Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1966 07 05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JULY 5, 1966 CALL TO - Meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by ~{ayor ORDER Mack. II. PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Mack. III. ROLL Present: Councilmen: ~'Iack, Ktingelhofer~ Coco, CALL ~iiller, Ring. Absent: Councilmen: None. Others Present: City AdminiStrator, Harry Gill City Attorney; James Rourke City Clerk~ Ruth Poe Ptannmng Director, James Supinger IV. APPROVAL ~oved by Coco, seconded by ~iller~ that Minu~es as OF MINUTES corrected by the City Clerk be a~roved.' Carrme~ V. PUBLIC 1. PRE-Z0NING - PASADENA AVE ANNEXATION PROPERTY HEARINGS To consider pre-zoning of property within the Pasadena Avenue 3nlnexation losa~ed on the eas~ side of Pasadena Avenue~ approximately 935 feet north of }icFadden Street, ~o R-3, effective only if proper~y ms annexed ~o the City of Tustin. Hearing opened at 7:36 P.M. A staff repor~ was presented by Mr. Supmnger with recommendations from the Pla~aing Commission that this prcper~y be zone~ R-2 (Duplex Residential). ZTr. FilliamArnold, 15631 Riyrtle Avenue~ spoke in opposition of the bullfling of more apartments in this area~ and especially of ~wo s~ory apartments adjacent zo the R-1 residential homes. Er. Arnold also s~ated tha~ the apartments on Pasadena had already crea~ed a parking problem. ~irs. Fos~er~ 15601 ~,iyrtle Avenue~ spoke against two szory units~ parking problems crea~ed by apartments, and the density of the twenty-eight units planned by Mr. Thoner. Mrs. A. Edwards 1561! ~.iyrtle Avenue~ concurred with both ~Ir. A~no!d and Lira. Foster~ ~ad felt that two story apartmen'~s would be an invasion of the privacy cf 'tLs adjoirj~4~ home ouTlers. 0ouncil ~.Tinutes 7/~/66 Pg. 2 Mr. G. Smith. representing the developer, jack Thenet, s~ate~ tnar][ir. ~honer never intended twenty-eight units. The original plaa was for eleven~ three bed- room units, but it had been brought ~o their atten- tion that three bedroom units were not the thing ~o build. One bedroom tunics are more successful and more units of smaller size are more financially feasible, and they do no~ add to the density or to the school age bracket. Understanding the objections to the loss of privacy~ more s~udy had helen given ~o the develepment and they are willing tp hold one s~ory units on the rear 110 feet adja'cent to the R-1 developmenz. The question arose as ~o wha~ would be done with the cars from ~wenzy-zwo, one bedroom units with a one car garage, when a majority of the zenants would have two cars. It was explained that the Zoning Ordins~me called for one and a half parking spaces per tLnit, which it was fel~ would provide adequate off-s~ree~ parking for the ~enan~s. There being no further objections or commen~s the hearing was declared closed at 7:50 P.ii. Councilmac Ring s~atel that the R-1 residences were there before the apartments anti zoning He sta~ed he vmld no~ like ~wo s~ory apartments behind his house s~nd asked if ll0 fee~ was far enough not ~o invade privacy. ~Ir, Supinger sai~ this would no~ preclude privacy completely, bnt would lesson the problem. Upon questioning by Mr. Coco as ~o how R-2 Zoning came before the Planning Comnission, ~t was stated that the proper~y to th~ south ms zoned R-2 and is one story apartments. P;Irs, Edwards felt tha~ it should be uniform and that there is no point in one thing one place, and no~ another with the same circumstances. ~Tayor ~.gack asked if anyone was present representing ~Tr. Calabreso~ the ovmer of a single family residence on Pasadena, and was told there was no~. Councihan DITiller cormnen~ed tha~ Planned Development Zoning is the only zone tha~ prohibits two s~ory multiple housing closer than l~0 feet. ~.ir. Supinger said this proper~y was ~oc small for Planned Develop- men~ Zoning~ where upon ~,'.-~r. ~iller asked if there was any good vehicle ~o insure the ll0 feet setback that Nr. Thenor suggested. The City Attorney informed the Council tha~ the City can impose this restriction, but that it is a questionable procedure. Deed restrictions cs_n be placed on propor~y~ but it is a question as ~o who cam or: ~,ro s iqr:.~ lourke also explained that if the properT:l "' ~'~;] ff ~nd the now ov~qers aid - ~- ~_ ne doubted li at_,', Council Minutes 7/~/66 Pg. 3 Mr. Supinger stated that other than the small R-2 parcel To the south most of the immediate area on Pasadena is under R-3 Standards. ~-2 Zoning provides for 3~500 square feet per dwelling, and could bs Two stories~ R-4 Zoning is 3,000 square feet per unit. Under the ~resent County Zoning the developer could build Eleven, two story units. Councilman Ring s~ated he still maintained he is not in favor of R-2 Zonmng and that the property should remain R-4 Zoning as it comes from the County. IS was felt that the primary objection of the home o~~ers was the two story development an~ if ~roperty is improved under the R-~ Zone, there !s no assurance tha~ two story structures would no~ come v~thin five feet of the R-1 residences. ~Trs. Edwards stated that if the pro~ect is built to the property line, this would rob the residential owners of sunlight~ which she believes is against County regulations, Councilmar~ Coco said he felt there would not be on-street parking as the City Zoning calls for one and one-half spaces per unit. Mr. Coco stated he was in favor of some sort of P. D. Restriction, and of the Council granting R-3 Zoning~ and accept- ing the condition of 150 feet setback for two story units adjacent to the R-1 property. Mr. Thenet stated he could accept 150 fee~ in lieu of ll0 feet as stated in his letter. Mrs. Edwards said there would be absolutely no objections to the 150 feet limit for ~wo stories. Eoved by Coco, seconded by Ring~ that pre~zone of subject property on Pasadena Avenue ~o R-3 Zone~ be approved effective on completion of annexation of this proper~y~ on condition of execution of agree- ment suitabXe to the City Attorney, and that there be no two story construction within 150 feet of the rear property line. ~oved by Nillet, seconded by Coco~ that there be a Recorded Declaration containing ~wo story restric- tions. Pre-Zone Ordinance should contain the limita- tions. Carried by Roll Call. Votes Ayes: Mack~ Klingelhofer, Coco~ ~Tiller, Ring~ Noes: None Absent: None Original motion approving R-3 Zoning, carried by Roll Call. Votes Ayes: Mack Coeo~ Miller~ Ring~ Noes: Council ~{inutes 7/~/66 ~g. 4 2. PASADENA AVENUE ANNEXATION Proposed annexation To the City of Tustin of 1.28 acres~ located on the eas~ side of Pasadena Avenue approximately 935 feet north of ZtcFadden. Hearing opened aT 8:29 P.~.~. The City Clerk reported there had been no written protests received. Bit, Arnold of ~iyrtle Street,spoke in favor of this annexation. There being no objections or further comments~ the hearing was declared closed at 8:30 P.~i. Mayor Mack declared that a majority protest had no~ been filelo ~Toved by Coco~ seconded by Ring, that Ordinance No. 315~ approving the annexation of certain un- inhabited territory, designated Pasadena Avenue Annexation, have first reading by title only. Carried unanmmoustyo 3. ZONE CHANGE 66-151 - CHARLES GREENWOOD ,~.~ ~ change of zone from C-~ vath accompanying front building setback from cen- terline of Fourth Street of 110 feet to C-1 ~with afront building setback from centerline cf Fourth Street of 65 feet. Property located on the south side of Fourth Street and having a depth of approximately 190 feet, beginning at Pros~ec~ Avenue.an8 continuing eas~ for approximately 632 feet. Hearmng opened aT 8:33 P.I.i. A staff report ~d recommendations from the Planning Commission for approval of this zone change, ~resented by Rir. Supingot. Mr. Co Greenwood spoke in his o~l behalf saying that he felt this present setback was excessive and was originally pu~ forth ~o prohibit a Service Station. Now with other restrictions governing Service Stations~ he feels justified in requesting this change. At the present time he is limited ~o use of land due ~o setback. Setback for other pro- per~y on Fourth SZreet allows buildings on front of property and parking mn the rear. ~r.' Greenwood also stated he did not feel he was asking for any- thing tunusual for a setback on a primary Hi&hwayo There being no further comments and no objections the hearing was declared closed at 8:37 P.~I. l~oved by Coco, seconded by Ring~ that the City Attorney be directed ~o draft an Ordinance approv- Vote Ayes: ~ack~ [tingelhofer~ Qoco~ ~ller, Hing. Noes: None Absent: None Cotuqcil ~iinutes 7/~/66 Pg- 4. SERVICE STATION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS To consider adoption of a ~olicy related l~nimum Site Developmen~ Standards regulating Servmce Station Development in the City of ~ustin~ Hearing opened az 8:40 P.Li. There being no objections or connnents~ the hear- ing was declared closed at 8:41 Po~. Councilmar_ ~iller questioned the fact that he be- lieved the previous standards had some guide lines as to ~he number and proximity of szations in a single block an l was d~sappointed that the Planning ~nm~sign.~ad apparently dismissed this. ~e ~oxmmz~y ~o residences and number o~ He -stations per block should be considered. 1,Zr. Gill lurch-ned the Council that this m~ght not be considered the proper spo~ but could be a con- dition considered in a Use Permit. ~r. Gill fel~ it difficu!~ to arrive a'~ meaningful language that woul~ be feasible in all situations. It may be tha~ s~andards of so many per block could be se~ ~dth a condition that the Planning Commissmon could modify any of the conditions. Councilman Ring felt tha~ if the s~andards of Ser- vice Stations are up graded through this Policy, then we have accomplished the reasons for its adop- tion. Upon questioning~ 1.~r. Supinger sta~ed that ~estern Gas and 0il has no objections to the bulk of this Policy. They felt tha~ the big battle had been lost with the requirement for Use Permits. 1.ft. ~iiller felt this to be really a Planning Connnissmon Policy Standard Guide. lit. Coco said he would like ~o see the title changed from "Service Station D,iinimum Si~e Development Standards" to "Service Station ~Zinimum Site Develop- men~ PoXZ~y Guide". Zioved by Ring~ seconded by Klingelhofer~ that the "Service Station ~Iinim~n Si~e Devetopmen~ Policy ~ide", be adopted. Carried by Roll Call. Vote Ayes= ~,~ack~ Klingelhofer, Coco~ Miller~ Ring. Noes= None Absent: lierio It was brought forth that due to the adoption of the Sign 0rdinance~ page 2 will be modified to in- clude the revised standards~ad the section on page 4 regarding minimum building sites.and lot widths will be revised. Council ~.{inutes 7/S/66 PC. 6 5. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85 - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE To consider an amendment To Ordinance No. 85~ Subdivismon Ordinance, To provide for the hold- ing of a -Public Hearing before the City Planning Commission on all Tentative Subdivision liaps. Hearing otened aT 8:57 P.tT. ~,ir. Supinger presented recommendations from the Plannmng Commission, that Drdin~nce No. 85 be amended to require a Public Hearing before the Planning . Commission on all tentative subdivision maps. A written repor~ and recommendations fro~ Er. Vieslock was presented. ~ir. ~Ziller sta~e~ that he agreed with ~iro!Vjheetock~ that this ma~er be haadted administrativeely. It was ths opinion of the Council that formal hearings are not necessary but that adjacen~ property ovmers should be notifie~ v~en a ~en~ative map cbmes before the Con~issmon. The Council also felt that tenta- tive maps shoul~ be heard by the CommissiOn onty~ and only final maps would come before the Council. P.~ove8 by Z~iller, seconded by Coco, that the ~ty Administrator draft procedure to handle this matteT. administratively a~d submi~ ~o the Council. Carried. VI. OLD 1. 0RDINANCE NO. 305 - SECOND READING BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION, ALTERA- TION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF ADVERTISING SIGNS AND THEIR SUPPORTS ~Toved by Klingelhofer~ seconded by Ring~ that Ordinance ~o. 305~ have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. ' Moved by Rin~, seconded by Coco~ that Ordinance ~o. 305~ regn~lating the cons~ruc~ion~ erec~ion~ altera- tion, repair ~qd maintenance of advertising signs their suppor~s~ be oassed and adopted. Carried by Roll Call. ' Vote Ayes: ~iack~ Klingslhofer, Coco ~iller Ring. ~oes: None Absent: None 2. 0RDINANCE NO. 313 - FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 4-23 TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE, REGULATING TRHE KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA: Coinoil '7/~/6'6 2g. ~ ~he Council discussed the control of domestic animals such as cats, dogs~ ezco as well as other facets of this proposed Ordinance, and felt that further -- study and investigation of similar Ordinances of other Cities should be made for presentation at the nexz regular meeting~ ~iayor Mack ordered a continuation of this matter for study and revisions To be presented at the next meeting. 3. 0RDINANCE NO. 314 - SECOND READING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL BILLIARD AND POOL HALLS IN THE C-2-P ZONE ~ioved by ~iiller~ seconded by Coco, that Ordinance No. 314~ have second readin~ by title onlI. Carried unanimously. }.ioved by ~.Iiller, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Ordinance no. 31~ providing standards for off-street parking requirements for all billiard and pool halls mn the C-2-P Zone, be passed and adopted. Carried by Roll Call. Vote Ayes: ~iack, Klingelhofer,-- Coco, ~iiller~ Ring. Noes: none Absent: None VII. NEW 1. RESOLUTION N0. 834 BUSINESS A RESOLUTION 0F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0F TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA PETITIONING THE BOARD 0F SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CANCEL TAXES. l~toved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Resolu- tion No. 83a be read by title only. Carried u~anm- mously. Moved by Klin~e!hofer~ seconded by Ring~ that solution No. 83~! petitioning the Board of SupS- visors of the Comnty of Orange ~o cancel ~axes, be passed ~d adopted. Carried by Roll Call. Vote Ayes: ~iack~ Klingelhofer,.Coco~ ~Ziller~ Noes: None -- .?egg z'~S DU~,7 ' Council l!{inutes Y/[/66 Pg. 8 Recommendations for a suggested Ordinance covering Household 0ccupations~ was presenzed from the Ptarm. ing Commission. lit. Gill statel that this type of Ordinance would clarify the types of home occupations allowed in residential dist~ictso At the presenz time any home occupation is illegal according to the Zoning 0rdinalce. ~,Iro Gill also stated that this would enable the City To issue licenses for home occupa- tions. This could be teen care of in the Business License Ordinance itself~ with perhaps some modifi- cation to requirements for cerzain occupations such as baby sitting~ ironmug, etc. Qaestions arose as To household help~ use of more than one room~ and definitions of ~ypes of household ocDupations ~o be allowed. It was brought out that this 0rdinancs was not to be res~rictive~ but ~o specify what is to be permitted and would allow all those businesses that are no~ a detrimen~ to surromnding neighborhoods. Also tha~ it would no~ apply zo househol~ help. },ioved by Klingelhofe2~ seconded by Ring~ that the Council accept the Household 0ccu~azion ReDor~ ix~ !rinci~le and tha~ the Plannin~ CSmm~ssion proceed in this matter° Carried. 3. .PHASE III OF GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM Request from Plamming Commission for auzhori- za~ion ~o proceed v~th Phase III of the Generan Plan Program. - ticred by Ring~ seconded by ~iller~ that the City ~nd County staffs be authorized %o proceed with Phase III of the General Plan Program. Carried 4, APPROVAL OF DEMANDS l~oved by Ring~ seconded by Klingelhofer tha~ Demands mn the amoun~ of ~54~232o9a be apDroved and ~aid, ~arrisdo VIII, REPORTS & ~he followmug reports were received by the Council~ 0THER BUSINESS 1. Newsle~er 2. Building ~ermit ~epor~ for the month of June~ 1966. 3, Fire Depar~men~ Repor~ for the month of ~iay~ 1966, IX, CORRES- Following Correspondence received - no action taken PONDENCE 1. Departmenz of Alcoholic Beverage 2. ~Ietropolitar~ ~a~er Distric~ 3. irvine Corporation Council 5Iinu~es 7/~/66 Pg. 9 ~ir. Ring took special notice of the letter from the League of California 0ities~ congratulating }.{r. Gill on the City Budget which will be included in the League Library. X. ADJOURN-- Eayor Mack declared the meeting adjourned to a MENT Personnel Session. Present:Conncilmen, City Administra~or~ City At~orneX~ City Clerk. ZToved by ~liller, seconded by Coco, that the meeting be adjourned. Carried. C~TY CLERK