Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1969 10 06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL October 6, 1969 CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. ORDER II. PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Coco. ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION Given by Councilman Mack. IV. ROLL Present: Councilmen: Coco, Mack, C. Miller, Marstots, CALL L. Miller. Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry E. Gill City Attorney James Rourke Planning Director James Supinger City Clerk Ruth Poe V. APPROVAL OF Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack. that minutes MINUTES o'f 'Sep~ember"l'5, 1969 be'approved as written. Carried. VI. PUBLIC 1. VARIANCE 69-253- APPEAL HEARINGS Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying application of Tustin First investment Company for a variance to permit the installation of a free-standing sign to indicate an existing apartment development (Villa Viento). proposed sign would have an overall height of 12', an area of 32 sq. ft. per side, a total area of 64 sq. ft. and be located within the front setback area. Site fronts approximately 95 ft. on the north side of First Street, approximately 240 ft. west of the centerline of North "B" Street. Mr. Supinger p~esented the Staff Report and stated that the Pta'nning Commission denyed the application. The public portion of the meeting opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. George Argyros, partner of First Investment Company, 17411 Irvine Boulevard, Suite D, stated that he wanted to apologize for not having attended the Planning Commission meeting as he was out of town at that time. He stated that they had contrac~ with a sign company by the name of Rustic Sign Shop. In their contract it called for them to appl~ for and obtain the sign permit, and they thought that, in fact, this had transpired, but they had a telephone call from Rex Waldo, the Building Inspector and found that the sign permit had not been obtained by Rustic Sign shop. At this time the sign was almost finished; the posts up; and the outside motif installed; and then they found them~ He assured the Council that this oversight was not intentional. He then gave a graphic demonstration on a few s]ides to show their acr'~al problems covering ci~c z~rea fro~ ¥orba tc a~c west zo Council Minutes Page 2 E1 Camino Re~ east. Their main problem is basically the fact that they are located in .the older part of Tustin on First Street. The area is cluttered wi~% old buildings and signs. Their basic problem is identification of the pro3ect tha~ they have called Villia Viento. Another problem Ks that they sit back at the ultimate dedication of the street, which is 50 feet from the center line. He mentioned that you can't see their site at all when approaching their property. Mr. Argyros showed slides of this development stating they had spent a good deal of time and money on the entrance as well as the entire development to give the best first impression possible. He felt this development in the old section of town is really private enterprise at work in urban renewal. By this they hope to encourage more redevelopment of the area, but they really need identification. There being no further comments and no objections, the hearing was declared closed at 7:55 P.M. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. krgyros replied that they had specified a size, and they thought it was the right size. The sign shop evidentally is not used to working with cities as the shop doesn't do the illumination or metal work that a normal sign company would be involved in. Councilman L. Miller stated that he personally agrees with the Planning Commission regarding the poor judgement of building and erecting a sign without the permits. He felt that this points out the. difficulty of legislation. Relative to good judgement and good taste, he felt that a sign of thus caliber, even though it exceeds the prescribed size, is in a lot better taste than a small sign that might have a plastic, lighted background. He questioned if this size was approved~would it open the door to variations in the future or are we specifically approving this sign. Mr. Rourke stated that you could approve this sign as it's been proposed here and then it would be-a variance to install the very sign that was shown in the diagrams, and they could have no other sign but that one. Mr. Supinger commented that the notice of hearing in the newspaper did not include an arrow hanging below the sign as suggested by Mr. Argyros so they would not be able to permit them to put up the arrow addition on the bottom of the sign. In answer to questioning by the Council, Mr. Argyros stated that unfortunately the smgn company did not include the arrow in the drawings. He felt that they could live without the arrow, however, graphically he didn't feel it was unpleasing. Since it wasn't'ionthe drawings, they wouldn't put it up. Mr. Argyros sta~ed that they have been renting since August and are ~bout 75% filled. They need identification now as there is no way that anyone knows what this!project Ks. The reason they have been sucCessful~in renting is the fact that they have 410 units ~hat are owned and operated in the immediate area and can refer to it with maps. / ~7 Council Minutes Page 3. Mayor Coco explained that in the event of a lot split where the property along First Street would then go commercial, we would at that time undoubtedly have a request for some type of commercial sign in that same location at which time we would then lose the apartment identification as well. This could cause additional difficulty and additional applications at that time. Mr. Argyros stated that they have anticipated the future problem of commercial fronting on First9 '~ They have run an electric conduit out in the cent island of the .entry street, which is a private street so that when the frontage is developed the sign could be moved. He stated that a permanent sign is necessary primarily to keep the project full. Counciiman Marsters complimented Mr. Argyros on thesign's appearance, but he did feel that it was much too large. Councilman L. Miller agreed with Councilman Marsters that the sign is much too large, but in very good taste and also complimented Mr. Argyros on the good appearance of the area. Moved by CoUncilman L. Miller, seconded by Mack that the variance be approved as specified in drawings and plans presented with the conditions that: (1) The applicant stipulate that no bootleg signs will be installed on-site, off- site or within public rights-of-way within the City of Tustin. (2)-' Approval of the sign plans, revised to show all copy proposed, by the Development Preview Committee. Councilman Marsters asked if the sign was damaged or had to be replaced woul~ it have to be replaced with the exact type of sign. Mr. Rourke stated that it would have to be the same as the drawing submitted. Above motion carried 4-1. Ayes: Coco, Mack, C. Miller, L. Miller. Noes: Marsters. Absent: None. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Argyros stated that he would be willing to allow the use of his photographs. Mayor Coco felt it was a good idea to show these pictures to interested parties who have the power to do something about renovation of the core area. 2. PZ 69-119 - HESTER TRUST ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE. Application of Hester Trust on behalf of Harriet O. Enderle for prezoning and rezoning of a parcel of approximately 22 acres. a. pC-C~2 (Planned Community-Central Commercial) on the northerly approximately !1 acres fronting 464 ft. on the south side of 17th Street and 880 ft. on the east side of YoDba Street (existing gas station and drive-in milk store are not a part of the application)- ..... Council Minutes Page 4. b. PC-R-3 (1750) (Planned Community-Multiple Family Residential 1750 sg. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District on the southerly approximately 11 acres fronting 620 ft. on the east side of Yorba Street (nor~ of the Enderle Gardens). Site is located at t~e southeast corner of tie intersection of 17th Street and Yorba Street. Mr. Supinger ~resented the Staff Report and stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application since the proposal is n~t in conformance witi the General Plan, and adeguate evidence has not been prepared to justify an amendment Of the General Plan, and a study of commercial use needs prepared as part of the General Plan progra~ indicates that adequate commercial zoning exists in the subject area. ~ear~ng opened'at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Jim Matthfas, 14321 ~esteria Lane, Secretary- Treasurer of Enderie Gardens Property Owners Association stated their position. They would like to continue the present zoning, but would like to see a plot plan before they would consider going along with any of their plans. They would like to see something ~n black and white as to what they plan to do with the high density apart- ment area before they approve an/thing. Mr. Jim Gianulias, 2840 Monterey Avenue, Costa Mesa, --- commented that'Ethel Dory, who is the owner of land adjoining subject property has no objections, and they have met with Enderle Gardens and expressed their desire to be harminous with them. He felt this development would be a major contribution to the City. It would add approximately $120,000 to the Treasury, on sales of $12,000,000. Mr. Ed Lohrbach, 18121 Fourth Street of Morris and Lohrbach,'Architects showed a presentation graphically of the shopping center and some pro- posed layouts of the apartment complex. Mayor Coco called a five minute reqess so that interested persons could look at Mr. Lohrbach's graphic presentation. Meeting reconv~ned at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Lohrbach stated that in regard to the apart-' ments, he believed that Hester Trust Company would be proposing a one story unit on the southerly property line with a distance of about 100 feet. He stated that they would prefer _. not to be pinned down to that dimension at this time. They would like to keep the design plan open so they could work with the City and Enderle Gardens Association. He stated that he has been asked by Mr. Gia~ulias to keep the Spanish motif and to keep the buildings as low as possible for a town and cduhtry atmosphere. Mr. Gianulias believed that their major tenant has made an economic study of the area and knows they will do w~ll. They now have Handyman as their major tenant and a major market has approached them. Council Minutes Page 5 M~. Saul Shapiro, 14222 Mimosa, who lives ~djacent to this proposed project stated that there must be enough buffer to take care of any noise and the people who are submitting this proposal were supposed to submit a plan back to Enderle Gardens showing development, height, etc. of the immediate adjoining property. Mr. Ralph Yeaman, 14242 A-~'.'~ 'rive, who also lives close to this propc.- '~ stated '- that there is less than three hou~c~ per acre in Enderle Gardens. He mentioned that the architect and HeSter Trust did get together 'with them and showed p~c'cuT'~,s- ~ at that time the residences told them ..... - ,, ould have to see some type of plot plan and did g~ve them ideas that they would want at least 150 feet of slng!e story houses next to their area. They do not want 24 units per acre in there. He stated.that Hester Trust did call them this week stating they were unable to complete a drawing. He stated that Enderle Gardens Association would not agree until they saw something of a plot plan. Fir. Gianulias stated that they had set up a meeting with Enderle Gardens, but to set up a sketch wasn't as easy as it seems. They are willing to sit down and discuss problems with them. There being no further objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 8:45 P.M. In answer to questioning by Councilman Marsters, -- Mr. Mattbias stated that they would be glad to work with Hester Trust - with a plot plan on hand - and they are concerned with the number of units that are adjacent to them. Councilman L. Miller stated that he concurred with the people from Enderle Gardens. He felt a more finalized plan was needed relativeto buffers, landscaping, etc., and that the developer should consider a postponement until the next meeting, and in the meantime, present their plan to Ende'rle Gardens and then come back to the meeting with specifics. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Gill stated inasmuch as the PC as outlined here is somewhat broad, the Council could require in this pr~zonlng that it would be conditioned upon a Use Permit for the actual development. Of course, the Use Permit can only be executed upon annexation of.the area to the City. At that time, a public hearing for a Use Permit would be held and all specifics presented. In answer to questioning by Councilman C. Miller Mr. Sup~nger stated that the density of the Castilian apartments ~s approximately 25. Recent developments built at this density are Walnut East between Newport and Red Hill on Walnut and another project next door ~hat are both 1750. Councilman C. Miller felt that the people in with the amount of units and stated that 1750 per acre would be something that hasn"t been represented to them correctly nor to the Council - and would be detrimental. Council Minutes ~ Councilman Marsters concurred with C. Miller and stated he couldn't condone this type of development in this area. Councilman C. Miller felt that some consideration of the General Plan should be taken as this is ~n direct conflict with this plan. ~ayor Coco discussed the General Plan stating that it Ks considered ~n all cases before a prezone, and if there is one fallSout of this application to require a formal amendment; it could set a precedent, and then it must be done in every case. Councilman Mack felt that the interpretation of the General Plan in this case is 3ustified as a reasonable request. He stated that when the General Plan was adopted that they all agreed that it was a gen&ral plan, and there would be those times when it would have to be looked at in various areas on the basis of what it is, and whether or not it would fit in with the picture of the entire overall City goals. He felt that it should be weighed on its ~erits in the absence of specific or exact plans adopted by both groups - the County and the City. In answer to questioning by Councilman Mack, Mr. Rourke stated that the Council could act on the commercial and defer any action on the second portion of the request. He stated that there were several possibilities: (1)this could be continued as discussed; (2) could act on a part of it; (3) could require at the time of rezoning or pre- EDning that the development standards be set in detail as was done with t~he Grant Company; (4) could approve any part of it subject to a use permit; and at the time of the granting of a use~permit it would be necessary ~o establish the development standards; At a zoning you could establish or not establish-the density. Mr. Rourke read a portion of the General Plan for clarification purposes: "The General Plan is a policy document, intended to be used as a guide by public officials in-the preparation of precise plans, provisions of public facilities, and adoption of pertinent laws and ordinances, and by citizens in the development of land. The Plan should be followed as closely as reason, justice and its own general character make practical and possible. The General Plan-is not a precise plan and does not show the exact outline o~ use districts, or the exact location of streets or public facilities. It shows rather the general location, character, and extent of such land use patterns, streets, and public facilities, etc." ~ygr Coco spoke on the ~lternative methods of zoning and stated that if the Council does not feel this area to be a reasonable~lace for the zoning applied for, there is no need to go further into terms of the application. Councilman Marsters stated that he did not feel that R-3 is compatable. It could possibly be a good commercial development, but w~th.the information on hand he could not justify pursuing a prezone to C-2 in this area. He stated that he wou~d agree to a continuation for more information and justification. He is also concerned with the creeping comme;cial toward the foothills. Council Minutes page 7 Councilman L. M~ller agreed with Mr. Marsters stating that t~is is a big decision and the Council does not have enough facts on hand. There ~ave apparently been promises to the Enderly Gardens Association of a more detailed approach. Mr. Miller agreed ~hat a continuation might be in order to satisfy the Association and to answer questions of the Council. Councilman Marsters asked Mr. Gianulias if he would rather have a decis'ion tonight either pro or con or would he seek a. continuance. Mr. Gianulias said thls was not his decision and reques time to confer with the landlord, Mrs. Enderle. Mayor Coco declared a 5 minute recess to allow time for the applicants to confer. ~eeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. Mr. Gianulias stated that there is a precise p~an for the commercial development and they would prefer a decision on this. They are willing to continue the hearing for precise plans for the apartment development. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Gianulias said that the plans for the commercial do show a 60' & a 35' sign on 17th St. and a 35' sign on Yorba Street, but this could be amended. Councilman C. Miller stated that he could see this as a potentially good commercial development. He is not opposed in principle to commercial on this property nor more than single family on the property now zoned but he could not in good concience approve the precise plans as shown tonight. The parking lot is not that of a high quality development and does not set the tone what we would want in this area. The signs do not rep- the character which has been considered high quality. commercial is going to be extended beyond what it is it must be the finest. Mr. Miller said that he could not approve this development based on what he has seen so far. Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller (for discussion) that Prezone 69-119 be denied. Councilman C. Miller stated that he would like to see a more developed proposal. In speaking with Mr. King, a representative of the developer, at the recess, Mr. King stated that they could present more precise plans. It had just been that they did not want to invest the money. Mr. Miller felt that a continuance was more in order. If a continuance is not in order then he would be in favor of a denial. Councilman Marsters stated that as he understood, the applicants were more in favor of getting a decision now on the commercial - either pro or con. Mayor Coco stated that it is up to the Council, but it may help the applicant if he could get a feeling a~ tki?~-- time. If the majority of the Council feels there ~s possibility that this land can be developed commercia? multiple as has been proposed, with certain restricticnj; then the continuance may very well be in order. if the Council on the other hand feels there is no use pursuing ~he development, as such~ then ~he denial probably would Councilman L. Miller stated that he would have no opposition to a commercial and apartment development in this area if it was the right quality, and there were more specifics providing the Developmen~ Preview Committee, residents, and Plann2f Commission concur. Council Minutes Page 8 If a continuance-is nOt=iin order then he would be In favor of denial. ~ ~ Mayor Coco stated that there is a motion on the floor for ~'~!~!~II?~enial, but a substitute ~otion for continuance is in order. Councilman C. Miller stated that Mr. Gianulias wanted the decision of the Council to be based on the precise plan presented for~the commercial development. If so, he would be in favor of denial. He also commented that he would be more than happy to vote for a continuance as he felt something could be worked out. If Mr. Gianulius would modify his position then he would vote for continuance Mayor Coco.stated that there were three ways to go. The Council can ask the applicant if he would agree to a continuance, the Council could deny the application or continue the hearing without asking the applicant. If the Council wishes to continue this hearing the motion to continue would take precedence over the motibn now on the floor. In answer to questioning, Mr. Supinger stated that if this application iS denied and the applicant refiled there would be no fee as this 'is ~a prezone and no fee had been charged~ A new application could be instituted this week.- Mr. Gill mentioned,that the applicant would like to annex to the City prior to December 31st and the annexation would depend on the prezon~ng. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Mack that PZ 69-119 of Hester TruSt be continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Carried. rII. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 447 BUSINESS ' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE.NO. 371 RELATIVE TO SPECIAL SPEED ZONES. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. '447 relative to special speed zones have first reading y~7'title only. Mayor Coco stated that this is a proposed ordinance to change the speed on Williams St. from Main St. to McFadden St. to 35 m.p.h., a reduction of 10 m.p.h. Above motion carried unanimously. 2. LANDSCAPING OF FIRE LANES IN TUSTIN MEADOWS Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that the mauter of fire lanes in Tustin Meadows be deferred until October 20, 1969. Carried. FIII. NEW 1. SERVICE CONTRACT AGREEMENT - CALIFORNIA STATE BUSINESS PERSONNEL BOARD, COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES DIVISION. (Primarily for fire and police examinations) T Moved by Mack, seconded by C. Miller that the City ~dministrator be,authorized to execute the Cost Service Contract Agreement with the State of California, California State Personnel Board, Cooperative. Personnel Services Division, for the ~ur.pose of performing examining services for the City of Tu~tin. Carried. Council Minutes Page .9 , 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIlE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF MCFADDEN STREET AND PASADENA AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Moved by Councilman Mack, seconded by Councilman L. Miller that Resolution No. 1024 be read by title on'~.~ Carried: Unanimously. Moved by Councilman Marsters, seconded by Councilman Mack that Resolution No. 1024 be adopted. Carried: Ayes: Coco, Mack, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. 3. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Councilman Mack that demands in the amount of $86,962.63 be approved an'8'~'~. Carried. IX. OTHER 1. Staff Report on Joint Use Agreement with BUSINESS Southern California Edison Company. Mr. Gill stated that'a workshop could be he'ld relative to this matter. The Staff Report shows the stand the Staff has taken. Councilman C. Miller felt that everything had been said 'in the Staff Report, and he __ didn't feel a workshop was necessary. In answer to questioning by Councilman C. Mil!er~ Mr. Gill stated that he did not know what the outcome would be if no agreement is ever executed with the Edison Company. It is possible that the P.U.C. could require Edison Company to relocate and provide service to the property in question. He felt the agreement as written should not be executed. Mr. Rourke commented that Edison Company had advised h~ thaot no.'one has ever denied signing the agreement so the results of not signing are not known. Could be handled as stated by Mr. Gill by the P.U.C. Mayor Coco stated that there are just a few paragraph~ inthe agreement that are objectionable to the City, and public relations wise, the Council could execute an agreement with the deletions of the objectionable provisions. Councilman C. Miller felt that the people in the City have a right to help in ~heir own particular service problems. Mayor Coco stated that a first approach on the matter might be to correspond directly with the'Edison Company and offer to execute the agreement with the deletio~ and send a copy to the P~U.C. Mayor Coco requested Mr. Rourke ~O go through the agreement, deleting ~he ~b~ections a~ ~end the revise~ ag~eemen~ Council Minutes Page 10 'MoVed by C'ou'~cilman Mack, seconded by touncilman Marsters that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement with the .Edison Company incor- porating the discussion tonight with deletions by the City Attorney of those paragraphs objectionable to the City. Carried.- 2. Report on Litter and. Weed Abatement from the City Administrator. Councitman'C. Miller requested that the. Staff get a list of those pieces of property that they think action should be taken on first - by the next Council meeting. Mayor Coco requested that the Press receive copies of this report, and thanked Mr. Gill and Mr. Blankenship for the fine report~ 3. Request to close off a portion of Berkshire Place for block' party. Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by CounCilman Mack that permission be gra'nted toclose off Berkshire Place at t'~of'te~ul de Sac for a block party, subject to~approval of Police and Fire Department. 4. Councilman Marsters commented that on First and A Streets there is a vacant lot with a gas meter left there. He felt this was a danger and requested this matter be looked into. 5. Councilman L. Miller requested that a County study be made on the off ramps of the Newport freeway southbound off of Fourth Street, and northbound getting off at 17th Street. Mr. Gill stated that he has requested the City Engineer to contact the County relative to this matter. The Following Correspondence and Reports Received: 1. Tentative Schedule for 1969-70'Public Improve- ment Construction. 2. Letter from the Fire Department re: Siren Policy. 3. Correspondence re: Objectional establishment. 4. Report from Building Official re: 47th International Conference of Building Officials. 5. Report from City Engineer re: Orange County Chamber of Commerce Luncheon Meeting 9/24/69. 6. Letter from Ronald E. Oster, III re: Operation Children. 7.Letter from Mr. McMahan to A.J. Coco re: Town Hall Meeting. 8. Commendations for Police Department - Mro and Mrs. Paul Nie!son, Ellen B. Stewart, Julian J. Iorio, Reverend Frank Scott, Paul Kuras, Paul M. Gleason, Thomas N. Urban. Page 9. Letter from George Argyros to Frank Greinke re: New businessman to the community. 10. Orange County City Managers' September Meetmng Report. ll. Minutes of Executive Meeting, Orange County Division, League of California Cities. 12. League of California Cities Bulletin. " 13. Resolution from the Board of Supervisor~, County of Los Angeles re: Pollution. 14. Resolution from Seal Beach re: Request the Resolution Committee of the League of California Cities to submit a resolution of the League's annual convention opposing any change in the current tax exemption on state and local government bond interest. 15. Resolution from the City of Westminster re: Urging the President and the Congress to take active steps to assure Amermcans freedom of religion and basic right to express a belief in God. 16. Resolution from City of Seal Beach.re: Protesting the expenditure of funds to implement Orange County General Planning Program. 17. Resolution from City of Stan~on re: Corps of Engineers work in the Santa Aria River, urging expediency therefor. 18. Bulletin re: So You Got Elected] ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coco adjourned the meeting to a personnel session. ~ MAYOR " ERK