Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1969 11 17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL November 17, 1969 CALL TO ORDER Meetln~ called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Marsnets. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsnets,. L. Miller Absent: Councilmen: None Others present: City Administrator Harry E. Gill City Attorney'James G. Rourke City Clerk Ruth C. Foe Planning Director james Supinter V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by L. Miller that Minutes of November 3, 1969 be accepted as received. Motion died for lack of second. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsnets that approval of the November 3 minutes be deferred to the next reEular meeting. Carried. SPECIAL ~ayor Coco introduced the students taking part in this INTRODUCTIONS meeting as a part of Youth in Government: Acting Councilmen: Debbie Nicols - Tustin High Kirk Ryder - Foothill Bob Tamietti - Mission VieJo Stuart Rose - Foothill (Mayor) Acting City Attorney: Leslie Espenoza - Tustin VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZC 69-190 - RICHARD & BILLIE KRUPPE Application of Richard and Billie Kruppe, for rezoning of an approximate 0.83 acre parcel from R-1 (Single Family Residential) District no the PC (Planned Community Residential) District. Site fronts 109.16 ft. on the'south side of Main Street, approximately 227 ft. east of the center line of Pacific Street. Mr. Supin~er described the location and stated than this application was originally considered February 10, 1969, and continued to April 1, August 11, and October 27 Planning meetings all in anticipation of information from the Economic Study. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of this application. Hearing opened a= 7:39 P.M. Mr. Richard K~pp~, 12312 Newport Avenue, owner of the land and ~one ,change applicant stated that he had been diS~usslBg land use on this par.el for over two Mea~s with Mr. Supinter -~ ~Zz;~ Council Minutes Page 2 11/17/69 Hearing No. 1 ~ cont'd. He said that this property can never be developed as R-1. He has proved this by having it on the markeu;an~a~ving no prospective buyer. Mr. Kruppe stated that during the time of this applications Mr. Myers, City Engineer, would not recon~nendthfs property being divided into 3 or lots. R-3-I750 is ~lm~st half again asmuch land per unit as the ultimate R-3 at 1250. This density would make possible garages for ail units and 1 or 2 pa~king spaces on the property. R-3-1750 will not disturb the surrounding neighbors. This specific property is bordered by Planned Connnunity~ Planned Manufacturing and R-1~1250. This parcel has adequate utilities and sewer facilities. The street is a full 80'feet. There are now two apartmen~ developments being built on Main Street. One has a density of 246 units on 10 acres. This proposed develop- ment will he18~20 units on 0.83 acre° This application has been before the Planning Commission for approximately one year. The Economic Development Study was to have been completed in this past April, May, or June and now the reports have been given to the TNT Committee for consider- ation. Mr. Kruppe said he could see no reason for the TNT Committee seeing this report and that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. He did not think the stud7 would assist in making a decision on this parcel and did not think it would be on any area but the old downtown area.. Unless he can ~receive favorable consideration from the Council, Mr. Kruppe said, the property will go Unto for- closure. This zOne'change application is not for specu- ,fation. The building will be started as soon as specifi- cations are approved. ' Opposition seems to be from a very few. A petition was filed with the Commission carrying 35 names which were mostly husband and wife. The total property owners on the petition were 19. Mr~Kruppe showed a msp of the area and said there are approximately 30 acres of R-I in the area surrounded by R-3 or better. ~r. A. Charlton~ Third Street, Tugtin, stated he was a former City Councilman and Mayor and that he and his neighbor~ are present in good number to beg the Council to retain R-1 in this area. Mr. Charlton asked that the Coun- cil consider the petitions before making any decision. The TNT Committee should be considered--if not, what is the value of the study or the connnittee. The Planning Cen~nission has recommended denial--this should assist in the Council's decision. They expect the Council to uphold the General Plan which designates R-1 in the area. Approximately' 60 voters in the area--many have been here 35 years--are opposing this change. ~F- John Bloom, 330 California Street, stated that at the November 3 meeting a petition opposing ZC 69-195 was sub- mitted and residents'were present. This fell on deaf ears, as Councilman L. Mil~er and Mayor Coco decided against the area property owners. Again they are submitting a petition. This property was purchased knowingly as R-1 property. The Planning Co~nission recommended denial of this application. Mr. Bloom asked that the people present tonight and opposing this application rise. Thirty persons rose in opposition. Mr. Kruppe asked the?Mayor if this petition states specif- ically that it is for this area. ~ayor Coco read the Wording of the petitions as written, dis- covering that these were =he ZC 69-195 petitions with "195" changed to "190". There being no further commentsor objections the hearths Council Minutes Page 3 11/17/69 Councilman Marsters asked about the discrepancy in the fact that the Planning Department report shows 34 units per acre. or 8 t~mes the General Flan~ and Mr. Kruppe states 18 units per acre. Mr. Supin~er stated that the applicant did not specifically show density in his application. After discussion with Mr. Kruppe he felt that he was applying for PC. Mr. Kruppe has remained flexible and Mr, Suptnger said that he is not sure just what density Mr, Kruppe would like to have, In answer to questioning Mr. Krupp% stated that he would go along with a 30 to 60 day continuation rather than denial at this time if he knew that the Planning Commission and the · Councilwere making use of the data from the Economic Study and that this matter were being worked on. His statement as to density was made on the basis of 18-20 units on.0,83 acre parcel and that R-3-1750 amounts to 24 units per acre, Mayor Coco. reminded the applicant and those present that the studies are not going to pinpoint certain individual parcels, The Economic Study will indicate whether or not the existing zoning pattern is feasible, but only within large general areas, In this case it will be the entire downtown area bounded by irvine Blvd., Newport Free- way and Newport Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, It will not take certain individual parcels into consideration. As to Mr, Bloom's reference to the Taylor application before the Council at the last meeting - thlsappllcation is different. The density is some 6 times that shown in the General Plan, the location is remote from the existing multiple and the Taylor parcel was larger, The differences are significant, Councilman L. Miller stated that he concurs that it is in the best interest of the City and the applicant that this matter be deferred. Moved by L. Miller that ZC 69-190 be deferred until the conclusion of the TNT study relative to the entire area. Mr. Rourk~ stated that it is better to set a specific date for the continuance to eliminate the necessity ~r noticing a new hearing. Above motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Marster~ stated that he would be in favor of a 60 day continuance with no promise of results. He said he is concerned with the isolation of this zoning, but would want the report from the TNT conm~ittee before making a decision. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Lo Miller that ZC 69-190 be continued .to the Council meetinM of Jantmry 19~ 1970. Councilman C. Miller stated that he felt this to be~n intrusion in zoning and that no matter how handled it will be out of character with the neighborhood. Whatever is done must be in character and Main Street is unique and has a ~i~e~ w~eh ~&§~'~ e~anSe~ ever ~he Fears, Motion to continue carried unanimously. Council Minutes Page 4 11/17/69 2. APPEAL -V-69-256 OF TACO BELL' Appeal of the decision~of, the Planning Commission denying' application of Taco Bell for a variance for a take-out food establishment with 13 off-street parking spaces.. Ord- inance requires a Use Permit and 22 parking spaces for sub- ]ect business. Site fronts approximately 205 feet on the southeast side of Newport Avenue .and approximately 135 feet on the northeast side of Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Supin~er explained location and the fact that the original application included a request for Alfie's Fish and Chips. The application has now been revised to show only Taco Bell eliminating Alfie's. The appeal without Alfie's eliminates-the parking problem and the-new plans show more than enough parking spaces. A take-out foo~ establishment does'require a Use Permit. H~aring opened at 8:29 P.M.- Councilman C. Miller stated that this revision is so different from the original application that it should be referred back to thePlanning-Commission, and asked if this application had not,changed its form since it had been before the Planning Commission. Mr. SupinMer said that this was correct. Mr. Coco asked if it was in the interest of expediting the application that it came as appeal rather than go through " the Planning Commission. Mr. Dave Garrison, speaking for Taco Bell stated that at the last meeting the Variance was denied due to the lack of parking for two facilities. Alfie's is out because they could not conform to the parking regulations. The ordinance requires 26 spaces and Taco Bell now has 29 spaces. Mr. Garrison said Chat he had talked to Mr. Palyi and had been told that it would be a benefit to appeal rather than present a new application to the Planning Com- mission. Off-street improvements are now in design and Taco has complied with all requirements necessary to the Variance. Mrs. Sarah Barnett~ 14201 Raleigh Place, asked if this is now all Taco. She stated that she still feels that traffic will be no less and without street widening and a traffic light at Newport and Mitchell it would be a problem. There are now 4 other take-out food establishments in the area plus the Jack-in-the-Box and the drive-in dairy and 4 service stations. It lis becoming more hazardous every day. Mrs. Barnett said that she is not objecting to the Taco Bell, but to the traffic problem in the ares. " ~r. Garrison stated that they are dedicating additional right-of-way and that there are uses permitted in the C-1 zone that are greater traffic hazards than this. There being no further comments or objections the hearing was declared closed an 8:35 P.M. In answer to questioning, Mr. Gill said that a traffic sig- nal at Newport and Mitchell is not scheduled for this year. ~ouncilmanL. Miller asked Mr. Halus, Chairman of the Planning Commission if heh~dany statement to make at this t~me. -,-, Council Minutes Page 5 11/17/69 Mr. ]lal. us said that he could only ~pcak as a private citizen and not for the Coxmaission. ~e application is different from the one the Planning Commission saw. Parking is now adequate but the Planning Commission is always interesed in reviewing significant changes in any application. Councilman Marsters stated that he was in accord wi~h Mr. C. Miller and that with all the changes this application should go back to the Planning Coa~ission. Moved by Marsters' seconded by C. Miller that this revised application go back to the Planning Con~ission for further review. As the first date that this matter could be heard by the Planning Commission is December 22, Mayor Coco asked the applicant what hardship would be generated. Mr. Garrison stated that the immediate problem is one of income. He had contacted the Planning Department the day after the application was denied and had been told that in the essence of time this would be the way to expedite mat- ters. Delay costs. money. Councilman C. Miller stated that the Planning Coa~ission was best equipped to consider this application. The people who have property which backs up to this will be concerned with lighting, screening and these things could be best worked out with the Planning Commission. Mr. Garrison stated that when this was originally advertised the only people attending were the applicants' representatives. Mr. Garrison asked if it would be possible to get Council approval subject to the approval of the traffic engineer, Planning, etc. Councilman C. Miller stated that he noticed 2 entrances at the corner, this and matters such as landscaping, lighting etc. should be conditions set forth by the Planning Com- mission. In answer to questioning, Mr. SupinSet said that the Development Preview Con~ittee has ~thor, ity to review all of these things. All r,e~orts submitted to the Council %his -evening are based o~ the prior application. The revised pla9~ do appear to comply'with aI1 ordinance requirements. The Planping Commission does not approve the plot plans this is left to the Development Preview Oor~nittee. Above motion and second withdrawn. Move~ by Marsters~ seconded by L. Miller that this appeal of Taco Bell be approve/d ~nd the request be granted subject to the approval 6f all departments '&nd review and approval by the. Development Preview Committee. Carried. Mayor Coco asked that Mrs. B~rnett a~d the p~blie ognside~ the right of way dedication and future signals planned to help counter the increased traffic problem. VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 450 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF BUILDINGS, AND NOISE, Council Minutes Page 6 11/17/69 d , Prior uo turning thts-agenda item over to the St~ Mayor Coco explained the Ordinance procedure and topic of this Ordinance which will set times for construction at 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M~ weekdays except holidays. Mayor Coco stated that since this Ordinance had been introduced and had first reading at the last meeting he had received a call from a Citizen .asking that the Ordinance prohibit construction on SatUrdays. After talking with th~ party she had compromised for an 8:00 A.M. starting time on Saturdays. The Council can consider this ~m~ndment to the Ordinance. If any changes of this nature be made it willbe necessary to have another first reading. Mayor Coco turned the meeting over to Stuart Rose, student Mayor. 'After discussion it was the decision of the students that this Ordinance be amended to restrict construction on Saturday to the hourscol 8:00 A~M. to 6:00 Consideration of Ordinance 450 returned to the Council. After a discussi0n~by the Council regarding the present hours (8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.Mo weekdays) and the fact that this Ordinance was brought about because union contracts call for starting working. hours of 7:00 AoM., the pro- posed Ordinance was amended by the addition of the words "8:00 A.M. to 6:00 PoM. on Saturday" after the word '~oli- days" every place where the hours are stated. -- Moved byMarsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 450w as amended have firstZ. readinM by title only. Carried.unan/mons!y. 2. REVISED CITY FEE SCHEDULES - cont'd. from 11/3/69. a) ORDINANCE NO. 451 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CITY FEES. Moved b.v.L. Mille~ seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 451~ ending theTustin City Code and the Z.oning Ordinance, r~!at~ng Uo City fees, he read by titl~ on17. Carried unan/mously. b) RESOLUTION NO. 1029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES. ~.. Moved by Marsters~ ~econded by C. Miller that Re~olution No. 1029 be read h~tttle only. Carried unanimously. Moved byC. Millerw seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 1029, establishing certain fees and service charges, he passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. ~yes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters~ L. Miller. Noes = None Abs~ | None Council Minutes Page 7 11/17/69 3. ORDINANCE NO. 452 - First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION N0. Z.C. 69-195 OF WILFRED TAYLOR. Location: Site fronts 220' on the south side of Third Street, 300' on the west side of Pacific and 220' on the north side ~f'Main Street. Approved zoning is for PC, R-3-2800 (Multiple Family Residential - 2800 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) District. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Coco that Ordinance No. 452, rezoning property on Application No. Z.C. 69- 195 of Wilfred Taylor, have first readins by title oply. Mr. Rourke stated that although Mr. Marstots had abstained at the hearing on this matter there was no significance in his voting~or the first reading. Councilman C. Miller stated he would not vote no on this motion and force the full reading, but that his yes~v~te would be only for the reading, not for approval of the Ordinance. Above motion carried unanimously. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ON APPEAL OF PBR COMPANY ON BEHALF OF ZORRO INVESTMENT COMPANY. Approval' of certain signs on Application V 69-308 for Mobil Service Station located at the corner of irvine Blvd. and Newport Freeway. Moved by C. Miller~ seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 1031 be read by titIe only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C.Miller that Resolution No. 1031, on appeal of PBR Company on behalf of Zorro Investment Company, be passed and adopted~ Motion'carried unan/mously. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marstots, L. Miller Noes: None Absent: None 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A VARIANCE ON APPLICATION NO. V 69-259 OF WORLD HANDICRAFTS, INC. Variance permits operation of retail business with fewer than the required number of parking spaces at 14192 Newport Avenue. Moved by L. Millerw seconded'by C. Miller that Resolution No. 1032 be read by title only. Carried unani~nously. MoVed by C. Mtller~ seconded by L. Miller that ReSolution No~..1032, ~ra~ting ~u~iUn&e on Application NO. V '6~-259 Council Minutes Page 8 11/17/69 Carried unanimously.. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None Absent: None 6. CONSIDERATION OF JOINT PARK DEVELOPMENT AT HELEN ESTOCK SCHOOL WITH TUSTIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Cont'd. from 11/3/69. ~ouncflman Len Mille~ stated that the reason, at the ~ast n~eting, for requesting continuance was that he agreed with this matter in principle but if there is a priority he would rather see the park on First Street between B and C Streets developed.and not have this expense jeopardize that plan. He would like to see how the other parksstands before authorizing this expenditure. ~r. Gill said that all could be done simultaneously. The First and C Street park has been talked about for along time but the schools are not sure what they will do with that site. Re,had met with Dr. Gaffey and there isnothing concrete at this-t~me. As te Jeopardizing the First Street park he did not know. Councilman C. Miller said that it seems the amount involved in the First andC Street park is of such magnitude that $9,000 for thlsnpark is not a consideration. He said he would not want to see a negotiation for the Estock Park and then not have-the moneyto follow through on it. " ~ayor Coco stated that all the staff is asking is to start negotiations. The necessary funds can always be transferred from the reserve. Mr. Blankenship said that the Park & Recreation Commission does not want to jeopardize the First and C Street park. Iris their opinion that due tosize and outlay this Estock park would not jeopardize the other plans. The local school staff is now reviawing the First Street proposal with the County Council and it would be at least 45 days before they had the answer to all the legal aspects. Councilman C. Miller said the Council is considering several items of.major addition to the budget. He would like to see projection on anticipated unbudgeted income and ex- penditures. If not backed up by money this could do more harm than good. ~oved by L. Miller~ 'seconded by Marsters that the concept of joint usage be approved and the Park and Recreation Con~nission and City Administrat'ornegotiate and give timetable of pri- orities as these projects can be done. Motion carried. BoB Tamletti~ Mission Viejo student stated that the cost of the Estock park'w6u~d be $9,100 and the City would be getting a park worth three ~imes that much. The C Street project will cost about $250,000 and he doubted that the Ctiy would have that for a park. }b' Eelt one park better than none. V~lZ. NEW BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 453 - First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO FEES FOR APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS, AND TO REGULATION OF TAXICABS. Council Minutes Page 9 11/17/69 In answer to questioning, Mr. Rourke stated that the City would have no additional responsibility for the condition or malfunction of cabs because of conducting inspect~ons as called for by City Ordinance. Mn Gill explained the different fees set forth in this proposed ordinance and stated that the $5.00 inspection fee is to cover costs of safety and regulation inspections. Moved by Marsterss seconded by L. Miller that Ordlnsnc~ No. 453, amending the Tustin City Code relative to fees for applications and permits, and to regulation of cabs, have first readinn by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 454 - First Reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO CURFEWS. Mr. Rourke stated that it has been requested by the County Juvenile Court that all cities in the County consider adopt- ing an erdinance relative to curfews, similar to that of the County to insure Uniformity throughout the County. This Ordinance is less restrictive than the existing City Ord- inance. Mr. Rourke said he had talked to Chief Sissel and he stated that he could see where unlformitymy be bene- ficial. It was the consensus of the Council that sections 15-4, 15-5, and 15-6 of the present Ordinance and which cover the duties and responsibilities of adults with regard to curfew for minors should not Be deleted. The Council asked Mr. Rourke to contact the County to find out if any ob- jections to the inclusion of these sections. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that considera- tion of p~oposed Ordinance No. 454 be continued to the next regular meeting and the City Attorney to contact the County relative to suggested amendments and report to the Council. Carried. 3. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AIqD WILLIAM L. ALDRICH FOR CONSULTING SERVICES. Moved by L. Miller, seconded bY Marsters that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute agreement between the City and William Aldrich.. Carried. C. Miller voting no. 4. APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT FOR A TWO YEAR TERM. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Cliftou C. Miller be appointed as the City of Tustin representative to the Orange County Mosquito Abatement District Board Trustees for a term of two years, effective January 1,1970 through December 31, 1971. 5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by C. Miller~ seconded by Marster~ that demands in the amount of ~74,352.95 be approveS.. Carried. Council Minutes Page 10 11/17/69 IX. OTHER ~,~ ~'~> BUSINESS " ~ 1. Mr~ .Rourke ~requested a personnel session following ~hls - meeting. 2. ~ouncilman C. Miller stated that a relative of his had had occasion to need the Tustin Police Department and had related how cooperative and helpful Officer Hein had been in assisting them. As a citizen and councilman, Mr. Miller said that he wished to commend the Tustin PoliCe Department and in particular Officer Heinfor doing outstanding work. 3. Bob Tamietti,student Councilman, thanked the Council and City staff for the valuable experience afforded to him and the' other students taking part in Youth in Govern- ' mont. 4. COUNTY ZONE CHANGE - 17th STREET ~ouncilman C. Miller commented on the City Administrator's letter to the County Planning Commission relative to a study session on commercial zoning on 17th Street east of Yorba Street. Mr. Miller asked if it would be helpful if a letter went out fromMayor Coco on this matter. ~r. Gill stated that his' letter was written on behalf of the Council. A summary report has been received from the County, but the City has not been invited to a workshop. It should be clarified that this is a County case, and that the City has not participated in any study or made any decisions. Mayor Coco asked that a copy of Mr. Gill's lette~ be given to the Tustin News in hopes they Will clarify in the paper that this is a County case. 5. REPORT FROM MR. ROURKE REGARDING CHANGES AND ALTERA- TIONE AFTER.USE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. Mr. Rourke stated that in his opinion a business would not be permitted to repaint a structure to a different color than had been approved by the Architectural Committee or now the Develoi~nent Preview CoAA~ittee. Mayor Coco asked that the letter fromMr. Rourke get wide dissemination and thateach Councilman drive by the Standard Station at 17th and Yorba Streets prior to 'the next Council meeting for further consideration. 6. Mr. Bob Fall stated that as a realtor he has endeavored to help owners in the old town area. He is concerned about the request to expand coum~ercial on 17th Street. There is quite a bit of undeveloped coam~rcial in the City not far from this area. These people have paid property tax on vacant property and are owed consideration. The following correspondence and reports received: 1. LAFCO Hearing on Irvine Company de-annexation from County Servtce~District 5. 2. Comparison of Cities~ tax rates. 3. City Building=!Department report for month of October. 4. Correspondence relative to47th Annual Business Meeting, InternatiOnal COnference of Building Officials. 5. Resolution rega~ding competitive Ibtdding, Resolution ~"'8~t~b~at~0~ ~ PUbliC ~ ~S01u~iOn re- Council Minutes Page 11 11/17/69 6. Activity summary for Octobar--Tustin Police Department. 7. Letters commending Tustin Police Department: Mr. & Mrs.' B. Marshall and Mrs. B. Coleman, Program Chairman for C. C. Lambert F.T. 0. 8.Letter commending Fire Captain Fred Stoll: Cub Scout Pack 322. 9. "WHAT MAKES A CITY GREAT" --Time Magazine. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco declared =his meet~g adjourned to a personnel session.