Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1969 04 21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL April 21, 1969 CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Mayor pro tem Mack. ORDER II... PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor pro tem Mack. ALLEGIANCE III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Miller. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters Absent: Councilmen: Coco Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James G. Rourke City Clerk Ruth C. Poe Planning Director James Sdpinger APPROVAL OF Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Klingelhofer that minutes of MINUTES April 17, 1969 meetin~ be approveS.. Carried. VI. PUBLIC 1. APPEAL - VARIANCE NO. 69-240 HEARINGS Appeal by Tustln Meadows Community Association of the decision of the Planning Commission approving application of Alpha Beta- Acme Markets, Inc., for a variance (V 69-240) to permit two (2) free standing signs identifying a service station which is proposed to be part of a 5.7 acre commercial complex. The proposed signs are proposed to be located on the Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue frontages, having a height of 21', an area of 48 sq. ft. each side and a total area of 96 sq. ft. on each sign. Property is located at the southwest corner at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue and fronts approximately 620' on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue and 400' on the southwest side of Walnut Avenue. Hearing opened at 7:42 P.M. Mr. Supin~e__rexplained location and reported that the Planning Commission had approved two signs for Standard Oil Company at a height of 21' each and 48 sq. ft. per side. Mro Tom Woodruff, 14552 Emerywood Rd., President of Tustin ~eadows Association spoke on behalf of this Association opposing the decision of the Planning Commission granting Variance 69-240. Mr. Woodruff stated that this is a neighborhood shopping center and as such this service station does not need 2 large identification signs. They are not drawing from a freeway. He felt that the complex would need one identifying sign and there is no need for 2 more at the service Station. He questioned whether or not the decision of the Planning Commission was based on reasonable facts that strict application to the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of some privilege allowed other properties in the vicinity. In a study of stations from this property to Laguna Road-there are 18 service sta'tions. Of these, 7 have 2 pole signs. Of thesFT, 6 are contiguous to the freeway. The 7th is at Newport and Sycamore with a massive freeway sign. Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 2 Relative to square footage, the Code stipulates 150 sq. ft. of area. At the rezoning of this property the general consensus was that this center would be developed to the standards of Westcliff Plaza. The developer at that time stated it was their intention ~nd the Council indicated they were going to insist it be to these standards. The residents are not questioning the tastefu~ development, but this. is in a residential neighborhood and these signs would illuminate homes 100 ft. to 125 ft. away. Signs 21' high seem unnecessary. Until special circumstances are shown as to why this variance for 2 oversized signs should be granted, the decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed~ Mr. Ranny Draper, developer of this center, stated that they had met with the City Architectural Review Board and the Planning Director about the total development and the service station. Standard Oil Co. has been cooperative as eo design and had modified their plans to provide rear entry Iube bays. They would accept one pole sign in the radius corner similar to the sign at 17th Street and Carrol Way. This was objected to by the staff and the Board and they had been asked to present a new application. for two Chevron pin signs and not with Standard spelled outl Thirty conditions were attached to the variance approval by the Planning Commission at their hearing. These conditions would assure that intent of original zoning would be carried through. As to the glare, these signs have internal illumination and will not be a glare problem. ~r. Peter Greene, 1259 Westfall, Tustin Meadows, stated that most of the residents did not have a chance to voice their opinion at the time of the zone change as they had not moved in, but they felt this variance to be very objectionable. ~r. ~ohn Ginos, Chapman Avenue, Orange, representing Standard Oil Company, stated they have tried to make this station compatible with the area and in good taste. They have deviated from the Standard colors of red, white and blue. identity is of paramount importance and he did not feel that the sign originally applied for should have been considered objectionable. They arrived at this application through the Planning Conmission and Architectural Review Board and have worked with the City Engineer in regard to the storm drain. This signing will not be objectionable. ~F. Woodruff stated he did not believe it to be the intent of the homeowners to infer bad faith on behalf of the developer, but earnestness to get good signing. He felt that the new owner should be bound by the agreement of the original owner. There being no further objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 8:13 P.M. Councilman Miller stated that when the zoDing came before the Council, it was understood with Rinker Development that this development would be as good or better than Westcliff Plaza. The homeowners in this area are entitled to such a development or to one such as University Park. In answer to questioning by Mr. Miller, Mr. Ginos stated that the sign at the University Park station at Culver and Matthews is on Irvine Ranch and they have an exclusive. They are not competing and only one major artery. In this application tonight the station is on 2 major arteries. Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 3 Councilman Miller agreed that this center is a fine development but that the Council should uphold the appeal. Councilman Marsters stated that he agreed with Mr. Miller. When the original zoning was granted all felt that it would be -. developed ~s presented and did not feel there would be any .. additional signs. Mr. Marsters said he would not deny their right to be .seen, but felt one sign would be adequate. Conncilman Klingelhofer asked the procedure for upholding this appeal, but providing for one pole sign. 'Mr?. Rourke stated that the Council would have to modify the variance or under the Ordinance they would not be permitted any pole sign for the station. Mr. Supinger asked that the applicant confirm the following: The applicants were willing to accept one pole sign as originally applied for of 276 sq. ft. with a height of 21 ft. At the suggestion of the Planning Commission the original application was withdrawn and they applied for two signs, but they would still accept one. .Mr. Draper said that this was correct. They would accept one sign with Standard spelled out and the chevron. In answer to questioning, .Mro Supinger said a service station eonld have a maximum of 150 sq. ft. total signing including roof, pole and wall, but because this is in a complex it would require a variance. .Mr. Ginos stated they had considered one pole with two chevrons totaling 192 sq. ft. This would be cantilevered at the corner. This would be a forked pole with the chevron on each end - thus identifying the station on both street.s. # Councilman Miller felt that all most people need do is see the chevron to know it is Standard. The Council should consider what they will accept, not what the applicant will accept. How many signs and how big and how high is acceptable. A good example of visibility is Gulf Station at McFadden and Newport. The size of Gulf sign at that location is adequate. Mr. Supinger said the Gulf sign at McFadden and Newport is 17 ft. high and 6 ft. in diameter. The Sign Ordinance provides 20 ft., plus 6 inches for each 30 ft. removed from residential district. .Moved by Miller, seconded by Klingelh.ofer that the Council grant .one (I) pole sign 17 ft. in height, 36 sq. ft. each side and constructed in a manner to avoid conflict with the proposed storm drain to be constructed in the immediate area. .Mr. Ginos stated that using the Gulf sign as a guide may not be feasible; 36 ft. may fit the Gulf emblem, but not the Standard emblem as square footage is figured by the City. He said 48 sq. ft. each side is more realistic. .Councilman Mack said that 48 sq. ft. is still below the maximum for a service station. Counc'ilman Miller called for the question. Above motion carried unanimous ly. Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 4 OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 431 - First reading BUSINESS ' __ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REZONING -' PROPERTY OF THOMAS BERNATZ ON APPLICATION NO. ZC 89-192. Site fronts approximately 207'-on north side of First approximately 350' east of centerline of Prospect. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Miller that Ordinance No. 431, rezoning property of Thomas Berna~z on application No. ZC 69-192, have ~%rst readins by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 991 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 23, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT MEETINGS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND ITS COMMITTEES SHALL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. ~pved by Marsters~ seconded by Klingelhofo~ that ~esolution ~o. 991 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. ~pved by Marsters, seconded by Miller that Resolution No. 991, expressing the City Council's position relative to Assembly Bill No. 23, be p~ssed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 3. FIRE ZONE I REPORT Staff Report received. ~ouncilman Miller felt that in zoning more area in the City to ZOne I, the requirements would become the same as those in Los Angeles and Tustin really has a different situation. Councilman Mack stated that Zone I is necessary because of small parcels and the buildings built on the property line. This leads to e cluster of small buildings. The zoning is for the safety of all buildings and their neighbors. ~ouncilman Miller believed Zone II to be basically incombustible. Zone I seems out-of-character with what the City has and what they are likely to have. Realizing that this is for safety of people, what does it mean in rate reductiou. ~r. Gill stated that as we have a Fire Zone I established now, if it is taken away the Fire Rating Bureau assumes you have no fire zoning and you destroy your rating for a long time to come. If additional zones are established, the City could receive a No. 5 rating. Areas recommended for Zone I are developed areas ... such as Ralph's, Larwin Square and Tustin Heights. These were constructed pretty much to Zone I standards. C~ouncilman Klingelhofer felt that if the value of the zoning ts based strictly on a monetary gain the real value is not there. ~ief Morgan Hilton stated that in Los Angeles County all buildings over 3 stories must be built under Fire Zone I standards. This 'zoning is not only for points but to help prevent big fires - althougH"points are important. In the rating two years ago, Tustin was 69 points passed the No. 5 rating. The rate change to a No. 6 reduced the insurance rates for the Water Works by $100.00 a year. Existing buildings now put into Zone I would not have to be brought up to Zone I standards. Only the new construction on the property or new partitions if they are fire walls. Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 5 Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Klingelhofer, that existing.- Fire Zone I area be Fet~ined., and that the City Attorney be ~irected to draft the necessary ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 212 to add additional zones as shown on Exhibit 2 of Staff ~epor.t.. Carried. VIIt~ NEW 1. RESOLUTION NO. 992 BUSINESS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONSENT TO VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM YORBA STREET FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF TRACT NO. 5311. Lots 1 and 17, Tract No. 5311, are located on the southeast and northeast corners of Fourth Street and Yorba Street. Access is for development of lots 1, 16 and 17, remaining undeveloped portion of Tract 5311. Moved by Klingelhofer~' seconded by Marsters that Resolution ~o.. 992 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Miller~ seconded by Klingelhofer [hat Resolution No. 992, granting consent to vehicular access for ingress and egress to and frc~aYorba Street for the proposed development of Tract 5311, be p~ssed and adopted. Carried. RESOLUTION NO. 993 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ORANGE COUNTY CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER RELIEF PLAN. ~oved by Millerr seconded by Marsters that Resolution No 993 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Klingelhofer~ seconded by Miller that Resolution No. 993, approving Orange County Civil Defense and Disaster Relief Plan, be passed and adopted. Carried. 3. AGREEMENTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS ON RED HILL AVENUE AND SIGNAL MAINTENANCE. Moved by Millpry seconded by Marsters that agreements for Traffic Signal Installations on Red Hill Avenue ~nd for maintenance ~f~ all. ~oint-ownership traffic signals be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk authorized to execute all necessary documents. Carried. 4. FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 5849 - FOR APPROVAL Location: South side of Mitchell Avenue approximately 600' ~est of Browning Avenue. Moved by Miller, seconded by Klingelhofer that Final Map of Tract No. 5849 be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk authorized to execute the necessary documents. Carried. 5. CONTRACTURAL SERVICE FOR ENGINEERING OF THE RED HILL AVENUE - WALNUT AVENUE STORM DRAIN. Moved b~'~Klingelhofer~ seconded by Miller that the Engineerin$ proposal submitted by Williamson & Schmid, Civil Engineers, for design work on Red Hill Storm Drain be approved and accepted and ~7,000 be transferred from unappropriated reserve to account 5000. Carried. Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 6 6. APPROVAL. OF DEMANDS ~pved by, Marsters~ seconded by Klingelhofer that ~emands in the mount of $47,056.03 be ~pproved and pai~. Carried. OTHER I. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES BULLETIN BUSINESS ~r. Gill commented on AB 374 (Police'& Fire Retirement) and AB 240, SB 648 (Business License Tax) and SB 61 (Allowing cities to control topless & bottomless exhibitions and demon- strations). Mr. Gill recommended that the Council take a stand opposing AB 374,240 and SB 648, as these would all constitute inroads on home rule. ~9uncilman Miller felt that the City should take the most effective and fastest means of conveying the CoUncil's feelings on these matters. Mr. Gill said he had sent night letters opposing AB 330 and believed this had helped to defeat the bill. ~ouncilman Marsters stated that at the League Conference in San Francisco it was brought out that letters or telegrams stating reasons were more effective than resolutions. -- It was directed that the City Administrator determine the timing on legislative matters and send the Council's thoughts by letter or by night letter depending on the length of notice. ~uncilman Klingelhofer requested a report from the Chamber of ConmerGe on the local businessman's feelings on licensing outside businesses. 2.ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - EXECUTIVE MEETING, ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION - LEAGUE OF CITIES ~r. Gill referred to the item in the report concerning the Flood C~ntrol override and a previous report to the Council on this matter. ~ouncilm~n KlinMelhofer stated he did not take a stand at the Executive meeting on this matter. He disliked seeing an override without public consent, but realizes that the Flood Control people do have a problem. 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS COMMITTEE - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ~r. Gill explained that the League Board had requested that sack city respond to the questionnaire on special districts prior to --- May 1, 1969. It was the consensus of the Council that all three questions be answered in the affirmative with the qualification that the Co~ittee should receive staff support. 4. .REPORT FROM MR. GILL RE WATER CONSULTANTS Report received and a workshop/interviews with consultant firms was se~for Wednesday, May 7, 1969, beginning at 6:30 P.M. and scheduling firms for interviews of approximately 45 minutes each° Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 7 5.CHAMBER REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC AND SPEED ZONE STUDY BY THE COUNTY ON FIRST STREET Mr. Gill explained that the County Road Department needs the concurrence of the City before they can act on the request -- of the Chamber. This study would be for First Street from -~ Prospect Avenue to the Newport Freeway. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Miller that the City request a study of First Street by the County Road Department. Councilman Klingelhofer felt that this should he done by City staff. Above motion carried, CouncilmAn KlinKelhofer voting no. 6. FACT SHEET ON VARIANCES, USE PERMITS, ETC. Councilman Marsters requested that the Planning Department make up a tote sheet relative to locations of variances and signs granted, to be used as a basis for comparison and that at hearings slides of existing signs be available. 7. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ~. Gill stated that the washed out railroad bridge is not being repaired° The contract for improvement of the signal at Nex~ort mnd Main has been modified to eliminate any railroad signalizatlon. All other signals have been removed and placed in storage. Southern Pacific cannot approve the removal of the tracks until approved by.PUC. 8. RESOLUTION COMMENDING JOHNNY JOHNSON Councilman Mack asked that a resolution be prepared by the City Attorney commending Johnny Johnson~ who is now serving on the Federal Civil Service Commission, for jobs well done for the City, State and Federal Goverranentso 9. REPORT ON TNT COMMITTEE PROGRESS - C. GREENWOOD Councilman Marsters commented on Mr. Greenwood's request for any suggestions or direction the Council might haye for continually improving the effectiveness of the Committee. 10. SIGN ORDINANCE HEARING Moved by Klingelhofer~ seconded by Marsters that hearin8 on proposed revised Sign Ordinance, before the Planning Commission, be set for May 12~ 196~.._ Carried. 11. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - MAYORS AND COUNCILMEN Councilman Marsters reported that this was an extremely en- lightening conference with top State people taking part° Many excellent well-attended sessions were held. He hoped that in the future more Councilmen ~ould find it possible to attend. THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: 1. Pr6'~osed dissolution of the Orange County Harbor District - Richard Turner - Executive Officer, Local Agency Formation Commission. Council Minutes 4/21/69 Pg. 8 2. Replacement of Frozen Trees - Director of Public Works. 3. Notice of Orange County Division of League of California Cities General Meeting. '"' 4. Quarterly Report - Tustin Chamber of Commerce. " 5. Activi[y Summary for March - Tustin Police Department. 6. Three letters of commendation to the Tustin Police Department. 7. Letter of appreciation for telegFam re AB 330 - Thomas Willoug~by, Committee Consultant. 8. ResOlution urging construction of flood control projects - City of Stanton. X. ADJOURN- Moyed by Miller~ seconded by Klingelhofer that meetin~be MENT adjourned to a personnel session. Carried. ' MAYOR PRO TEM