Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1968 12 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL December 16, 1968 I. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. CALL TO ORDER II. Led by Mayor Coco. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. Given by Councilman Mack. INVOCATION IV. Present: Councilmen: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer ROLL Miller, Marsters CALL Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry E. Gill City Attorney James G. Reurke City Clerk Ruth C. Poe Planning Director James Supinger V. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that minutes APPROVAL of December 2nd meeting be approved as mailed. Carried. OF MINUTES VI. 1. ZC 68-183 of G. L. LEWIS ENTERPRISES, INC. PUBLIC HEARINGS Application of G. L. Lewis Enterprises Inc. for rezoning (ZC 68-183) of approximately 0.77 acres of land from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District. Site fronts 150 ft. on the east side of Mountain View Drive, approximately 300 ft. north of the centerline of First Street. Hearing opened at 7:32 P.M. Mr. Supinger explained location and presented the Planning Commission's recommendations for denial. Mr. G. L. Lewis, applicant, of 550 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, spoke on his own behalfr showing a map of the area and stating that with the R-3 zoning presently in the area this rezoning would not create an island. Mr. Lewis stated that he would be willing to set specia~ conditions on the rezoning including one garage and one car space per unit, architectural control, street widening and bringing in of adequate water facilities. He is asking for R-3 on a 150' parcel which ms not substandard as a 70' frontage is required by the City. Mr. Lewis made reference to a petition previously submitted of those area residents in favor of this zoning. Mr. Lewis asked that this zoning be considered entirely separate from Hearing No. 2, ZC 68-1~4 of Attebery. He also stated that as he had not been at the last hearing before the Planning Commission and therefore could not present all the facts, he would not have any opposition to this matter being referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Glenn Burres, 130 Mountain View, stated that the only names on the petition in favor of this zone change are those involved an getting rid of their property. The three owners across from this property are opposed to the change because of small Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 2 lots, narrow street and with the existing trailer park there is already a traffic and parking problem. This development would put apartments on a strictly residential street and would be very poor planning. Mr. Lewis stated that the petition in favor of this zoning does not include those involved in this transaction. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 7:58 P.M. In answer to questioning by the Council, Mr. Supinger stated that this matter had been referred back to the Planning Commission at the September 16th Council meeting at the request of the applicant. The Tustin City Study was presented to the Commission November 25th and will be taken under consideration at the December 123rd meeting. The Economic Study is still at the point of interviewing consultants. The staff recommendation in the report was for R-2 zoning for this area. Mr. Supinger said it is his understanding the proposed development covers only 100' of the total 150' of proposed zoning. Mr. Lewis stated they are using only the northerly 100 ' the small 50' portion is a portion of the trailer court and this zone change would be in keeping with this court. The piece to be developed is 100' X 256' and does not include the trailer park. In answer to further questioning Mr. Lewis stated he would be willing to consider any practical approach of less than R-3. Mr. Supinger said there had been no discussion of lower density except in the Tustin City Study. Councilman Miller felt that there are several questions that shculd be answered. Some overall plan with consideration of street widths and water supply. A lot of the residents have been here for years and are worried about zoning and development. Mr. Miller did not feel that either the Commission or the Council are ready to decide, at this time, what is best for the future of the community. This is too piecemeal and the area should be considered as a block. ~ayor Coco felt that studying the overall plan as the ideal approach but was concerned with the timing of such a plan. The applications for zoning are coming in with increasing frequency and we are not getting any closer to this ideal plan. Councilman Miller felt that more effort must be put into accomplishing a plan by a certain time. Time and money must be budgeted for this area. He did not feel that either R-2 or R-3 take into consideration the wishes of a great number of people living in this area. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 3 Councilman Klingelhofer stated that the Council had best meet with the Planning Commission and devote some sessions to this Tustin Town Study immediately. Mayor Coco stated that the interests in this area can be divided into two groups. The residents and the developers. It is up to the City to take the leadership role and find in favor of one group or the other or decide on zoning such as Planned Development with conditions for parking, architectural control, etc. to benefit both groups. Councilman Mack suggested that the Council consider deferring any action in this matter to the Council's second meeting in January and request ~that the Planning Commission present some answers to the recommended City Study to the Council by the first meeting in January. Mayor Coco suggested a meeting with the Commission the third Thursday of January & said this seemed to be agreeable with Commissioners he had talked to. After further discussion as to timing, needs, importance of the Town Study and the Economic Base Study, and the hiring of a consultant, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Marsters that the City Administrator be directed to report at next regular meeting on the cost and time of hiring a consultant to give a study of Downtown area that the Council can use as a guide in the request before the Council. Moved by Mack, seconded by Klingelhofer that motion be amended to include that the request of G. L. Lewis be referred back to the Planning Commission with a synopsis of this meeting's tape for consideration at the next meeting. MotiOn carried. Mr. Miller voting no. Original motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rourke stated that the Commission would have to set this zoning application for a hearing. This date could be determined at their next meeting. 2. ZC 68-184 OF T. V. ATTEBERY Application of T. V. Attebery on behalf of 16 property owners for rezoning (ZC 68-184) of approx- imately 4.5 ac~es of land from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District. Site comprises a majority of the block bounded by First; Pacific, Third, and Myrtle Streets. A more complete description is on file in the Planning Department office. Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. ~r. Supinger explained the location and presented the Plannin~ Commission's recommendation for denial. Mr. Supinger also informed the Council that two lots have been withdrawn from this application at the request of the owners. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 4 Councilman Marsters stated he wished to abstain from any discussion on this application and left his Council seat, Mr. Rourke ruled that anyone on the C6uncil who wishes to abstain, may do so. The following persons spoke regarding this change: Ernest Beckman, 665 West Third Street, stated that the old residents should be consulted. The sewer lines and water pressure are inadequate. Increase in traffic, Apartments will make this the jungleland of Tustin. Mr. Torres, 695 West Third Streetr stated he had withdrawn from the application when he understood this would bring the road in close to his house. He would rather it remain R-1. Mr. T. V. Attebery, 155 Myrtle, stated that they have some long lots and asked if the Council could help them do something with them. Mr, Webb, 185 South Pacific, stated he had bought his property and redeveloped it as R-1 and would not have done so if he thought the zoning would change. Mr. J. Hunter, 180 Pacific, stated he is planning on retaining his residence and likes the long lot and is for keeping the R-1 zoning. Mr. Bob Hall, Realtor at 370 West First Street, felt that a higher density such as Planned Development could be compatible with those in the area who wish to keep their homes. Two or three of these long lots could be added together to make a parcel for a nice residential Planned Development. Mr. Hall felt these could be a feasible solution and that something should be done for those owners wishing to sell. In answer to questioning, Mr. Supinger stated that lots 22, 23, 24, and 14, 15, 16 are zoned R-1. Lots 10, 11, 19, 20 and the four lots directly behind the lots fronting on First Street are zoned R-3. Mr. Knight, 165 Myrtle (Lot 13) stated his thought when he signed for this zone change was that he might put one house on the back ~f his lot and that most of his n~ighbors seemed to have the same idea and were not thinking of building apartments. Mr. Knight said he would leave it in the hands of the Commission and the Council but would like to see it possibly zoned R-2. Mr. Collar of Pacific Street (Lot 23) stated he ~as not in favor of apartments but would like to see the property zoned to permit a second house on a lot. Mr. Beckman, spoke at length as to the number of residents opposed to this zone change and felt Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 5 that consideration should be given to the longtime area residents. He agreed with the idea for a Planned Community. Mr. William Moss, 215 South Myrtle (Lot 18) stated that they had requested R-3 but that they did not have the building of apartments in mind and would be happy with either R-3 or R-2 zoning. Mr. Moss suggested that the Council wait for more information before a quick decision is made as this will effect the town in the future, but that you can't stop growth. As to water and fire hydrants this too would have to be changed. Mr. Moss suggested that some criteria for building be set and map made so that everyone knows what is going to happen to the town rather than letting areas like this sit until somebody wants a rezoning. Something should be done about this area instead of putting it off, year in and year out. Miss Blaylock of 675 West Third Street said she was representing her father and speaking in opposition of this zone change. Mr. Beckman commented on the need for updated maps and owners lists obtained from the Assessor's office. After further comments on the residential character of the neighborhood and the petitions submitted, Mr. Beckman urged the Council to deny this applicatio] for R-3 zoning. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 9:15 P.M. Councilman Miller stated that the discussion held on the previous property applies with equal logic to this application. Moved by Miller, seconded by Klingelhofer that this area be included in the proposal of cost and time to hire a consultant to give a study of the Downtown area, that the Council has asked the staff to present at the next regular meeting and that this application be deferred and referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration and to include transcripts of the minutes. Motion carried, Mr. Marsters abstained. Mayor Gcco declared a recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 3. ZC 68-188 6F MARY BROOMELL Application of Mary Broomell for rezoning (ZC 68-188) of a parcel totalling 2.3t'acres as follows: Parcel 1 fronting 164' on the north side of 17th Street and 150' on the west side of Yorba Street from the PD-3500 (Planned Development 3500 sq. ft. per unit and lot area) District to the C-2 (Central Commercial) District. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 6 Parcel 2 - fronting 16~' on the south side of Medford Avenue and 470' on the west side of Yorba Street from the PD-3500 (Planned Development 3500 sq. ft. per unit and lot area) District to the R-3 1900 (Multiple Family Residential 1900 sq. ft. per unit and lot area) District. Subject property is adjacent to and east of the Ralph's Shopping Center. Hearing opened at 9:30 P.M. Mr. Supinger explained location of subject property and Planning Commission recommendations for approval. Mr. Mel Cohen, attorney representing Foodmaster Incorporated, operators of Jack-In-The-Box, presented plot plans and renderings for development of Parcel No. 1. Mr. Cohen stated that as 17th Street is a primary highway with a traffic count of 24,000 cars daily and Yorba Street a main artery, the P.D. zoning is unrealistic. C-2 is a natural extension of th~ present Commercial Development to the west. The architectural design will be compatible with the existing buildings. The building will seat 52 people and the operation is of a family type and no liquor will be served. Petitions in opposition to this zone change application were presented by Mr. Jack Simmons, Mr. Felix Barsanti Jr., Mr. E. Dyer, Mr. Robert Kin, Mr. Eugene Gott. The following spoke in opposition of this zone change application: Mr. Jack Simmons, 1744 Bonner Dr. Mr. Felix Barsanti Jr., 13772 Palace Way Mr. E. Dyer, 13672 Yorba St. Mr. Robert Kin, 13781 Palace Way Miss Ona Lee Elliott, 13631 Yorba St. Mr. George Brewer, 13791 Palace Way Mr. Roy Fletcher, 13832 Fairmont Way Mrs. Roy Fletcherr 13832 Fairmont Way Mr. Richard Randallr 13751 Fairmont Way Mr. L. Conrady, 13761 Palace Way Mrs. L. Conrady, 13761 Palace Way Mr. L. Sinclair, Laurie Lane Mr. Eugene Gott, 13811 Palace Way Reasons given in opposition by the above named residents were: 1) Detrimental to land values in the residential areas. 2) Increase in traffic flow. 3) Parking problems. 4) Driveway cuts at intersection. 5) Increase in children in the area due to apartment house which will have inadequate green area and recreation facilities. 6) Added Police and Fire problems. 7) Noise, dirt and litter from ~he Jack-In-The-Box. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 7 Mr. Jack Thoner, builder-developer, Fourth Street, Tustin spoke in behalf of the application and stated that it was not economically feasible to build under the P.D. 3500 and that R-3 1900 will not bring in any more children. Mr. R. Harvey, representing Foodmaster Inc., spoke in behalf of proposed Jack-In-The-Box and read portions of correspondence from other cities and companies commending the operation and maintenance of Jack-In-The-Box restaurants in their areas. Mr. Harvey stated he felt this to be a compatible use to this area and conforEsto the General Plan. In answer to questioning regarding the effect of petitions and number of residents protesting, Mayor Coco stated that petitions are extremely helpful and important but they are not the sole basis of decision. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 10:30 P.M. Councilman Marsters stated that he is concerned about commercial on Seventeenth Street and felt the original zoning of FD-3500 was the best for the area. He felt that an apartment project of some sort could be developed but that the Jack- In-The-Box could be a kickoff for anything and would create congestion. He was concerned with C-2 on the corner and felt that professional building might be the solution. Councilman Klingelhofer stated that the General Plan is not a precise plan and shows a black blob at this corner and could be commercial. He, therefore, took exception to the County saying that this zoning would be against the General Plan. Dr. Klingelhofer also stated that he lives in this region south of Santa Clara and two houses from Yorba Street and did not feel this zoning would be objectionable or that a Jack-In-The-Box would be so adverse as to make his home an objectionable place to live. The apartments would be a bufEer against Ralph's Center and that PD-3500 does not seem to be economically feasible. Councilman Mack stated that he felt that the County breached the buffer of PD-3500 when they zoned the parcel east of Yorba to the professional zone which in the County allows commercial uses. In answer to q~estioning Mr. Supinger said that Count5 professional does allow certain commercial uses such as a beauty salon. Mayor Coco explained the makeup of the General Plan Committee and stated that the aim was to preserve and protect this fine residential community and tc locate tax base in non-interference. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 8 Mr. Supinge~ stated that this application for multiple could be zoned PC-R-3-19D0 which would then require a Use Permit and would give the maximum amount of architectural control and be added assurance that property owners could inspect plans and express opinions. This would also be true i.f C-2 area was zoned PC-C-2; although, a Jack-In-The-Box would require a Use Permit in any event. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Mack that Zone Change 68-188 as presented be approved with the exception of a PC-R-3-1900 zoning for the northern portion and PC-C-2 zoning for the southern portion. Councilman Marsters stated he would have to vote for denial as he feels very strongly on use of the corner property. Councilman Miller felt that one unit per 1900 sq. ft. to be too high a densitY. Moved by Miller that motion be amended to'zone northern portion PC-R-3-3000. MOtion failed for lack of second. Original motion by Councilman Klingelhofer carried by roll call vote. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer. Noes: Miller, Marsters. Absent: None. VII. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 425 2nd reading OLD BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. ZC 68-187 Rezoning a parcel of land with an area of approx- imately 2.5 acres from the U (Unclassified) District to the R-3-1750 (Multiple Family Residential, 1 unit per 1750 sq. ft. of lot area) District. Subject parcel is a portion of a 13.5 acre parcel fronting 625 ft. on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue and 910 ft.-on the southwest side of Walnut Avenue. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. 425 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 425, rezoning property on Application No. ---- ZC 68-187, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters. VIII. 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK NEW TO EXECUTE A STREET IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENT BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD-PACIFIC CORPORATION ON WALNUT AND BROWNING. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 9 Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Mack 1. that the budgeted project for the improvement of Walnut Avenue from Browning easterly to the railroad tracks be deferred to the next fiscal year, and the budgeted Gas Tax Funds of $15,400 for this project be used for the improvement of Walnut and Browning as described in the reimburse- ment agreement with the Standard-Pacific Corporation, and the remainder of funds be used for the additional costs of improvement of signals at McFadden and Newport and the widening of Main Street at Witliams and 2. that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with Standard-Pacific Corporation for reimbursement of street improvement costs on Walnut and Browning Avenues at an estimated cost to the City of $11,100 from Gas Tax Funds. Carried. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL IMPROVEMENTS ON TRACT NO. 6479 AND EXONERATION OF BONDS (Tustin Meadows Sycamore and Red Hill - Second Unit) Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that the final improvements in Tract No. 6479 be accepted and the City Clerk authorized to exonerate the bonds upon receipt of the $65z000 faithful performance bond from the Grant Company.' Carried. 3. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by Mack, seconded by Marsters that demands in the amount of $140,712.68 be approved and paid. Carried. IX. 1. APPROVAL OF LEAVES OF ABSENCE OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Gill presented a report on Leave approvals. Mayor Coco directed that Mr. Gill prepare a policy covering this matter as per report with the exceptions that Councilmen or Commissioners who intend to be absent will notify the Mayor or Chairman, as appropriate, either directly or through the City Clerk or Secretary, and that leaves of absence for the City Administrator of three days or less will be approved by the Mayor; over three days will require approval by the City Council~ 2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMPENSATION SURVEY Councilman Marsters requested that Mr. Gill make a survey of compensation of Planning Comalissioners throughout Orange County and that maps and radius lists for hearings be upgraded. Council Minutes 12/16/68 Pg. 10 Mr. Gill'stated that the hearing information would dovetail in with the current fee schedule study. 3. NATIONAL INVITATION SPEECH TOURNAMENT Request for financial aid for sending three students and an advisor to this tournament to be held in Pittsburgh, Penn. December 31st - January 5th was referred to the Chamber of Commerce with the suggestion that they contact local service clubs for assistance in this matter, The following correspondence and reports received: 1. Rezoning Red Hill and Irvine - Harry S. Rinker. 2. Minutes of November 14, 1968 meeting of Orange County Division, League of California Cities. 3. Activity Summary - Tustin Police Department. 4. Activity Summary - Tustin Building Department. 5. A.I.P. Newsletter - Jim Supinger. 6. Resolution ET-1115 - Publi~ Utilities Commission. 7. Resolutions re closing border to minors City of Brea, City of E1 Segundo, and City of Newport Beach (referred to Police Chief). 8. Application for rate change for Southern Counties Gas Co. Public Utilities Commission. 9. Resolution commending Dr. Hayakawa - City of San Clemente. 10. Rate changes Western Union Telegraph Co. X. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that meeting ADJOURN- be adjourned to a personnel session. Carried. MENT MAYOR CITY' CL~RK '~