
f
!
L
Z
O
i4
ujW
p
�
LLI
W
X
_
ccs
oNOR 5=n
dt 4�
a
°°-5
m
C
uj
�.
T cc
_
��_
is 3
cc
♦•I
�
s
iC
� LIx •� d� p [` L
Z
•►
-
�0 •
/
•TOD
xT
t
�!
4
'3AV 110H
v �
ri
t
O
H
Y P
P
p .�
,
Z
O
ujW
A S,
��F
�
LLI
W
X
_
ccs
dt 4�
a
°°-5
m
uj
cc
a
s
NOISIAicanS Nusn.L OPM T'umn'1VD ul—I - --v uodm2N ItOZI
lut—UlSug Sulutteld - ajm3a3iq3,zv
kNVdWOO 13an389 Wr Si--r:WKYdV
. I J-L3NN39-A3-INOCI LOU 31
CM
--I t
i W. i v- lk 1, t
4'. t, IN %. (-13NNVH0 3NIAHI --VN3GO" 13)
%
ui
ui z
LU 0.
od iu
NJ
cc
z
IL
U) W
Wj
W
t>
13 3k
IL
01
vk Lt r
2%7
Im
A
3AW 11ON
� � a ori �
IN
ku
gr
Z 7
0
0
CC I L
9L
z
z t
eg
z>� _3
o
z.
>w �
<
LU
mo
(L) z & -c z
7i)y,J
xv.
M o" z. = C .. —
OW..
zo .1 1,
7. z�:: Cr
c,;z z E
-o-
mc z
o o
x
o I oz I,Re I lilt Fa -:1
:1 v, ol p
Ce in
A CA
REXizd
Y� A ;o; ;o; all a I a
uFi u A j F Z of -! I
m . 0 1.; E gal
o " p I'
z cc 2 m o . z' ..1
tj
zw W 11 1z 1:11,45ni
2, z I.-Ro if 5 1i
Lu t
48
Z as
f z m gage il- Awl
4z . o. P1, I i P !-
o Zz o . .. x.. 1111j:1111C j;,16 t" -
..,..a - F
0
Z mo CO nz jz z I ui ra ilia ji if
cctf
ui z.,
W 21 1 Q ;.I �v I
:10 421
LU w z A .
o [I. III
z I
z
Ho z, A t
ev
r YM I t6Y 7et Its
> Fos J W F-
i, P I lo 1.
I
volas_
W
0 in .
.85
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent , • 1�• Cti� V C��.L C.O N1 #�tiY
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
�_wq 2 V t �'C'A��t✓ esu ��
3. Date of Checklist Submitted ���� '��{ 2-1 , \ Vq\ 4
4. Agency Requiring Checklist C k -VN O F T V t;� 1 to
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable ICOM • M ,VFM q 1- 096%
II . Environmental Impacts
Vp`R qt- °1 °`^ Z) 9, q q
P
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
c
relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or
lake?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
An,
Yes Maybe No
g.
Exposure of people or,property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure
or similar hazards?
x
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emission or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
%\
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperatures, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements,
in either marine or .fresh water?
X
b.
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
C.
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e.
Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
X
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
X
g.
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
%�
Yes Maybe No
i.
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
C.
Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
J`
d.
Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?.
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in':
a.
Increases in
existing noise levels?
J`
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new
light or glare?
X
X -
Y111,
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe No
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
X
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any
\/
nonrenewable natural resource?
n
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
v
emergency evacuation plan?
J�
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand �f
for additional housing?
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
x
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Yes Maybe No
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public services. Will the proposal have
an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
or
alteredgovernmental services in any of
the
following areas:
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
C.
Schools?
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f.
Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
X
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
_
alterations to the following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas?
b.
Communications systems?
C.
Water?
d.
Sewer or septic tanks?
e.
Storm water drainage?
f.
Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health., Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
18. solid Waste. Will the proposal create
additional solid waste requiring disposal
by the City?
19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to'public view?
20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
21. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of
aprehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
b. Will the proposal -result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural -
values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
Yes Maybe No
22. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? _
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the -future). _
C. Does the project have.impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse -effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
Y. -
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
2°S°92
Date Si u r e
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 2
2. AIR
The proposed zone change and vesting tentative parcel map
would not result in any degradation to the existing air
quality.
Sources: AQMD Standards for preparing EIR documentation.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
3. WATER
While the project site is within proximity to the existing El
Modena -Irvine Flood Channel, alteration to this water course
is not anticipated. The project will result in a minimal rise
to the rate of surface runoff based upon the change in density
and paved area. It is not anticipated that this project will
substantially contribute to water usage or drainage flow due
to the project size.
Sources: City of Tustin Building Division
City of Tustin Public Works/Water Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Alterations to drainage would
be subject 'to review and approval by the City's Building
Division and Public Works Department. Compliance with all
City requirements would be verified prior to certification of
rough grading.
4." PLANT LIFE
The project site maintains vegetation common to a single-
family residence and there are no known significant species of
plants. The site also maintains a small fruit grove which
shows signs of decay. It can be anticipated that new plant
species will be introduced to the site by the potential
individual homeowners.
Sources: Field Observation
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 3
5. ANIMAL LIFE
The project site is free from any significant population of
animals, fish or wildlife.
Sources: Field Observation
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
6. NOISE
Short-term impacts may result during grading of the lot and
construction of the homes. However, all construction is
required to comply with the City of Tustin's Noise Ordinance
enforced by the Building Division at time of construction.
Construction of the project is required to demonstrate
compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance for Interior and
Exterior standards to alleviate exposure of future residents
to severe noise levels.
Sources: Tustin Municipal Code
Tustin General Plan - Noise Element
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: All construction activity
would be limited to Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
subject to enforcement by the Building Division and Tustin
Police Department. Demonstration that the project will be in
conformance with Interior and Exterior noise standards will be
verified by the Building Division.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
The development plans include the addition of an on-site
street light pursuant to the requirements stated in the City's
Private Improvement Construction Standards. The installation
of this light and any other project lighting must be designed
to avoid casting unnecessary glare onto adjacent residential
properties.
Sources: City of Tustin Building Division
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Review of the light plan for
the project for conformance with the City's Security Ordinance
by the Building Division will be required.
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 4
8. LAND USE
The project site maintains a General Land Use Plan designation
of Single -Family Residential. According to the City's current
Land Use Element, this designation allows for single family
development on lots ranging from large 4 -acre estates to 3,600
square feet in size. This project proposes minimum lots sizes
of 7,200 square feet. Therefore, the project is consistent
with the current Single Family Residential Land Use
designation of the City's General Plan.
However, the project site will require the approval of a Zone
Change from E-4, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000
square feet, to R-1, which requires a minimum lot size of
7,200 square feet. This change does result in an increase in
the allowable density of development from four units to the
acre to six units to the acre. However, due to the size of
the project site, this change in zoning only results in the
addition of one dwelling unit, as the site could presently be
subdivided to construct three dwelling units without
processing a Zone Change.
Surrounding properties to the north, east and west are
designated on the Orange County General Land Use Plan as
Medium -Low Density Residential which allows for a density
range of 2 - 3.5 dwelling units to the acre. The North Tustin
Specific Plan has zoned these residential areas as RSF
(Residential Single Family). These properties are developed
with single -story, single-family residences, maintaining deep
setbacks on lots averaging approximately 12,000 square feet in
size.
To the south of the project site, properties have been
developed with two-story, attached multiple -family dwelling
units with minimum lot sizes of 2,800 square feet. These
properties are designated MF (Multiple Family Residential) on
the Tustin General Land Use Plan and zoned R-3 (2800) -
Multiple Family Residential. Specific Plan No. 6 was also
approved in 1981 for these properties to provide development
standards and regulations regarding land use, circulation and
design guidelines.
The project will require the approval of variances related to
front yard setbacks and for deficiencies in lot width.
However, these variances are related to definition constraints
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 5
stated in the City's Code. Ultimately, the project proposes
to retain deep setbacks for the main structures from Holt
Avenue, Warren Avenue and adjacent properties, which satisfies
the intent related to requiring setbacks. Additionally, the
deficiencies in lot width are related to the definition stated
within the R-1 (Single Family Residential) development
standards which requires the measurement to be taken at the
property line abutting the street. While the four lots being
created do not meet this definition, the majority of the lot
width minimum stated as 60 feet, is either met or exceeded,
meeting the intent to provide lots of sufficient width for the
construction of structures and maintenance of yard areas.
Source: City of Tustin General Land Use Plan
County of Orange General Land Use Plan
North Tustin Specific Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Plans submitted into building
plan check will be verified with the conceptually approved
plans to verify conformance with the design mitigation that
has been incorporated into the project which includes the
twenty -foot structural setback from Holt Avenue, the five-foot
structural setback from Warren Avenue, the location and type
of windows for second story elevations, and the 7,200 square
foot minimum lot sizes. Additionally, the plans will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable City Codes and
adopted standards.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposal will not have a substantial impact on natural
resources. However, the development will use natural
resources in the form of construction materials and daily use
of the property by the future residents.
Source: Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
10. RISK OF UPSET
The proposal would not require the use of unusually hazardous
materials, either during construction or in the anticipated
use by the future residents. It is not anticipated that the
construction of the project or the use of the property would
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 6
interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Standard
conditions imposed by the Orange County Fire Department for
all new residential construction will be included in project
approvals.
Source: Orange County Fire Department
City of Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Plans will be reviewed by the
Orange County Fire Department for approval. Once approved,
inspections performed by the Orange County Fire Department
will verify compliance.
11. POPULATION
The proposal will not substantially contribute to overall
population; however, the change in zoning does result in a
minor increase in density as discussed in Item No. 8 of this
Initial Study. The project proposes four single-family
residences where presently three single-family residences
could be developed. However, the project will result in three
additional households where one presently exists.
Source: Department of Finance Population Projections
Submitted Plans
Tustin Municipal Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The construction plans will
be reviewed for conformance with the regulations adopted for
` the Zone Change to R-1 to assure that the stated minimum lot
size of 7,200 square feet is maintained.
12. HOUSING
The project will not create a demand for housing but will
affect existing housing due to the demolition of an existing
single-family residence and construction of four detached,
single-family residences. However, this contribution is not
cumulatively significant to the overall housing supply within
the City as the project site, without the Zone Change, could
presently be developed with three single-family residences.
The individual impact related to the loss of one dwelling unit
can be offset by tying the permits for demolition to those
issued for the new construction.
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 7
Source: Submitted Plans
City of Tustin General Plan - Housing Element
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Permits for demolition of the
existing single-family structure shall not be issued unless a
permit is issued concurrently for new construction.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The existing public street system is adequate to serve any
potential demand generated by this development as Holt Avenue,
which provides access to the project site, has a design
capacity for 20,000 vehicle trips per day, -Level of Service
rating "C." Current traffic counts for Holt Avenue indicate
9,700 vehicle trips per day and this project will result in
less than 50 additional vehicle trips per day, which is
insignificant. Interruption to traffic flow onto Holt Avenue
has been reduced due to the creation of an on-site private
street within the project, which provides individual access to
the residential lots, eliminating the need to have three
additional curb depressions for driveways from the public
right-of-way.
Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Site access and all right-of-
way improvements are required to be approved prior to the
issuance of permits for on-site improvements.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposal will not create a need for new public services.
The project site is presently served by established agencies
according to applicable jurisdictional boundaries.
Source: City of Tustin Departments
County of Orange Agencies
Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 8
15. ENERGY
The proposal will not result individually in a substantial
demand for fuel or other sources of energy. The resultant
development will have an increased need for service due to
increase in residential units by three; however, these amounts
are anticipated to be minimal.
Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
16. UTILITIES
The proposal will not result in a substantial demand on
existing facilities. The increased need for service is
anticipated, however, this is minimal due to the project
scope.
Source: City of Tustin Departments
County of Orange Agencies
Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
'The proposal will not create health hazards nor expose a
population to health issues due to the project scope.
Source: Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 9
18. SOLID WASTE
The proposal, while not contributing individually, will
generate additional waste for disposal by the City due to the
increase in housing units from one to four contributing to
cumulative impacts.
Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department
City of Tustin Source Reduction and Recycling
Element
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Future residents will be
required to participate in the programs identified in the
Source Reduction and Recycling Element related to the 25 and
*50 percent diversion requirements as implemented by the City.
19. AESTHETICS
The proposal is not identified as a scenic cooridor pursuant
to the City's General Plan. The design of the project has
incorporated many of the surrounding properties
characteristics to improve compatibility with existing
development. These elements include; the incorporation of
architectural features of the "Ranch" style of architecture
through the use of materials, colors and details; maintaining
a twenty -foot minimum structural setback for the lots abutting
Holt Avenue easing the transition from the average ten -foot
setback south of the project to the average f ifty-foot setback
north and west of the project; and maintaining a five-foot
minimum setback for the project's perimeter wall setback from
the Warren Avenue right-of-way characteristic of the multiple -
family development to the south providing a coordinated
street-scape. Additionally, the project maintains a physical
separation from the residential development to the east due to
the E1 Modena Irvine Channel.
Although the project proposes two-story residences where
primarily single -story residences exist, care and sensitivity
has been given to the location and amount of second -story
windows, where the proposed elevations are adjacent to
existing single-family properties. Only in one case, the
north elevation on Lot 2, does a second -story window view into
a rear yard; however, this window opening results in an
indirect view because it measures a maximum of four feet in
Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 10
width by two feet in height and is located in the tub/shower
enclosure area approximately five -feet, six inches above the
finish floor.
Source: Submitted Plans
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Plans submitted into building
plan check will be verified with the conceptually approved
plans to verify conformance with the design mitigation that
has been incorporated into the project which includes the
twenty -foot structural setback from Holt Avenue, the five-foot
structural setback from Warren Avenue, the location and type
of windows for second story elevations, and the 71200 square
foot minimum lot sizes. Additionally, the plans will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable City Codes and
adopted standards.
20. RECREATION
The proposal will not significantly impact the quality or
quantity of existing facilities as the park dedication
requirements are set by the project's size. The Community
Services Department has indicated that based upon the
construction of four units, an in -lieu fee totalling
approximately $1,920 will be required.
Source: Submitted Plans
City of Tustin Community Services Department
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The developer shall be
required to pay the in -lieu park dedication fee of
approximately $1,9201 or those fees in effect, prior to the
issuance of building permits.
21. CULTURAL RESOURCES
There is no known historic, cultural or religious significance
to the project site.
Source: City of Tustin Historic Resources Survey
Field Observations
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
- Exhibit A
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
ZC 92-01, VPM 91-288, VAR 91-19 and DR 91-48
February 10, 1992
Page 11
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS
a. The project site is currently developed with -a single-
family residence; therefore, the potential to degrade the
environment or habitat of significant animals or periods
in California history is diminished.
b. The project's scope is relatively small and, therefore,
the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals
is minimal (i.e., improved right-of-way resulting in
improved pedestrian circulation).
C. The project's impacts individually, as discussed in items
1 through 21 of this Initial Study, will not result in a
need to provide new services or facilities. Due to the
scope of this project, it is anticipated that the
existing facilities are adequate.
d. As a result of the preparation of this Initial Study,
Mitigation measures have been identified and have either
been implemented in the project's design or will become
conditions of approval.
Source: Items 1 through
Submitted Plans
Applicable City
21 of this Initial Study
and State Codes
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: All measures have been
identified in items 1 through 21 of this Initial Study and
will be incorporated into the project as conditions of
approval.
AEB:nm\zc92-01.env
April 17, 1992
Christine A. Shingleton
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: ZC-92-001, TPM 91-288, VAR 91-019, and DR 91-04'
Dear Chris,
I am concerned that zoning comments regarding North 'ustin
and annexation of same, during past 1.AFC0 hearings, may h ,ve been
taken out of context during the March 23, 1992 Planning C)mmission
hearing on the above mentioned project.
I am neither in support nor in dispute of the curre»• project.
I am concerned however, that comments I made regarding a ormer
case were directly transferred to the existing case, resu!.ting in
prejudice. Please allow this letter to serve as a formal appeal.
for the above stated reasons.
Sincerely,
Richard Edgar
Tustin City Councilman '
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 3
4. Zone Change
92-001 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 91-288,
Variance
91 -019 -and Design Review 91-048
APPLICANT:
J. P. GREUBEL COMPANY
19642 VISTA DEL VALLE
SANTA ANA, CA. 92705
OWNER:
IRA AND PATRICIA THELEN
.TRUSTEES OF THE THELEN TRUST
14442 HOLT AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CA. 92705
LOCATION:
14442 HOLT AVENUE
ZONING:
E-4 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS
PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
REQUEST:
1. AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM E-4 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
DISTRICT) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT);
2. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE FOUR NUMBERED LOTS AND
ONE LETTERED LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
FOUR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS;
3. APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 5 FEET ON TWO EASTERLY
FLAG LOTS AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FROM 60 FEET TO WIDTHS
BETWEEN 14 AND 45 FEET ON ALL FOUR LOTS; AND
4. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT.
Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission.
Presentation: Anne Bonner, Associate Planner
Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of ownership of
the property regarding the Mary Lewis Trust; and that three homes
could easily be placed on this property without a zone change, and
asked why it was not presented.
Staff replied that the records indicate that the property has been
owned recently by the Thelens; and that staff did not receive a
submittal for three lots, but that it was mathematically possible.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m.
Greg Bennett, Donnelly -Bennett Architects, stated that three lots
would be larger lots, but would require similar variances as
requested; presented illustrations of the lot layout proposing a
shortened setback and larger backyard; that they could adhere to
City standards, but felt that a larger backyard was -in the best
interest of the owners.
Commissioner we asked if the illustrations were received by staff
prior to the meeting; 'and that they are being asked to make a
decision based on his opinion.
Mr. Bennett replied negatively; provided a commentary on the
illustrations; stated that the theme of the houses is compatible
with the neighborhood, and that they have received the support of
the neighbors to the east and across the channel.
Phyllis Spivey, realtor representing the property owner and the
applicant stated that the property has not had a change of
ownership in 42 years.
Bill Toth stated that Mary Lewis owned the property to the east and
that she was only a neighbor of the Thelens.
Carol McCauley, 13591 Saigon Lane, representing the Foothills
Community Association, presented a two-page letter to the
Commission giving a history of the area; presented an elevation
illustration showing the elevations from each street of the
proposed homes versus existing structures on the site; and that she
was requesting that the Commission not approve the zone change.
Diane Romanchick, stated that she was not within the 300 foot
notification radius; that she moved to the area for the style of
the homes; that a six -block fence would be out of scheme; that
these are Mediterranean style homes, not ranch style homes, and are
unsuitable for the area; that the 1959 CC&Rs for the area which
expired disallowed 2 -story homes; that there would be insufficient
parking; that the high speed of travel on Holt creates a safety
issue and has not been addressgd; and that the zone change will set
a precedent.
Jerry Greubel, applicant, stated that they did not want to create
a condominium project; that Holt is no longer a country road; that
building single-family homes on Holt is financially risky; that the
project would provide a transition from the condominiums; that they
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 5
had special meetings with adjacent residents; that they are
providing a larger lot with a much smaller home than being
developed in Tustin Ranch; that proposed homes would increase the
value of the existing housing stock and allow neighbors to obtain
higher loans for remodeling; that people do not want a half -acre
lot on Holt, but want part of the neighborhood that they can
maintain. He continued with presentation of a slide show of Holt
Avenue and similar projects in the North Tustin area that have been
recently developed. He stated that he was not involved in the
previous project; is not a big developer, and that he has lived in
and is raising his family in Tustin.
Elena Descampo, 14332 Holt Avenue, stated that she is opposed to
the project; that her family is not happy with the busy street; and
is against two-story houses.
Richard Katnik, Marathon Triad Carpets, stated he works for the
builder and that the builder cares about the community and is
building within his own community; he is the only builder he knows
who pays his bills on time; that the area needs homes that the
people can afford; that the difference between three and four homes
is price due to cost of land; that this project will bring
employment to Tustin.
Tom Weston, Weston's Redhill Glass & Mirror, Inc., stated that he
was proud to be a subcontractor to this builder; that the project
will bring money and employment to Tustin; that small businesses
Ake his cannot compete for grants or work in Irvine and have to
rely on small builders for work; that the real estate values will
increase and provide taxes to Tustin; and that the project is a
win-win situation.
Betty Koines, 18022 Weston Place, Tustin, stated that the City
should adhere to their decision not to rezone this area as promised
with the annexation; that rezoning would set a precedent for the
area; that the neighborhood doesn't need to be improved by reducing
the lot size.
Richard Poe, 265 S. Pacific, an eight-year resident, stated that
Tustin needs the work; that this builder builds good homes and pays
his bills.
Diane Romanchick, stated that rebuilding on the -lot is not the
problem, that the style is incorrect; that 90% of the slide
presentation by the builder was irrelevant; that the driveway shown
was dissimilar to what is proposed; asked who will take care of the
driveway, and if a homeowners association would be required; that
if the builder was interested in the neighborhood's opinions, he
would have gone further than the 300 feet radius; and that a
"sympathy vote" for the elderly homeowner was uncalled for.
Otto Hahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, 40 -year neighbor across Holt from
Thelens stated that he came to Tustin for the "country life" that
the City offered then; that the condominiums to the south are not
an asset to the neighborhood; that the area was originally zoned R-
1 and that the neighbors had it changed to E-4 to control the lot
size; • that this is an illegal zone change since they are asking for
only a small pocket to be changed; that three lots would not
require a zone change or variances and would provide more yard
area; that a zone change sets a precedent; that the application
constitutes a violation of what was promised with the annexation.
Phyllis Spivey, North Tustin resident with a real estate business,
stated that the sale of the property is contingent on the approval
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 6
of the project plans; that Mrs. Thelen received distasteful phone
calls, etc. when she presented her original plan proposing
condominiums on the site; that Mrs. Thelen could not attend the
meeting due to health reasons and presented a tape from Mrs.
Thelen. She continued with stating that many lots nearby have less
than 10,000 square feet; presented letters of support from
neighbors; and that most of the people opposed to the project do
not vote or pay taxes to the City of Tustin.
Mrs. Thelen, owner, stated on tape that the neighbors who objected
to the condominiums wanted single-family homes, so she has worked
with a builder who will provide them; that the builder will build
beautiful homes on the property; that Mr. Hahn wants to look at her
trees, but she should not have to retain'a park for his benefit;
that the financial burden of the home is more than she can handle;
and asked for the Commission's approval.
Charles JayThelen, 4304 72nd Street, Tacoma, Washington, nephew of
the Thelens, stated that neighbors from far away are affecting how
the Thelens deal with their property; that the expected proceeds
from the condominium project would have put all the Thelens in same
rest home/health-care facility; that changes in an area occur and
so does zoning; that he would be happy to have this project across
the street from his home; and that he hoped the Commission would
consider the zone change, as it would be good for the community.
M�ke Hickman, 12651 Newport Avenue, Seven Gables Real Estate,
stated that he was not pro development, nor slow growth, but pro
good development; that there would be a big difference in the cost
of three and four homes; that the homes are well within the income
range of the people interested; that people want to stay within the
community; and that he encouraged the Planning Commission to
consider four houses from an affordability standpoint.
Mr. Bennett, representing the applicant, stated that he was a long-
time resident and business owner in Tustin; presented a map of
properties within the 300 foot radius and stated that he felt that
only one person was opposed to the project within the radius; that
Mr. Hahn's opinion was considered since he is close to the City;
that the nearby condominium owners like the proposed zoning; that
the project will provide a 20 -foot setback when only required to
provide 10 feet for the public benefit.
Greg Bunch, 14331 S. Holt, stated that he is against rezoning, but
that three houses would be acceptable.
Joy Hahn, 14431 Holt, stated that her next door neighbor is also
opposed to the project; that this is an illegal spot zone change;
that she now sees trees and blue sky, but will see windows and
walls; that the illustrations presented are not shown on the plans
and should be checked; and that the area should remain zoned E-4.
Carol McCauley, FCA, stated that the applicant's slide presentation
was a "show" and that the numeric details of the new homes in North
Tustin were incorrect; that she sympathizes with Mrs. Thelen, but
that there is no guarantee, if approved, that the illustration is
the same as what would be provided.
The Public Hearing was closed 9:18 p.m.
Commissioner Baker asked if this was considered an illegal spot
zone change.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 7
John Shaw, City Attorney, responded that the project would not be
considered a spot zone change.
Commissioner Weil asked if a variance was required for a private
street; that she was concerned about the width of the driveway
entrance; that the slide presentation showed an ambiance due to a
wider entrance; that she is not in favor a shared driveway; asked
if there would be landscaping between the wall and sidewalk; and
felt landscaping necessary to improve the streetscape; that she
would be more in favor of three houses than four; that the two-
story houses blend with the condominiums, but not the houses to the
north and west; that the houses in East Tustin are different and
not a factor; that affordability is not an issue for the Planning
Commission to consider since it has no control over the pricing;
that if affordable low-income housing was proposed, the
neighborhood might be more unhappy; that spreading out three houses
would provide more ambiance and more money; that she would prefer
one and one-half story houses, but 28 feet is not bad; and would
prefer landscaping along Holt and a wider driveway.
Staff replied that private street standards can be modified and
approved by the Commission and can be approved with the subdivision
and development plan; and that there is no proposal for landscaping
at this time.
commissioner Kasparian stated that some speakers referred to some
of the people not being residents of Tustin, but they are still
nbighbors; that if this is rezoned, the requests could continue
along Holt; that the slide show did not show the real
representation of Holt Avenue. He continued with a comment
regarding his opinion of the affect of four houses and zone change
on the neighborhood; that Warren provides a good buffer for a
zoning district; that they would be setting a precedent; that he
does not like the wall around the neighborhood because it destroys
the look of the neighborhood; that he opposes granting the R-1 zone
change; and agrees that the owner is entitled to place .three houses
on the lots.
Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he is not in favor of granting
the zone change; that E-4 should remain and not intrude above
Warren; that the City has broken promises with annexations and that
they should stand by their original statements; that he sympathizes
with the family, but the Commission is not supposed to take
financial considerations into land use decisions; that three houses
would be acceptable.
Commissioner Kasalek stated that the design of the homes are
attractive, but incompatible with the neighborhood; that they are
not consistent with the general plan's goals of maintaining
existing neighborhoods; that four houses would be too tight for the
area; that delivery trucks would have to back onto Holt to exit the
property; that the Commission must keep to its commitment not to
rezone areas annexed; that it should remain zoned E-4; that the
larger lots are an asset to people looking for them; and that the
ambiance will be attractive to buyers.
The Director stated that if the Commission was not in support of
the rezoning, that they recommended direction consistent with
Alternative No. 2 in the staff report; that staff would bring back
resolutions, and that if the project was redesigned, there could be
a resubmittal without prejudice.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 8
Commissioner Baker received a consensus from the Commission to
retain the property zoned E-4 and to direct staff as outlined by
the Director.
The Director confirmed the direction to staff to prepare
resolutions of denial on the actions; and that this would not be a
Public Hearing on April 13, but a Consent Calendar item only.
The Commission unanimously concurred to deny the project and
directed staff to bring back resolutions of denial for the April
13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENT E
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PROJECT
DONLEY-BENNETT
ARCHITECTS
November 12, 1991
Mr. Dan Fox, Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo
Tustin, CA 92680
RE: JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF
VARIANCE REQUEST. FOUR LOT
S.F.R. SUBDIVISION,
HOLT AND WARREN AVENUES,
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.
Dear Mr.Fox:
COMMUNITY DEVIEGPMENT
Please accept this letter as our clients, and the
applicants justification in support of the variance
applications before you, for the four (4) lot subdivision
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Holt and Warren Avenues.
The property is concurrently undergoing a zone change
to permit development of 4 four (4) lots, each comprised of
an area of 7200 square feet or greater.
The property is irregular in shape and is bounded by
Warren Avenue to the South and Holt to the West. Its
irregular shape , limited size , and dual street frontage
render it more difficult to design in all respects, within
the strict interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance,
than other sites of similar area, size and configuration.
Additionally, the City has expressed safety concerns
over accesssing homes directly from Holt and Warren Avenues.
Accordingly, the design proposes an internalized pri-
vate drive access which substantially solves the traffic
problems identified by the City which would be caused by
multiple driveways accessing directly to these streets,
but which creates a design situation necessitating the
variances sought.
Internalizing the driveways and limiting their access
to the private road shown, provides the small developement
with a greater sense of "community", among the properties,
12821 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California 926,80
714/731-6033 • 714/731-6371
Mr. Dan Fox, Planner
Page 2
and provides a greater degree of safety to the property
owners and their guests, and in particular to children who
are prone to play in their front yards, which would other-
wise be adjacent to the higher speed and more heavily
The proposed design solution also provides a traffic
control transition area for these homeowners and the other
residents of this community who utilize Holt and Warren
Avenues as thoroughfares.
As indicated above, by internalizing the site access
hrough the use of a private drive, it becomes necessary to
two variances from the zoning ordinance.
The first of these variances concerns the minimum lot
frontage requirement along the street (private drive)
which access to the lot is achieved, and applies to lots
2 and 3 only. The second variance pertains to the minimum
front yard setback proposed for lots 2 and 3, but in
reality involves only the issue of which property line is to
be consdidered the front/rear for purposes of these measure-
ments. As shown on the plan the intent of the setback re-
quirements has been maintained -by reasonably and logically
establishing those setback distances consistent with generally
accepted custom and practice.
In each case the residence and garage is setback from
the property line from which access is proposed, a distance
well in excess of the minimum 20' required. While doing so,
the open space on the lots remains
Because the development could achieve its -objectives
without such a setback variance approval, by merely orient-
ing the lots directly to Holt and Warren Avenues, an obviously,
undesirable solution to both the City and to the Developer,
to deny the variances sought would constitute an unreasonable
deprival of priveleges enjoyed by other similarly situated
property owners. We believe that the variances sought repre-
sent a logical and beneficial planning solution which will
greatly enhance the aesthetics, function, health, welfare
and safety of the community.
Additionally, the project as proposed, will not result
in a significant adverse effect on the environment or commun-
ity, nor will it negatively affect the health, welfare or
safety.
Mr. Dan Fox, Planner
Page 3
The project is consistent with existing land uses and
zoning designations in the vicinity of the project, and with
the General Plan.
The site plan is safe, functional, aesthetically pleas-
ing and environmentally sensitive to surrounding properties.
The architecture proposed is compatible with community stand-
ards and protects the character and integrity of surrounding
properties.
We therefore respectfully request the City's approval
of these variance requests.
Sincerely,
DO;YFOETT
-BENNARCHITECTS
S enley
Arctect
DONLEY,BENNETT
ARCHITEC7�
April 23, 1992
Honorable Members of
the City Council
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, California 92680
Re: Four Lot Subdivision
14442 Holt Avenue.
Zone Change 92-001;
and Variance 91-019.
Dear Council Members:
at
VTPX 91-288;
K a R
COMMUNITY DEVL PPIENT
The applicant in the above -referenced
matters respectfully submits the following justification
in support of the approvals sought on appeal to the City
Council.
It is the applicants position that based
upon the plan generated and submitted with the assistance
and guidance of Staff and the mitigation measures
incorporated therein, the proposed zone change to R-1
(Single Family Residential District) is justified and in
the best interests of the public health, safety and
welfare of the surrounding area. The proposed zone change
is compatible with land use densities in the vicinity of
the project. Although approval would permit an increase in
density from four to six units per acre, i.e., one
additional unit on the subject site, which is inconsistent
with the properties to the north, east and west of the
subject, the proposed density is substantially less that
the existing Multiple Family, XF 280.09 density immediately
to the south of the subject. This. multiple family project
was constructed after the existing residences in the
vicinity of the subject, and comprises an approximate
density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the proposed
project provides a natural and logical density transition
between the higher density multiple family project to the
south of the subject and the lower density single family
residences to the north of the subject project.
12821 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California 92680
714/731-6033 • 714/731-6371
It is also the applicants contention that
the proposed zone change would not establish a precedence
for development north of the subject to be rezoned R-1,
because the properties to the north of the subject do not
suffer from the same design obsticles presented by the
subjects location at the immediate intersection of Holt
and Warren, its relationship and proximity to the multiple
family density to the south, the significant street
improvement requirements which must be addressed upon
development of the subject site, and the Planning Staff
and Engineering Department concerns regarding multiple
project access points in close proximity to the
intersection. All of these concerns have been addressed
and mitigated with the assistance of Staff, by
incorporation into the plan of various design elements.
Instead, development of the subject as
proposed, would help insure that the future development
characteristics north of the subject project will remain
single family residential rather than becoming multiple
family, and would further discourage applications for
approval of zone changes intended to achieve the multiple
family objective.
Rather than setting a precedence, the
proposed project will in fact, provide a natural density
transition from the high density multiple family project
to the south of the subject and the single family
residences to the north of the subject.
As indicated in the Staff Report dated Larch
239 1992, "in considering a zone change, an evaluation
must be made concerning consistency with the City�s
General Plan and how the change will affect the general
health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community.le
As further indicated in the Staff Report,
the current land use designation allows for single family
development ranging in size from 3,600 square foot lots
and upwards. The proposed project will consist of 7,200
square foot lots, which are consistent with the applicable
land use designation for the area.
The Staff Report also concludes that the
zone change is consistent with the goal to provide
single-family residential development which encourages
owner -occupied dwelling units.
Staff also cited the argument that the
development "would provide a transition site, halting the
-2-
alteration of the land use pattern edging northerly along
Holt Avenue that is evident in the multiple -family
development to the south. The project site could serve as
a buffer and confirm future development proposals
northward to single-family detached product types."
From the time of the proposed project's
inception, one of the main concerns of the City has been
the proliferation of driveway access points on Holt and
Warren, which would exist if the private driveway concept
were abandoned, and the individual lots were forced to
front directly on these arterials. While the internal
circulation concept does result in orientation of the
proposed residences inward, the objective of reducing the
project access to a single point outweighs any
disadvantage of this consequence. According to the Staff
Report, "the requested Zone Change, is consistent with the
goal to limit access from a subdivision onto an arterial
in that the project proposes one private street to serve
the four lots, rather than maintaining individual curb
cuts for each lot increasing the potential for
interruption of the street system."
According to the Engineering Department, the
proposed private street design is acceptable "because it
will be private and it eliminates individual driveways
directly on Holt Avenue, which is not desirable as Holt
Avenue has a secondary arterial status." The Fire
Department has also found the proposed private street
design to be acceptable due to its short length, and the
applicants willingness to provide an automatic fire
sprinkler system in the residences to be constructed on
Lots 2 and 4.
Additionally, a great deal of effort has
been made to insure that the project contributes to the
City's objective of providing a scenic corridor along Holt
and Warren.
Applicant believes that the benefits
conferred by the design solution proposed, far outweigh
the minor variances sought as part of this approval, which
variances are the consequence of the applicants efforts to
satisfy those access and scenic corridor concerns
expressed by Staff during the design development stages of
this project.
The Staff Report also points out that the
site layout of the residences "maintain a predominant
orientation towards the development's private street
especially since the rear yards of lots 3 and 4 face out
-3-
towards Warren Avenue." As also indicated in the Staff
Report, the applicant has proposed building elevations
facing Holt and Varren that include enhanced elevational
treatments, additional window elements, special roof
treatments, and dormer elements in an effort to e3tpand the
front view of these plans to the side and rear elevations
thereof.
While the proposed project meets the intent
of the Development Code in all respects, the project will
require the approval of variances related to the technical
development standards stated for front yard setbacks and
for minimum lot width.
Because of the unique site configuration,
size, location and access constraints imposed by the City,
the two variances have been sought. Notwithstanding the
technical requirements cited in the Development Code
definitions of minimum lot width and setbacks, the intent
of the development standards are reflected in the design
under consideration, and accordingly, the variance issues
represent only a minor deviation from the technical
requirements. Additionally, given the access constraints,
even if the density proposed were to be reduced, the same
variances would likely be required in order to develop the
project.
Due to the flag lot condition, which arises
out of this same site access restriction, the front yard
setback point, is by definition, established inordinantly
deep into the property on lots 2 and 4. Attachment A is
provided to depict and describe these setback requirements
and those proposed. Because the true intent. of the
development standards is met, and because of the project
access objectives sough to be achieved, the City'r. failure
to grant the requested variance would deprive this
property owner of benefits and priveleges enjoyed by other
owners within the community.
Also, slightly at variance, is the minimum
lot width requirement due to the flag lot condition of
lots 2 and 4, and due to the corner cut-off dedications
for public right-of-way at the throat of the private
drive. As indicated in the Staff Report, "while the four
lots being created do not satisfy the definition, the
60 -foot minimum is either met or exceeded in all cases,
satisfying the intent of the width requirement; thus
providing lots of sufficient width for the construction of
structures and maintenance of yards." Attachment B is
-4-
provided to indicate the dimension and location of these
lot widths.
It is apparent that the Staff Report of
Xarch 23, 1992, is much more favorable to the proposed
project than the Planning Commission Resolutions would
indicate. In fact, through several months of negotiations
with Staff, the applicant has made every effort to conform
the project to the objectives and suggestions of Staff, in
an effort to secure Staffs support and to cre 4 -
project that the City, a
proud of, and that will
City. Applicant believes
regard has been valuable
such assistance, and
suggestions into the plan,
as submitted.
B well as the applicant can be
be a successful addition to the
that Staff's assistance in this
and insightful, and that with
the incorporation of Staff's
the project should be approved
Thank you for your patience
consideration of applicants appeal.
Respectfully,
DO _B HIT$CTS
� f,
/Steven R. nley,
/ Architect Representing
Applicant J.P. GREIIBEL CO.
and
7�TrACHMEN- A - VARIANC ' - SET,._.CKS
LOT NO. REQUIRED SETBACK
1 20 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (North)
10 Foot Side (South)
16 Foot Rear
2 20 Foot Front
- 5 Foot Sides
14 Foot Rear
3 20 Foot Front
10 Foot Side (West)
5 Foot Side (East)
18 Foot Rear
4 20 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (West)
5 Foot Side (East)
17 Foot Rear *
PROVIDED SETBACK
20 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (North)
17 Foot Side (South)
31 Foot Rear
5 Foot Front
5 Foot Sides
38 Foot Rear
20 Foot Front
20 Foot Side (West)
5 Foot Side (East)
28 Foot Rear
5 Foot Front
5 Foot Side (West)
7 Foot Side (East)
37 Foot Rear
Note: Requirement states 5 foot minimum, 1,000 square feet clear on
rear 1/.3 of lot. Setback established by figuring each individual lot's
width into 1,000 square feet to meet clear requirement.
w
M
z
LU
Q
1-
J
0
WAqttPJVAVENUE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA BY DEFINITION
ATTACHMENT B — VARIANCE — LOT WIDTH
LOT NO. REQUIRED WIDTH PROVIDED WIDTH
P6?- roSFIPMOW
1 60 FEET 45 FEET
2 60 FEET 14 FEET
3 60 FEET 43 FEET
4 60 FEET 14 FEET
IL
W AVENUE
!j1111 LOT WIDTH AT FRONT PROPERTY LINE BY DEFINITION
Ac0hI.,
f mcTI CJs. L V410T-44
VMS lw,&I-cr-
``''^^��&
C6�
�1
3
F=E£T
gz
FEET
-73
FEET
r,00
FEET
Mrs. Patricia Thelen
14442 Holt Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705
April 10, 1992
Mr. Charles Puckett, Mayor
City of Tustin
15222.Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Mayor Puckett:
GSC :.� �.J�'�'-✓
APR 1 31992
rr_J
My letter to you is regarding my family's life savings which is
in our home and property that we have lived in these past forty-
two years.
Your council will decide to -accept or reject your planning
commission's recommendation to deny our request for a zone change
that does conform with Tustin City's General Plan. Please note
the enclosed letter from Ms. Shingleton dated July 10, 1991.
That was ten months before our buyer's plans came before the
planning commission.
Our property is currently zoned E-4, one of five E-4 lots in an
annexation of six lots. The sixth lot does not have the 10,000
square feet necessary to be considered an E-4 lot.
These five lots are the only E-4 lots in Tustin and do not
conform to any plan other than county property.
I was instrumental in having this annexation approved three years
ago. This was acted upon, not because we were unhappy with being
county property owners. It had been brought to my attention
that, due to no wish of ours, our property was under the control
of a group working to create another city. Apparently we have
not escaped them.
Is it too much to expect of people who are running for public
office to have them represent their constituents? Is this not an
implied promise to the voter, the taxpayer, the people who are
paying their salaries?
This is the second time the planning commission has favored the
county residents over our family.
There was one protestor to our builder's project of four homes
from Tustin, Mrs. Deocampo. Two years ago Mrs. Deocampo was in
favor of a 13 unit townhouse project on our property. She
operates a six -patient care home in this annexation. My husband
was a patient in her facility until his transfer to Carehouse
Skilled Nursing Home. She was fully aware of how desperate I was
to get into a four bedroom home so -I could keep my family togeth-
er. The Deocampos own such a home in Tustin and suggested we
Page Two
trade our properties. Their properties are so heavily mortgaged
I could not consider the offer. Now they do not want to see us
sell.
The loudest protestor, Mr. Hahn,
across Holt Avenue from our home.
But when the townhome project was
purchasing the property next door
included in the zone change.
is a countian who lives directly
He also does not want it sold.
pending, he inquired about
to us, which would have been
If the council members made certain the people they appoint to a
planning commission and people on staff did their jobs, they
would know what and where zoning is in their city. That's one of
the things they're being paid for.
Mr. Hahn has pleaded not to cut off his beautiful view of the
mountain. He doesn't have and hasn't had such a view looking in
our direction since he moved in.
If the decision makers were interested they could and should
easily check these things out before destroying anyone, let alone
a family that has supported this community for almost half a
century. My parents have been here sixty years.
After receiving Ms. Shingleton's letter of July 10, 1991 the
builder proceeded with his plans to develop the four 7,200 square
foot lots with four single homes. Ten months later, after a good
deal of work and money, he presented his project to the planning
commission on March 23, 1992 for their approval.
These plans have the approval of the police, fire, and all other
public services that would be involved. They found no problems
with accessibility or traffic circulation.
When compared to another city development, one of the commission
members, Kathy Weil, described making a decision on our property
was like a ball game, an entirely different one. The rest of the
members agreed with her by opposing our request for a change of
zoning.
The difference in. -this game would have been considered different
in any game. It was played by a city resident and the county
residents. The city umpires were in there cheerleading for the
county residents. In any game this would be called foul play.
Surely there must be some recourse.
I was told the planning commission said they couldn't consider my
my family's personal circumstances when they made their decision.
But what were they doing when they favored the county residents
but considering their personal desires?
Page Three
When people vote you onto the city council they expect you to
represent them, not people outside the city. Your campaign
promises are always about how you'll represent city people, not
about how you'll represent people who don't even live in the city
and badmouth it whatever you do.
I ask you to give consideration to.the points I've made here.
And I ask you to remember them when you take your seat on the
city council and hold peoples' lives in your hands.
Very truly yours,
Patricia Thelen
I
O
'r 1 Community Development Department
July 10"-1991
Phyllis Spivey
Spivey and Associates
1442.Irvine Blvd., Suite 111
Tustin, CA 92680
RE: PROPERTY AT HOLT AND WARREN AVENUES
Dear Mrs. Spivey:
City
1 J
j
APR 1 31992
Opt- cru-St i
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680.
(714) 544-8890
FAX (714) 832-0825
In response to. your inquiry regarding potential development of the
above noted property with single-family residences, we have
gathered the following information. The two properties are
approximately 32,800 square feet in size and are presentiy zoned
E-4 (Residential Estates). Under the existing zoning,.the vacant
parcel could be subdivided to create an additional building site,
resulting in a total of 3 lots. Last year during the City Council
review of a proposed General Plan Amendment for this subject
property, the Council indicated they would be receptive to consider.
an alternative development proposal of single-family residences, to
be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and the
character of the surrounding single-family development.
The owner could request a zone change to R-1 (Single -Family
Residential) and process a subdivision map which would require a
discretionery ' approval by, the Planning Commission .and City Council.
The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is. 7200 square feet which
would allow for a maximum of 4 dwelling units on the total site.
In addition to the zone change and subdivision, a Design Review
application would be necessary to address such issues -as access to
the lots, lot configuration and overall site design to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding residences.
Should you have any questions regarding the above information or
the process for developing single-family residences, please give us
a calli
Sincerely,
• "//' V
Christine Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
CS:SP:kd\spivey.ltr
Kirk Hahn
14431 Holt
Santa Ana,
92705
Ave.
California
March 10, 1992
-- RECEIVED
COMMUNITY OEYIEOPMENT
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposed
rezoning of the parcel on the corner of Holt and Warren, and the
additional changes to the requirements of this zone classification.
The proposed development of this parcel is out of character for this
neighborhood and would cause a degradation of the quality of life
for the neighboring homes.
The proposed development is attempting to place 4 houses on a
parcel of land which should have only 2 houses. This attempt has
caused the developer to almost eliminate any set backs from the
property lines. This design will reduce the privacy between
the neighbors in the development and the surrounding houses (single
story houses with backyards), and the houses will have increased
noise levels from the busy traffic on Holt.
This neighborhood is at a cross-roads and the type of
development on this parcel will determine its direction. An
appropriate development (2 houses with yards) will maintain the
character of the neighborhood and reassure home owners that their
houses will continue to increase in value. It is only with this
reassurance that home owners will invest money into remodeling and
home maintenance.
If the proposed development is approved, the home owners will
know that this is the end of the neighborhood and this type of
development will continue to spread. The neighborhood will spiral
downward as home owners sell to developers and eventually it will
become a hodge-podge of high density housing and crowded 'houses.
I urge you to turn down the proposed rezoning and help the
people living in this neighborhood maintain a quality of life. This
decision will cause the developer to propose an appropriate plan for
this parcel, rather than a plan which will cause a severe negative
impact.
I have lived on Holt Ave. for 40 years and I hope to live here
for many more years. Unfortunately, the decision made on this
matter will have a profound effect on whether I remain in this area
or whether I move to another region to find those qualities that are
presently in this community. It would be a shame to lose those
qualities that make this neighborhood enjoyable, just so a developer
can have a few dollars more in profit.
Please say "No" and help us keep our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kirk Hahn
Tustin Planning Commission
15222 Del Amo
Tustin,Ca. 92680
March 9, 1992
-- RECEIVED
1.
MAR 1 11-9`32
COMMUNITY DEAEOPMENT
Re; Zone change 92-001, Tentative Parcel Map 91-288, Variance
91-019 and Design Review 91-048
Dear Ann;
I would like to express not only my opinion on the rezoning
of the parcel on Holt and Warren, but those of my neighbors.
When we bought our homes and moved to this area many years
ago - we did so because we enjoy the country lifestyle. The
lots were big. We could have a pool or chickens without bothering
each other. The person selling this parcel raised minks and pigeons.
Some people still have the original orange trees that were planted
many years ago.
About thirty-five years ago we could see this was going to
change when three tracts of homes were built in the Holt area in
a six month time. The only way we could protect our property was
to change the zoning to E-4 so the builders would have to use
larger lots. We do not want you to start another trend of smaller
lots by going to R-1. It is not needed or wanted by the majority.
This zone change, variances and design has so many illegal as-
pects to it we can't believe you would even consider it. Look at
all the trees and open space.that will be obliterated. This is
Tustin country and we love it, cherish it and will fight for it.
You know yourself that this really is an illegal SPOT ZONE CHANGE,
and we know it too. We have strong feelings about R-1 coming into
our area and we will take this as far as we have to. There is no
other R-1 around here, just because the City Council let Multi-
family condos creep up Holt does not justify this action. We did
not want Multi -family units on Holt and we still don't. We feel
we are being pushed into a corner.
Please make this developer obey the laws of our E�4 zoning. We
really appreciate your position on this issue because we know you
are caught between the City Council. the developer and us. We are
the most deeply affected by your decision. Everybody else will move
on and care less - but we will still be here until we die. We have
lived here for Forty years and our life assets are in our homes -
please be careful - please care about us because we wish to be in
Tustin someday. But not until Tustin lets us live our way,not theirs.
Thank you
0 1
+k
,"A-1
Otto Hahn
Mrs. William Toth
11962 Woodlawn Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
March 15, 1992
Opinion Page
Tustin News
649 South B Street
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Editor:
RECEIVED
Z,4.
C4MMUNIV DEV OPMEW
My husband and I are very sad to see an apparent revival of an ugly
situation we witnessed a few years ago. It involves an elderly
friend, Mrs. Patricia Thelen, for whom we have the greatest
respect. We know Pat well because my mother lived next door to her
for about 35 years.
In the past four years we've watched Pat's life become a nightmare.
Blackie, her husband of 57 years, had a serious stroke. The health
of Pat's mother, in her late 90's, began to deteriorate quickly.
Their care fell entirely on Pat, since Pat and Blackie have no
children. Fearing what the future would inevitably bring, Pat
prepared to sell her little home of 40 plus years so she could
Purchase a low -maintenance one story house that would enable her
to have her loved ones with her, accommodate their wheel chairs and
other equipment, and provide for help with their care.
We knew that her decision to sell and move was wrenching. But she
said she could no longer maintain two-thirds of an acre, that the
house had dangerous foundation cracks, and the heating system was
beyond repair and, of course, she couldn't have her mother or
Blackie with her if she remained and that was her priority.
Subsequent to annexing to the city of Tustin, she accepted an
attractive offer for her property that provided for condominium
construction, similar to those built across the street from her
several years ago. While the new project moved through the city's
approval process, she began to look for another home, believing
that some of her problems were solved.
Then she learned that her neighbors intended to fight the project.
She received ugly phone calls; people she didn't even know stopped
at her home to complain about her sale. The neighbors organized,
passed petitions and wrote angry letters while Pat sat helplessly,
waiting for others to decide her family's future. The neighbors
prevailed and the sale was lost.
In the meantime, Pat was forced to move her mother to an expensive
care facility; shortly afterwards Blackie's condition worsened and
Pat had no choice but to place him in a facility as well. She
managed to keep him in a neighborhood care center close to home,
Page Two
but spent her days and evenings running from one facility to the
other, trying to oversee their care, handle their clothing,
Medicare forms, prescriptions, etc.
Then, last October, code enforcement officers demanded Blackie's
transfer to a full care facility. Blackie pleaded with Pat not to
move him, saying he would die if she did, but the county refused
to relent and Blackie was moved. Within a few months Blackie was
in the hospital. Pat's mother has been in the hospital twice in
the last year.
We have watched Pat take setback after setback, wondering how at
her age, with her own failing health, and no close family to turn
to, she could hold up under such pressure. Last summer she told
us she had resold the property, but at a far lower price, her plan
to get the family under one roof forever gone.
Although this time the project was reduced to single family homes,
she expressed pessimism about the sale going through. She said
that city officials clearly favor the county residents over their
own constituents, and if the neighbors (mostly county residents)
complained again, it would be all over.
And now, it seems the neighbors are complaining again. We don't
live in Pat's neighborhood and we're not criticizing her neighbors.
Our concern is for a dear friend and a valiant lady who, by any
standard of decency, should not be made a prisoner in her home or
be forced to give away her property.
Pat has spent a lifetime giving to and doing for others. She was
a wonderful neighbor to my mother and would not have sat by
silently had my mother found herself where Pat -is today. Pat
deserves a generous dose of justice but after all that has happened
to her, perhaps even a little bit would help.
1�1� IT&tk
Mrs. William Toth
P.S. My mother's lot, next door to Pat, was only 9300 square feet
(not the 10,000 square foot minimum that is being demanded on Pat's
property).
.r Fns ► "+� arr
Mrs. Jean Fowler`
17661 Miller Street mtAUN1TY p��I.EO��`r"���
Tustin, California 92680 CO
March 17, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
Members of the Planning Commission:
I wish to address the controversy involving property at the corner of Holt
and Warren. The owner, Mrs. Patricia Thelen, was my neighbor for
approximately 36 years. 1 owned half an acre just south of Mrs. Thelen's
property, which I sold about eight years ago.
Since my situation was quite similar to Mrs. Thelen's, except that my
husband had died and Mrs. Thelen's husband is in a care home, I can well
imagine what she must be going through. My property was smaller than Mrs.
Thelen's, but maintaining it became a tremendous burden to me.
Selling it allowed me to live my widowed senior years with dignity and self-
sufficiency. l purchased a single story home in a nice Tustin neighborhood
that I can maintain without difficulty. My former property became part of a
condominium project that houses several families now. I consider them an
asset to the neighborhood and to Tustin.
Few Holt Avenue residents can claim to have seen the changes I've seen; I
moved there over 50 years ago (I believe Mrs. Thelen moved there about 42
Years ago). There were only three homes on the street; traffic was non-
existent; there were orchards and groves and livestock of all kinds. We
original settlers accepted change as it came. We didn't try to prevent others
from building their homes or using their properties.
But now it seems that many of the people who benefited most by that
generosity of spirit scorn any kind of change for themselves. They want
their status quo at the expense of others who came long before them.
Most elderly people with large properties eventually must sell them. They
don't deserve to be treated as second class citizens and should never be
subjected to the treatment Mrs. Thelen has received. It simply isn't right.
Mrs. Jean Fowler
nA�
Iv� -�
City of Tustin
Planning Commission
Sirs -
The Proposed development at Warren and Holt avenue is
located in the middle of developed county homes of ranch
style on half acre parcels. (ZC 92-01,VPM-91-288, VAR 91-19
and DR 91-48).
Along Holt ave. the one story Ranch homes are on half
acre parcels, 20,000 sq. ft.
The city of Tustin down graded these parcels from the
County zoning when the City applied Tustin E-4 zoning that
permits 10,000 sq. ft. parcels. Now, the applicant requests
added down grading •from Tustin E-4 to R-1 plus a variance to
further reduce the parcel square footage to about712000.
<5 Even this small parcel requires driveway easements on a
four parcels that, when removed from the buildable area,
well reduced the parcel to below 7,000 sq. feet.
The City analysis states that "... The project
proposed to retain deep set backs for the main structures
from ... the adjacent properties. In fact the plan shows a
5 foo set back from the property to the north and to the
East. The meaning of " deep setbacks" cannot possibly be
applied to a 5 foot set back. This 5 foot setback, coupled
with two story slab sided structure becomes overbearing to
the neighbors
This action would be "spot" zoning which is believed to
be illegal. No justification for such action is present.
Rezoning that also requires a variance to permit the
structure is also believed to be illegal. No justification
for such action is present.
The proposal before you will produce structures with
massive two story Mediterranean style (not Ranch style as
inferred) located so close that they appear as a Monolithic
facade from the street and from adjoining neighbors' homes.
This would be an over powering structure mass that is
totally out of keeping with the residual neighborhood
ambience be maintained by allowing only E-4 zoning and
structures that fully meet set back distances.
It is strongly recommended that the proposed zone
change and variance be denied.
L
ZONE CHANGE 92-001
14442 Holt Avenue, Tustin, Ca.
PROPOSED FINDINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS
A That the proposed Zone Change will not be contrary
to the best interests of the public, nor will it adversely affect
the health, welfare or safety of the surrounding area as evidenced
by the following
1 The proposed development provides a natural,
orderly, and logical zone transition between
the Multiple -Family (MF 2800) density to
the south and the lower density single-
family residential density to the north
of the subject project,
2 The proposed development will help halt
the alteration of the land use pattern
edging northerly along Holt Avenue, that
is evident in the Multiple -Family
development to the south of the subject
The project site would also serve as a
buffer and confirm future development
proposals northward to single-family
detached product types,
3 The design of the proposed development
internalizes the individual driveway
approaches of each residence to a single
private drive, which promotes the health,
welfare and safety of the community by
eliminating traffic conflicts which would
otherwise be presented by multiple
individual residential driveway approaches
on Holt and Warren Avenues, and,
B That the proposed Zone Change to R-1 (Single
Family residential District) is consistent with the Housing Element
of the General Plan because the current land use designation allows
for single-family development on lots ranging in size from small
3600 square foot sites to large 4 acre sites. The project as
proposed would allow single family detached residences with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, which is consistent with
the range of single-family land use designation of the General
Plan, as evidenced by the following
1 The proposed Zone Change will be consistent
with the predominant character of the
surrounding area, which varies from Multiple-
Zone
Change
•
•
Page
2
Family (MF 3600) to Single -Family (E-4)
2 The average lot area within a 300' radius
of the proposed is 4,988 Square Feet, and
the average lot area within the City of
Tustin within this radius is only 3,427
square feet
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
14442 Holt Avenue, Tustin
PROPOSED FINDINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS
A That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with
the Tustin Area General Plan as evidenced by the following
1 The proposed development is consistent
with the objectives and goals of the
City to provide a variety of housing
accommodations with emphasis upon
single-family residential areas;
2 The proposed development promotes and
encourages owner -occupied housing for
the purpose of correcting the unbalanced
number of rental to owner -occupied units;
3 The proposed development conserves and
improves the existing neighborhood by
providing a natural, orderly and logical
transition between the higher density
Multiple -family residential to the south
of the subject, and the lowLrr density'
single-family residential to the north
4 The proposed development contributes to
the provision of an aesthetically pleasing
urban scenic roadway throughout the City;
5 The walls, fences, and other barriers
along Holt and Warren are designed to
provide a pleasant and scenic effect to
the area; and,
6 Access to the subdivision has been designed
to minimize access onto Holt and Warren
by reducing the number of direct access
residential driveways, so as to not impair
the function and capacity of the street
system
B That the Zone Change and Variances sought are approp-
riate, and render the site physically suitable for the type and
proposed density of development, as evidenced by items 3 through
6, inclusive, above
DESIGN REVIEW NO 91-048
VARIANCE NO 91-019
14442 Holt Avenue, Tustin, Ca
PROPOSED FINDINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS
A That the location, size, architectural features, and
general appearance of the proposed developement will not 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
While variances for front yard setback and
minimum lot width are required, because of the
design configuration adopted for the project
so as to alleviate multiple residential driveways
fronting directly onto Holt and Warren, the
variances sought are minor and justified in the
light of the fact that they result solely
because of the technical application of their
definitions In general, each of the lots
created within the subdivision meet or exceed
the intent of the development code which
requires 20' front yard setbacks and minimum
lot widths of 60'
2 In relationship to the true building fronts
the practical front property line exceeds.
in dimension the minimum required by code
3 The variances sought will not result in the grant
of a special privelege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and district in which the subject property is
situated
The special circumstances applicable to the
subject property by virtue of its size, location,
surroundings and strict application of the
Zoning Code will deprive the subject property
of priveleges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity