Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 06 01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 1, 1970 I. CALL TO ORDER .I~ ~eeting called uo order at 7:3OP.M. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. II. INVOCATION Given by Councilman C. Miller~ ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Asst. C.i~y Admin. - Comm. Dev. R. Ken Fleagle APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Ostp~ that minutes of May 18, 1970, be approve~ as written. Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Z.C. 70-2.12 - ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Application of the Andrews Development Company on behalf of First Western Bank & Trust Company for rezonlng of an 11.12 acre parcel from the E-4 (Estate Residential) District to the following: a. Pr (Professional) District along the north side of Irvine Boulevard for a depth of approxim&tely 200 feet. b. P-C (Residential) District. on the northerly 300 feet. Site fronts approximately 970 feet on the north side of Irvine Boulevard, approximately 500 feet on the east side of North "B'~ Streetandapproximately 500 feet on the west side of Prospect Avenue., Mr. Fleagle presented staff recommendations and recommendations of the Planning CommissIon for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Recommend to City Council the approval of ZC-70-212 in accordance with plot plan and design plans referenced and a part of this application with the requirement for .the submission and approval of building plans concurrent with required subdivision map. 2. A representative of the ~omeowners be g~ven notice of all hearings and an opportunity to appear at any discussion concerning this development. Mr. Fleagle also read excerpts from a le.tuer from Mr. Andrews which took exception to the staff report. In answer to questioningby C6uncilmanMarsters, Mr. Rourke stated that there is no legal impediment in a councilman residing within 300 feet of any property under discussion, taking partin any action if he feels he can look at the situation objectively. Bearing opened at 7:45 P.M. Council Meeting 6/1/70 Page 2 Mr. Robert Galloway, consulting engineer for the applicant, submitted exhibits. Mr. Galloway stated that this is not difficult property to develop -- the problem is the E-4 to the north. In their opinion a good buffer would be better than developing this E-4 and there is no market for E-4. He said that they had tried ~o agree to all restrictions 'and suggestions. They had started with R-3, gone to R-4 and R-2 and l~'no w were basically to single family dwellings. Normally multiple is considered a good buffer and they had agreed to nothing over single story~ all garage doors to be automatic and had worked with the city on traffic problem, and have agreed to two bedroom units. Mr. Galloway __ also stated that in the proposed plan the number of children would be less than in an E-4 and taxes would be higher. Development would improve the site and be more beneficial to the city. These would not be rental units and would be well maintained under ahome owners association. ~[. Norman Temple, 17572 Westbury Lane, stated that he had submitted a petition in October of 1969 during a previous rezoning application on this property and presented a petition of 13 additional names~ Mr. Temple stated they object to anything of a lesser zoning -- more density than the E-4 and sees no reason to race into R-3~ R-2, etc. developments. Mr. Arthur Charlton, 460 W. Second Street, stated he was speaking for %he Town Center Home Owners group and requested that no apartmen~ building or zoning be placed on any land where not now permissible and so zoned. Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, spoke against the building of any more apartments. Mr. Galloway stated that the land had been E~4 for eight years and if there had been a way it would have been so developed. They are not talking apartments but basically an R-1 development. There being no further comments or objections the hearing was declared closed at 8:12 P.M. Councilman L. Miller asked for a show of hands both for and against this development which showed a predominance of those present were against. Councilman Oster stated he believed that the burden is on the developer to show that proper~y cannot be developed as zoned. It has not been shown that this property could no~ be developed as traditional R-1. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that 2C 70-212 be denied. Councilman Marsters stated that he felt the Council and the area res~- dents can become softened when a developer comes in with real high density and works down, and there is a compromise. He felt that this couldlbe the case with some of the residents ~- they are afraid something less desirable could be built. In answer to questioning~ Mr. Andrews, developer, stated there is a ready market for certain residential, no~ including R-4. The market absorption for office space is 25,000 square feet every six months and it will be a two-year process for the planned office buildings. One problem with a traditional R-1 developmen~ would be a straight street of 32 lots, 16 of which would have backs to the second sEory of the office buildings. Under the present plan there is no invasion of privacy. Mr. Andrews then asked if it would be possible to change his request to R-1 which he did not feel could be, ~n any way, as good a development. Mr. Rourke stated that R-1 ~s more restrictive and this change could be acted upon and still be subject ~o review by the Plannin~.,Com- mission and Development Preview Commission. Mr. Andrews then requested R-1 on northerly 300 feet and Pr on southerly 200 feet. Council Meeting ~/)JO ~ ~ 6/1/70 Page 3 Councilman C. Miller sta%ed this proposal was a long szep in the right direction, butthat the city should not hurry into the increase to R-1 without some'assurance that it will be good R-1 and he preferred that this be referred back Eo the Planning Commission. Councilman Marsters felt that-he would favor nothing short of E-4. ~%r further discussion of density and control, it wa'~!~ed by Councilman L. Miller~ seconded bv M~rs that question on previous motion be called for. Carried. Motion ~o deny ZC 70-212 of Andrews Development Company carried unanimously. VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 465 An ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, CHANGING ZONE ON ZONE CHANGE PROCEEDINGS NO. Z.C. 70-209. Property located at the southwesterly corner of San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Fleagle explained location and the fact that this matter had been continued to this meeting for further consideration and the proper~y owners had been so notified. Councilman C. Miller stated that he had taken another look at this property and had had second thoughts on the proposed zoning. The Council concurred that after further study and with the restrictions on service stations and drive-in establishments and restrictions through the PC addition to the zoning that commercial would be acceptable. Mayor Coco read the following from the proposed Ordinance. a) The northerly 149 feet of the subject parcel to the PC-C-1 Planned Community, Retail Commercial, district, excluding service stations and drive-in ~acilities with development subject to use and develop- menz standards approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. b) The remaining southerly 470± feet ~o the PC-C-2, Planned Commaunity, Central Commercial, district, with development subjec~ ~o a Use Permit and plan review by the Planning Commission. Moved by Marsters, seconded b~ L. Miller that Ordinance No. 465, changing zone on Zone Change proceedings No. 2C 70-209 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 466 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO PROVIDE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL HAVE FIVE MEMBERS. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster, that Ordinance No. 466 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller, that Ordinance No. 466, amending the Tustin City Code ~o provide ~hat the Planning Commission have five members, be ~!ssed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: None Absent: ~one 3. ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN Ordinance of the City Of Tustin, California, CHANGING THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE TO DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COM- MISSION. Moved b ~t~r~ ~ecOnded b~ L. Miller ~ha~ Ordinanc~No. ~67 ~av~ ~ec~nd D Council Meet~;~s 6/1/70 Page 4 Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 467, changing the name of the Development Preview Con~ittce to Development Preview Commission, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: None. Absent: None. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 468 An Ordinance of the City Of Tustin, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster, that Ordinance No. 468 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 468, amend- ing the Tustin City Code relative to business license fees, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: None. Absent: None. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 70-22 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON APPLICATION NO. 70-339 OF BEN FIORE. Councilman Marsters and Oster voiced their objections to this as being an unattractive use. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller, that Resolution NO. 70-22 be read\by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Coco that Resolution No. 70-22, granting a Conditional Use Permit on Application UP 70-339 of Ben Fiore, be passed and adopted. Motion failed. Ayes: Coco, L. Miller. Noes: C. Miller, Marsters, Oster. 6. APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE AND ONE MEMBER TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. Cont'd. from 5/18/70. Councilman C. Miller stated that he had been asked to find a Regis- tered Landscape Architect interested in serving on this Commission. Councilman Miller suggested the appointment of Mr. Richard Jones of Jones and Peterson of Anaheim. Mr. Jones lives within the Tustin School District. Moved by C. Millers seconded by Marsters that Mr. Richard Jones be appointed as alternate on =he Developmenu Preview Committee to Mr. Eumatsu, Registered Landscape Architect. Carried. Relative to consolidation of the Development Preview Committee as previously discussed, and prior to appointment of a member to the Building Board of Appeals. Councilmen Oster and L. ~iller were asked to investigate, through the staff, the requirements for qualifications under the Uniform Building Code for members of the Building Board of Appeals. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 469 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO REGULATE MOTOR VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. .M~e~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ by L~ Miiler th~ ~rdinance' N~ 469~ a~endi~g have f~r~: rr~;~2zng by title only. Carried unan~mou;,~iy. Council Meeting 6/1/70 Page 5 2. ORDINANCE NO. 470 -First Reading. An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING TtIE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. ~ji~'!~e~following changes were made: Line 15 after the wor~chool '- addition of the words "when such qualified nominees are available". Line 16 to read: "Commissioners shall serve a~ the pleasure of the Council" to replace "Commissioners may be removed at any ~lme by the City Council." Prior to adoption paragraph -- "A quorum shall be a majority of the commissioners who have been appointed" inserted. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 470, as ~orrected, amendin~theTustin City Code zo revise the membership of the Parks and RecreaEion Commission, have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Councilman L. Miller and Oster were requested to interview students who express interest in serving on this commiss%on and make recom- mendations. The press was asked to g~ve coverage .of this opening for a Tustin High School student and also of the vacancy on the Planning Commission. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 70-23 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, REQUESTING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE SEVENTH SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster that Resolut.ion No. 70-23 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by C. Miller, seconded.by L. Miller that Resolution No. 70-23, requesting annexation of certain territory ~o the Seventh Sewer Maintenance District of the County of Orange, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 4.EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT. BONDS - TRACT NO. 6447 (Final portion Of Tustin Meadows Development). Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that ~mprovements in Tract No. 6447 be accepted and the pertinent bonds be released. Carried. Councilman L. Miller abstaining. 5. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT POLICY (Fireworks Stands) Mr. Fleagle requested staff guidance and Policy of the Council relative to %ssuing temporary use permits for fireworks stands and presented suggested criteria. The Council discussed safety factors, hardships, number of stands, locations, e~c. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that the following criteria be established pertaining ~o ~ssuance of a temporary use permit for fire- works stands: 1. Sites shall no= be located in the single-family residential zone. 2. No site shall be located such as to be a safety hazard zo pedestrian and vehi~lex safety by its relationship to a major traffic artery. .3. LOcations and number of stands last year be used as a cri- %eria with'a maximum of four (4) stands per shopping cenzer. Council Edeeting 6/1/70 Page 6 4. Exceptions to the above stated policy may be granted for good and sufficient cause by the Planning Director. 5. Appeals to the decision of the Planning Director in the denial of a Temporary Use Permit may be made by letter directly to the City Council without the necessity of public hearing nor payment of a fee. Motion carried. 6. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that demands in the amount of $77,182.50 be approved and paid. Carried. IX. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Mrs. Lee Wagner, Lee's Lamps, commented on the new signs on the cafe On E1 Camino Real. Signs will be ~nvcs~icAted by the staff. 2. Joe Alvin & Company - requesting commendation for the idea of utilizing service stations with Mr. Up Restaurants -- Mayor to draft factual letter for Council review. 3. North Tustin Channel Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that plans and specifi- cations for construction of North Tustin Channel, as presented by the City Engineer be approved. Carried. 4. Amaganset Way Drainage. Engineers's report received. Mr. Cobb of Westbury Lane spoke on the nuisance and hazards of this water in the streets. Council asked to see a breakdown at the June 15th meeting of the City Engineer's estimate of $6,000 for correction of this problem. 5. Potential City Boundary Report The Council discussed the ultimate City Boundaries and requested a report on estimated population ~n the area bounded by Prospect Avenue, 17th Street, Ne~por~ Avenue, irvine Boulevard, and the ultimate boundary proposed by staff. 6. Property at C and Third Streets Mr. Gill reported a verbal figure from the appra~sor of approxi- mately $43,000 plus ~mprovements, damages and any relocation fees. 7. Additional status reports received relative to Police Building Alterations~ Civic Center Development, First Street improvement, Acquisition of buildings -- presen~ Civic Center Site, Dumping and Anti-Litter Ordinance, Multi-family development standards, Capital improvement program. 8.Assembly Bill 568 - TO bring the dissolution of the Harbor District to a vote of the people. Moved by Councilman C. Miller that the Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution similar to that of Huntington Beach supporting this Bill. Motion d2ed for lack of second. ~9. Request of Robert Hall on behalfof the Preview Developmen~ Com- mittee for a TV receiver in conference room. Mr~ Gill said the staff is exploring the possibility of transporting the receiver from ~he Police Department for the Development Preview Commi~e Tl~Urs~a~ ~etings. · - 6/1/70 Page 7 10. Standard Station Lights - Red Hill and Walnut Councilman ester requested that the staff rev3.ew the stipulation and conditions for this station and check on the overflow lighting. Sign Enforcement ~ ..... Councilman Oster requested a s~a~us report relative ~o enforcement of the sign ordinance. 12. Resolution 724 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, commending Norman A. Halus. Resolution 725 A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, commending Laurence S. Webster. Resolution 726 A Resolution of the.City Council of the City of Tustin, California, commending Mrs. Marilyn Luawig. Moved by C. Miller, seconded ~y Oster that Resolution 724, Resolution 725=and Resolution 726 be rend by title. Carried unanimously. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolutiors724, 725 and 726, commending Norman Halus, Laurence Webster and Marilyn Ludwig, be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C."Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: None 13. City of Carmel - Disclosure Act. Mayor Coco explained 'that the City of Carmel had fought the financial disclosure act at quite some cost and that it was requested by the League _of Cities that othe~ California cities contributeto help defray" these costs. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Tustin contribute $25.00 to help defray expenses incurred by the City of Carmel. Councilman L. Miller and C. Miller stated they had not been against the di-sclosure laws. Motion carried. Councilman C. Miller and L. Miller voting no. 14. Mayor Coco announced the'following: 1. Budget Workshop - June 9, 1970 - 7 P.M. 2. James'B. Utt Park Dedication - June 13, 1970 - ll A.M.' 3. Post Office Dedication - June 20, 1970 - 3 P.M. 15. Irvine Company Pamphlet "Users are Losers" Councilman Marsters requested that the staff look into the cost of distribution of this pamphlet in schools in the Tustin area. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco declared ~ e meeting adjourned. MAYOR