Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1969 11 03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL November 3, 1969 CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor COco. ORDER PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Coco. ALLEGIANCE III. INVOCATION Given by Councflman C. Miller. IV. ROLL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller CALL Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry E. Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Planning Director James Supinger '*Mayor Coco welcomed students from Foothill High School and Tustin Union High School. He explained that every year the City has a Youth in Government program whereby students observe government in action and also participate in Council and Planning Commission meetings. Next week the students will take part in the Planning Commission meeting, and at the next regular Council meeting they will act as the Councilmens' counterparts. **Mr. Bob Phillips, Public Agency Representative of the State Compensation insurance Fund, presented a plaque to Mayor Coco. He explained that annually a safety contest is sponsored by the California League of Cities and Tustin placed first for not having any injuries from July l, 1968 to June 30, 1969. Mayor Coco stated that they were very proud of their employees for the fine job they have done and hoped next year would be as successful. V. APPROVAL OF Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that the MINUTES minutes Of the October 20, 1969 Council meeting be 'approved as corrected. Carried. VI. PUBLIC 1. APPEAL - UP 69-308 PBR COMPANY ON BEHALF OF HEARINGS ZORRO INVESTMENT CO. Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying application of PBR Company on behalf of Zorro Investment Company for a use permit to permit the installation of five (5) signs to identify a proposed service station at the northeast corner of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard (Fourth Street) and the Newport Freeway. Proposed signs are: 1. A free-standing sign for surface traffic with a height of 20 ft., area of 63 sq. ft. per side, total area 126 sq. ft. and located in the required front setback. Council Minutes /~L Page 2 2. A free-standing sign for freeway traffic with a height of 35 ft., area of 308 sq. ft. ~,~ per side, total area of 616 sq. ft. and located in the required front setback. 3. A Mobil "Pegasus" wall sign with an area of 13 sq. ft. 4. A "Mobil Service" wall sign with an area of 15 sq. ft. 5. A price panel sign to. be located on a pole sign with an area of 15 sq. ft. per side, total area of 30 sq. ft. and a minimum height above grade of 8 ft. Total sign area requested on the site is 800 sq. ft. 'Mayor Coco stated that the public portion of the meeting was closed, but Council members could call on the audience for questions they wanted answered. He explained that the freeway sign was approved by the Council, and this was not a matter of discussion. He stated that a workshop was held by the applicants, the Council, and interested members of the community at which tithe the remainder of the signs were discussed. He stated that the Council was now interested in the specific details of the signs to be approved at this location. Councilman L. Miller asked if anyone affiliated With this application had.any statements they would like to make. Mr. George Argyros, 17411 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin recapped what was offered as a solution to the problem of esthetic quality, together with the practical application and the safety factor. He stated that Mobil would be willing to move the Irvine Boulevard identification sign. At the workshop, Mobil agreed to a reduction of height and a sign 4' x 8' bordere~ in simulated wood and to reduce the illumination; the price panel signs will be approved by the Development Preview Committee; on the building instead of "Mobil Service," there could be just the emblem of the flying horse rather than any wording - keeping it clean and fresh. Mayor Coco stated that as a result of the workshop Mobil agreed to reduce the free-standing sign on Irvine Boulevard from 126 sq. ft. to 32 sq. ft. overall and to remove the "Mobil Service" sign, and to make the price panel signs portable and architecturally pleasing with the building. He stated.that at this time the workshop proposal was to encase the Irvine Street sign in a simulated wood environment saying "Mobil" on the front, and the lighting to be subdued. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the free-standing sign be placed in a planter over against the freeway off-ramp instead of the center of the development as had been offered by the developers; that the sign be encased in a rustic wood casing of ~hich the actual dimensions and details be approved by the Development Preview Committee; that the overall dimensions of the sign including the casing be 6' x 3', con- forming to the relative proportions the standard Mobil sign has; that the'maximum height of the sign be 9½' to the top of the sign; that the appropriate lighting be determined by visual inspection after erection of the sign and be approved by the Development Preview Committee; that the Mobil Service sign not be placed on the building, but a 4' diameter pegasus sign be allowed. Councilman C. Miller stated that the Council may want to amend the motion on the price panel sign as he wasn't as well informed on this matter as he felt he should be. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Councilman C. Miller stated that the Development Preview Committee would review the details of the construction of the casing. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco on the price panel sign, Councilman L. Miller stated that he and Mr. Mack drove around to rev'iew some gas stations and in Costa Mesa there was a service station with a. wrought iron, rustic'type frame that could be compatible with Fourth Street. ~ayor Coco stated that a motion and second had been made, and the signs at this location have the following seven conditions: 1. The Irvine Boulevard sign have the freeway off- ramp location. 2. The Irvine Boulevard sign be encased in a rustic, wood casing; the dimension of the casing to be determined by the Development Preview Committee. 3. The overall dimensions of the free-standing sign on Irvine on the corner location be approximately limited to 18 square feet overall as determined by Mobil and their needed proportions, which would include the wood casing. 4. The maximum height to the top of the free-standing sign to be 9½ feet. 5. The lighting intensity of this sign to be approved by visual inspection of the Development Preview Committee after erection of the sign. 6. The words on the wall sign, "Mobil Serviue," be deleted on the building and that 4' diameter pegasus be permitted on the building. 7.The price panel sign to be portable and of a material compatible with the construction of the building with an area limitation of 10 square feet per side. Councilman C. Miller questioned that if the overall himensions of 18 square feet includes the frame, wouldn't it inhibit the design of the frame, Mayor Coco felt that if they approved the overall dimensions of the sign, the developer could start getting his sign built. Councilman C. Miller stated that since the Development Preview Committee meets every Thursday and their building looks to be several weeks from completrlon, there wouldn't be a big time lag. He felt that there would be adequate time to come out even with the Completion Of:the signs with the completion of the Mayor Coco ~tated that out of all the Development Preview Committee, Planning Commission and workshop meetings Mobil had agreed to the smallest standard sign that Mobil builds, and anything less than that size would have to be custom built. council Minutes Page 4 Marster felt t at this location should Councilman s h be deserving of a custom made sign. ~yor Coco felt it was more expedious for the 'Council to set a size for the sign, and leave the frame up to the Development Preview Committee. He stated that as the motion stands, the Development Preview Committee can approve the dimensions of the casing, and this will leave the applicant free to go to a sign company to ~et his sign built. Councilman C. Miller felt it was worth the wait because the service station is some time from completion, Motion carried without change. (3-1) Ayes: C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: Coco. Absent: None. May6r Coco stated that he voted no on Item No. 3 with all the dimensions being 18 square feet as he felt they could be more specific on this matter. Councilman L. Miller stated that he concurred with Mayor Coco, but rather than have any further delays he would vote yes. Mr. George Argyros asked Councilman C. Miller for a clarification on the overall size of the sign. Councilman C. Miller stated that the reason he made the motion in the form that he did was that he felt the overall size of the sign should be 18 square feet. He didn't feel that he could tell what the dimensions of the casing should be so that it would have that rustic appearance, which the applicant said he would be willing to provide. Mr. George Argyros stated that it has cost him over $2,500 for this signing, and he felt it was really a problem when they passed him from one committee to another. 2. ZC-69-195 - WILFRED TAYLOR AND ROBERT HALL Application of Wilfred Taylor and Robert Hall (ZC 69-195) for rezoning of a 1.52 acre parcel from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (2800) (Multiple Family Residential - 2800 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District. Site fronts 220 feet on the sout~ side of Third Street, 300 feet on the west side of Pacific and 220 feet on the north side of Main Street. Councilman Marsters stated that he wished to abstain on this application since he owns property in this area. Mr. Supi~ge~ gave the staf~ report and stated that the Commission recommended denial at their meeting of October 13, 1969, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zoning is for residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre, nearly four times the dwelling units per acre suggested by the Tustin Area General Plan. 2. The City is presently studying the Tustin City area, Of which the subject property ~s a part, to determine if a change should be made in the General Plan and zoning designations for the area. 3. There was insufficient evidence and facts presented to the Commission to warrant a change of zone at this time. ~gyor Coco stated that this is a new public hearing and anyone wanting to comment to come before the microphone and state your name, address and position. Mrs. Barbara Torres, 645 West Third Street, Tustin, spokeswomen for Mr. and'Mrs. Torres stated that more than one-half of the dwelling units in Tustin are multiple units, and she didn't feel that she wanted Tustin to become a bedroom community. She stated that a petition signed by 54 people had been sent to the City opposing this application, and she felt that prime consideration should be given each person - whether they own one lot or ten lots. She commented that the average working couple has two cars, which would mean that this development would have around 80 cars and the area would be sieged with heavy traffic. Mrs. Torres said she had spoken with real estate offices and found there is a need for single family homes in this area. She felt that apartments have their place, but this is a established neighborhood and that this development was not in the best interest of the people. Mr. Bob Hall, 17452 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, represent- · ng the applicant, Mr. W. Taylor, stated that when the petition was signed they were asking for 44 units, but they are now asking for 24 units which would amount to, if everyone had two cars, 48 cars. He presented a plan to the Council showing the elevation they propose to use and the open space created. He stated that this property is bound on three sides by streets. They have given this development a single family look, facing all their residential units to the streets so there are no backsides facing the streets. The recreatf' and pool area are in the center of the project so it will serve as a noise buffer. He stated they also h~vc split the parking areas into three separate areas, have divided walkways, given each unit a private patio. The project will have 46 bedrooms with no more than two bedrooms per unit. Rent will be in the area of $200.00 per month. They will be appealing to couples without children. 'He felt there would be less people per square feet than if they had ten 4 bedroom homes built. He stated Mr. Taylor has been unable to sell his property and if he were to build ten homes for rental purposes, it wouldn't work out economically. Also, if ten homes were to be built there would be ten driveway cuts whereas they have cut it down to three, which will leave more street parking. Mr. Hall stated they had interviewed some of the neighbors and found they would rather see their development go in than a nursery or rest home. Mr. Hall requested to change their application to Planned Community Residential (2800) and agreed that their plans be subject to those submitted to the Council. He stated that Mr. Taylor has invested about $350,000 in this project and felt if this request is granted a very high standard will be set - considerir the plottage, open space created, split parking, buffer of noise, quality and-construction, etc. Mr. John Bloom, 330 California Street, Tustin, stated that he oppo.sed this development and asked ~or people Mr. Wilfred Tayl0~D~nRplica.nt, stated that the neig]~bors who are most d~r~ C01~erned with this program are the church and the people on the adjoining sides. He stated that the church has currently no objections and he read a ~t~er from Mr. and Mrs. Eels stating thei~.-~pproval. There being no further objections or comments, Mayor Coco closed .the public portion of the hearing at 8:50 P.M. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Rourke stated that if the request or modification is to a PC-R-3 (2800) zone then it would be in every way as restrictive as the R-3 application. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Supinger -clarified the number of R-1 lots that would be involved in the 1½ acre parcel. He stated that there are ten existing. lots which can be seen on the original plot plan that was sub- mit~ed in one of the earlier staff reports. R-1 zoning does not restrict the number of bedrooms. Mr. Supinger also stated that the average population per apartment is 2½ person per unit and 3.8 persons per unit for single family. Councilman C. Miller felt that the central issue brought out in the Planning Commission action and staff recommend- ations is that it is a marked increase of density over what is existing in the area. He stated that while this one zone change considered by itself does not create problems of utilities, traffic, etc., it does become a pattern for the area and a problem which should be considered. He felt that one zoning action should not be approved until the TNT Com- mittee and the economic survey have been concluded and some intelligent decision can be made whereby they can predict the long range results. Further, he objected to referring this back to the Planning Commission for another hearing since the people have already been out for several hearings and it is burdensome. The Council should make a decision tonight. Mr. Bob Hall stated they would have 22 two bedroom units and do not see more than two people per unit, and the other 2 units are one bedroom and could have two people in those, but some units will be occupied by single people. He stated he didn't think it fair to use the average of 2½ persons per unit for this development. He felt that they were below average on the 2½. He stated that they have ten lots already so that's ten units on an acre and one-half which is more than 4 per acre already. If these were single story houses, there could be five bedrooms per unit with a higher than 3.8 average. Mayor Coco stated that if this proposal is 4 times the Tustin Area General plan t~e fact remains it ~s more like 2½ times what it could be developed under the existing R-1 on the property with no changes whatsoever. Instead of talking about 4 times the potential development of the property. Under this proposal, whether it is R-3-2800 or PC-R-3-2800 · there can be no more than 15-units on an acre. Councilman C. Miller stated that the Council should look '~t this application in the long run twenty years from now. He believed that'the Council should follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff on this matter, deferring the action until the Council knows wha~ is best. Moved by Coun~ilman C. Mille~ that the action of the Planning Commission be upheld and this zone change be denied. Motion died for lack of second. Page 7 Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Mayor Coco for discussion that ZC 69-195 be approved as submitted tonight. (R-3-2800) Councilman L. Miller stated that he would like to see this application approved as there were no objections from the church nor the adjacent property owners abutting the property. Councilman C. Miller stated that he hoped the Council ~ealized that they were setting the pattern for every other p~ce of undeveloped property in this area. Be felt there should be some additional requirements added to the plan submitted, which would make t~ Council's action completely compatible and acceptable to the existing residents and community. Mayor Coco stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Hall would be willing to enter into an agree- ment with the property owners. He stated that~this could be a condition of the approval. Councilman L. Miller felt that architecturally this development would upgrade and be an asset to the area as opposed to the typical apartment development. Mayor Coco stated that he would have difficulty in voting for any proposal that would not prove to be an asset to the community~ and he knew the problems the City, landowners and h6meowners have in the core area with fragmented ownerships. He stated that there wouldn't be the problem of fragmented ownerships on this 1½ acre parcel. He felt that this development could work out to be a'benefit to the area. The home- owners are evidently divided - this proposal could possibly avoid an objectional use in this area in the future. Councilman C. Miller stated that in examining the site plot plan he was not nearly so impressed with the open .spaces because a g-teat portion of it will be covered with parking, most of the units are 15 feet or so apart (same width as the front yards on Main Street), some are less than that from each other. He felt 16 families per acre to be too much relative to d~nsity. He felt we couldn't expect this to be much different in character than some of the garden apartments around the City. Mayor Coco questioned if it was ~ecessary for the applicant to get approval on his lot layout relative to the subject o~ density and Mr. Supinger replied that it is basically up to the City Council. He felt from past experience and action, the Development Preview Committee would be very limited as to the changes that they could reasonably make in this plan unless the City Council made it specifically clear that a use permit was required for the approval of specific plans at a later date. He stated that if the City Council approves the package as submitted, there would be no further' use permit procedure required for the approval of specif: plans, and the Development Preview Committee would be rather limited as to the approval process through which they could make revisions to the plan. The Council sh~l~ m~ ~ ~ea~ ~ha~ specific plans a~e no~ appr~ved ~= ultimate devele~munE, an~ ~he Council may wish to stipulate that a use permit is required and these plans could be the starting point. Council Minutes Councilman C. Miller felt it would be well for the Planning Department to draw up a list of developments within and without thc City that are about the same ~ensity - 16 units per acre - before they ac~=upon the application. He stated the development should be as compatible with single family units as possible with covered parking for two cars since one of the major objections to the application was cars parking on the street. He felt the setback lines should be equal or should meet the setback lines of the neighboring set- backs. He felt the Council should explore thoroughly what kind of requirements should be set on a multiple \ unit to be compatible with R-1. He cited Dick Smith's Broadmoor apartments as a good example of R-1 compatibility. Councilman L. Miller stated he would withdraw his motion based on Mr. C. Miller's request and suggested deferral until a study can be made for the next meeting. Mayor Coco stated that once a motion is made and secondedit becomes the property of the floor and there has to be unanimous rejection in order to with- draw the motion from discussion. Councilman C. Miller felt the Council should examine some of these projects with Bob Hall, Art Charleton and interested parties some Saturday morning. Basic consideration is the density, parking and open space. The first study should be what the density is~going to be if going to.haVe multiple in this area and must consider the traffic problem as well as utility problems. Mayor Coco agreed that more restrictions were needed, but he didn't feel that very much wouldbe gained by deferral. He stated that the TNT Committee did no~ expect to have ~ny immediate results either. Above motion for approval amended to include the requirement for a conditional use permit and consideration to be given to two story units allowing for additional green area and the City have close architectural and landscaping control. Motion carried. Ayes: Coco, L. Miller. Noes: C. Miller. Abstained: Marsters. ~ayor Coco called a five minute recess. -Meeting reconvened at 9:50 P.M. 3. PZ 69-120 - ZINK CONSTRUCTION INC. Application Of Zink Construction Inc., for prezoning (PZ 69-120) Of a parcel totalling approximately 4.25 acres to the PC~R-3 (2600) (Planned Community - Multiple Family Residential - 2600 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District. Site fronts,approximately 610 ft. on the southwest side of Irvine Boulevard and approximately 305 ft. on the northwest sideof Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Supinger gave a staff report and stated that at the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1969, the Commission recommended denial of this application for the following reasons: 1. The propOse~ zoning would permit a density of 16.75 dwelling units per acre, more than four t~mes the Medium Residential (4 d.u./acre) suggeste~ by~ the Tustin Arca General Plan. Council Minu~cs 2. The proposed rezonlng would result in spot zoning of multiple family residential use surrounded by single family residential uses. 3. The subject parcel can be developed under the existing '(R-l) zoning. Hearing opened at 9:51 P.M. Mr. William Zink, President of Zink ConstruCtion, k7461 lrvine Boulevard, Tustin, stated that their -- development is a one story garden apartment; rental of $210 - $245.00; shake roofs; large living rooms and kitchens; eight feet wide fireplace with gas'log lighting; two full baths; private patios; forced air furnace and central air conditioning, and open areas landscaped for individual privacy. He stated that he couldn't go into an R-3 area for economic reasons, and that he is trying to build a higher class apartment, and they can't mix into an area where they have two stories with a lot of children. Mr. Zink stated they ~fe appealing to the couple whose children have gone to college and they no longer want the upkeep of a home yet want to live in a nice apartment an the City. He explained that their units are three bedrooms, but the way they are designed they are two bedrooms and a den. He stated that there are 17 lots which border this property, and they have contacted almost all of these people, and there was only one woman who objected because of the traffic the development would create. He requested a PC 2800 instead of a PC 2600. He stated this would eliminate several units and give them the two parking places per unit. Mr. Frank Marcus, 1422 Garland Avenue, Tustin, stated that they would abide by any remarks that they made during the last Planning Commission meeting. They heartily agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation because they saw that this was strictly an R-1 area. Mr. Marcus was very concerned with the traffic problem that would be created and stated within the past two weeks there have been two very serious accidents in this area. Mrs. Irene Pelleriti, 1411 Garland, Tustin, stated that she is not alone in opposing this development, and there are many neighbors who have opposed this development from the beginning. She stated that she thought she was the one woman Mr. Zink was referring to in opposing this applicationl There being no further objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 10:07 P.M. Councilman Marsters stated that he was concerned with the spot zoning a~pect. He felt that the area was very compatible with R-1 deyelopment and would be best suited for that purpose. He noted that the County of Orange had commented that this area would be best suited and developed for slngle family development.' In answer to.questioning by Councilman Marsters, 'Mr. Supinger stated that the nearest commercial area to that section is Tustin Heights Shopping Center, ~hi~h tS p~bl~ ~ li~%t~ less than a quarter Of mile away. Moved by Councilman Marsters, seconded by Councilman L. Miller that PZ 69-120 be denied. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marstots, L~er. Noes: None Absent: None. 4, VARIANCE NO. 69-259 - APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - WORLD HANDICRAFTS, INC. ~ Appeal of tile decision of tile Planning Commission · !. denying Variance Application No. 69-259'~E<World Handicrafts, Inc. on behalf of Terrance T. Lindstrom to permit the operation of a retail business with less than the required off-street parking spaces required by the Ordinance. Site fronts 68 ft. on the southeast side of Newport " Avenue approximately 240 ft. northeast of the center- line of Mitchell Avenue and is thelocation of existing ~tructure numbered 14192 Newport Avenue. · Fur. Sup~nger gave the staff report. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 10:13 P.M. Mrs. Jean Adams, Saddleback Realty, 181 E1 Cami~o Real, Tustin, representing World Handicrafts for Terrance Lindstrom and Randall Robertson, stated that she has had an opportunity to work on and see many pieces of property in old downtown Tustin sit vacant and deteriorate because they couldn't conform to the new codes, primarily parking spaces. She felt that the area was a depressed area and would cause .the owner misery, suffering and anxiety. The proper/ty has been vacant for a year and has proved to be inviting to vandalism. She stated that the owner purchased the property in 1960 with the intention of living in the house. He spent a considerable amount of money to make the house presentable to live in and was advised by the City on the day that he was to move into the house that he could not because it was zoned C-1. She stated that World Handicrafts has a good~type of business to offer to our City, and felt this building could.be made attractive. This building should be considered for the same type of parking as furniture stores because basically the ltems which are sold are considered accessories for the home. World Handicrafts would not need as many parking spaces as a regular retail store. She stated that she had driven around the older part of town and hadn't seen any parking or traffic problems and these businesses have no off street parking. A revised plan was given to Mr. Supinger for-the parking, and it is possible for- the cars to back into the center of the property without backing out into the street. Mrs. Adams stated that if this variance isapproved, World Handicrafts would be willing to meet all the other requirements to bring this property up to the standard code and it would certainly be an improvement over the eyesore ~hat has been there. If the owner were denied tile variance, he would probably qualify for tax relief due to a hardship and then our City would be losing precious tax dollars. Mr. Randall Robertson., General Manager of World tIandi- crafts, 14192 Newport Avenue, Tustln, stated that if the variance is granted they would overa length of time conform the facade of the building to the Spanish atmosphere of the City.~ He felt that a well-kept business is a. successful business. Mr. Terrance Lindstrom, President of World IIandicrafts, 14192 Newport Avenue, Tustin, _stated by just moving in a few pieces of statues they ]lad received enthusiasm from many people and most of their customers come in groups instead of each driving one car. Co~IIIc.L.[ FiJ IILiL, cJ;J /~/ ' Pa~e ll Mr. Randall Ro],c'~rt:;on pointed out that at their Hunt'i'i~gton ]5cach [;tore they have 3,000 square feet with only thref} off-street parking spaces and a loading dock space in the back, and they have. not suffered a parking problem there. lie stated that there are some alternatives which could be used, if necessary, by tearing out their workshop or the garages. Mr. Anthony Capella, owner of the property, stated that he had tried to sell, lease and had listed his property with three different agencies who were unable -- to do anything. He replied that they have promised · to dedicate the 20 feet of right-of-way to the ~ity, and install curb, sidewalks, etc. Mayor Coco closed {he public portion of the hearing at.10:31 In answer to questioning by Councilman Marsters, Mr. Robertson stated that he was drawn to the property because it was a good sound business location for their business. Councilman C. Mill'er stated that he didn't see any reason to take the room off the end of the building because there'would still not be adequate space to get. people in and out. Councilman L. Miller felt the area currently is a blight, but he felt th~ variance is justified because it could be made into a successful business area. ~ayor Coco stated the variance being ~pplied for is permanent and the use permit will be good as long as the tenant remains and chooses to exercise it. He felt there were two basic problems - the appearance and parking problem. He'felt that if the business is successful, this would just add to the basic parking problem. He stated the more successful you become, the more imperative it will become to have more parking spaces. Councilman Marsters suggested putting a time limit on the variance. .This would give them time to see if more parking spaces were needed. He suggested a time period of six months. Sharing of parking spaces with adjoining owners was discussed. Mr. Gill felt that'the sharing of spaces would create hardships if one bu~zness wanted to re- locate and this would leave the other owner without the required parking spaces. Mayor Coco discussed the possibility of having only one cut for ingress and egress. Mr. Gill felt the City Engineer could develop a practical plan for traffic safety with the intent of obtaining as many parking spaces as possibl~ and the Development Preview Committee could come u~ with the best ideas in the interest of the City. ~_uI~.<~..C~_ Mi~e~felt it should be stipulated that and they should accept the applicant's comment that he would fix up the building subject to the aRproval of the Development Preview Co~nittee. · l'a~ ].2 / ~Z In an~wer to queG~joning by Mayor Coco, M~:. Rob~!rl:::on state~ that they have three piece~ of large statuary in the front 'yard, but when they are properly placed ~'~ are not garish. They are made Of concrete and are an asset to the property although he concurred with the Council that there should not be wall-to-wall statues, he felt there shoul=d be something out front for identification. Councilman:C. Miller suggested that a continuation of a temporary use permit be ~ssue~ and the Development 'Preview Committee take a look at the statues and fountains and the City Engineer work out the best traffic.safety, and they declare~themselves willing to forego parking spaces that are going to be unsafe. He felt if there is a parking hardship, the applicant would be creating it more for himself than the City. Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by C~ Miller that Variance 69-259be permitted subject to the approval of the Development Preview Committee, City Engineer and staff recommendations. Carried 4-0. 5. APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER'TO THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION (Term to expire November 15, 1973). Mayor Co'co opened the public portion of the hearing at 11:15 P.M. Councilman Marsters stated that he felt strongly that Mr. Mahoney had do'nean outstanding job and would like to see him re-appointed~ Moved by Councilman Marsters, seconded by Councilman C. Miller that Resolution No. 1030 appointing Rollin Mahoney to the Tustin Planning Commission for a term expiring November ~15, ~973 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution · - · No. 1030 be passed 'and ;adopted. Carried~by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller~ Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. Mayor Coco s~ated that the work of Mr. Mahoney has been the deciding factor, and they have'been pleased with his performance. He explaiped that any appointment iS one on the basis of merit. ~II. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 448 - second reading BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Moved by Councilman Marsters, s~Conded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 448 have second readin~ by title only'. Carried unanimously. _ Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 448 amendinq the real property transfer tax ordinance' of the City of Tustin be passed and adopted. Ayes:~ Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. ~'i'~ler. Noes: None. ~bsont: None. Council Minutes 2. ORDINANCE NO. 449 second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RELATIVE TO PEDESTRIANS. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 449 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Councilman Marsters that Ordinance No. 449 amending the traffic · ordinance of the City of Tustin relative to pedestrians, be passed and adopted. Ayes: Coco, Marsters, ~. Miller. Noes: C. Miller. Absent: None. Councilman C. Miller stated that he fel~ this ordinance was unenforceable. VII. NEW 1. ORDINANCE NO. 450 - first reading BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF BUILDINGS, AND NOISE. Moved by Councilman C. Miller, seconded by Councilman 'L. Miller that Ordinance No. 450 amending the Tustin 'City Code'relative to construction and repair of buildings, and noise have'first r~ading by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND REVISING PROVISIONS OF THE 1969-70 CITY BUDGET RELATIVE TO COMPENSATIONS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. It was the consensus of the Council that the following expense reimbursements should be established: Parks & Recreation CommisSion: Chairman $25.00 per month Member $20.00 per. month Planning Commission Chairman $40.00 per month Member $35.00 per month Development Preview COmmittee Chairman $30.00 per month Member $25.00 per month Moved by Councilman L. Miller, s~conded by Marsters that Resolution No. 1028 amending and revising provisions of the 1969-70 City Budget relative to compensations and reimbursement of expenses by passed and adopted. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. 3. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON RED HILL AVENUE. (Nisson, Mitchell, Walnut and Sycamore Avenues.) Moved by Councilman C. Miller, seconded by Councilman L. Miller that the amendment to the agreement with ~he County of Orange, for traffic signals on Red Hill Avenue ~e include the Mitchell Avenue intersection be execute said agreement., Carried"'~h~ahimou~ly. cou c l M .uue Page 14 4. CONSIDERATION OF JOINT PARK DEVELOPMENT AT HELEN ESTOCK SCHOOL WITII TUSTIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Moved by Councilman C. Miller, seconded by Councilman Marsters that this matter be deferred until the next ~.~ ....=I regular Council.meet'~g of November 17, 1969. J 5. CONSIDERATION OF JOINT PARK DEVELOPMENT ON NISSON WITH ACACIA ENTERPRISES, INC. Moved by Councilman C. Miller, seconded by Councilman L. Miller that=theCity enter in£o an agreement for ' the joint developme~f~t'~prop0sed p'~ 5~tlined and the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute this agreement and the lease for the property;' and [at the lease payment of $100.~per year and the City's ~hare of construction of $9,175.00 be budgeted from unappropriated reserve. Carried unanimously. 6. REVISED CITY FEE SCHEDULES 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. b) RESOLUTION NO. 1029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES. Movedby Councilman C. Miller, seconded by Councilman Marsters that this matter be deferred until the nex~ regular Council meet~'i'~'~f November 17, 1969. 7. APPROVAL OFDEMANDS 'Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Councilman 'C. Mil'ler~that demands in the amount of $73,527.85 be 'approved and p'a'~..~rried unanimously. IX. OTHER '1. Letter Requesting Temporary Use Permit for Martin BUSINESS Perfit, 190 E~ Camino Real, Tustin (Brancusi) Movedby Councilman L~ Miller, s~conded by Councilman C. Miller that temporary use permit be granted until . such time as th~ final action.is taken~h the use permit request to be approximately 15 December. Carried unanimously. 2. Request from Norman Halus, Planning Commission Chairman to have seven members attend California Chapter of American Institute of Planners Conference in San FrancisCo for two days. Councilman C. Miller felt to send seven Conunissioners to this conference was a needless expense. He stated they have been attending classes here inthe County. Councilman L.' Mille~ felt we should send the Commissioners to the Conference as they might learn some.solutions to our problems.