Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-10-77 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 10th day of January, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Center, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner McHarris. INVOCATION given by Commissioner Robbins. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: IIill, Lathrop, McIiarris, Robbins. Absent: Commissioners: Glenn. Others present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator, Community Development Director Daniel Van Dorpc, Assistant Director, Planning and Building Alan Warren, Planning Technician Scott Nichols, Deputy City Attorney Mary Ann Chamberlain, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Robbins, seconded by Lathrop, that the minutes of December 13, 1976, be a~roved. Motion carried: 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Initial 1. Use Permit 77-1 - Robert Lane To authorize the operation of a fast food drive-in restaurant facility at 14551 Newport Avenue. After the staff report was presented by Dr. Fleagle, the public hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Robert Lane, applicant on behalf of the property owner, Henry Ho, explained to the Commission the conditions listed in the staff report that had been accomplished and requested that 2c of Resolution No. ]586 be changed to read "architect" instead of "electrical engineer". Mr. Lane stated that he had no objection to the different items being reinspected by the Build- ing Department. The public hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. After some discussion among the Commissioners, it was moved by McHarris, seconded by Lathrop to approve Use Permit 77-1 by the adoption of Resolu- tion No. 1586 to include 2c to read: "2.c. That electrical plans be resubmitted by an architect showing compliance with current codes and underground- ing ordinance." Motion carried: 4-0. 2. Use Permit 76-33 - Tustin Unified School District To authorize the construction of a public works maintenance facility yard for the School District, to be located on Service Road, westerly of Red Hill Avenue. After Mr. Warren presented the staff report, thc public hearing was opened at 7:53 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes ]/10/77 Page 2 Mr. Larry Sutherland, Manager of Support Services for the Tustin Unified School District said that he first wanted to thank the Planning Commission and the City staff for the courtesy of reviewing the School District's Support Services Facility project, which will be located on District prop- erty behind the Currie Intermediate School, immediately adjacent to the City's new corporation yard on Service Road. With both projects now moving ahead, the City and School District will have adequate and suitable facil- ities for maintenance and support operations. In Fact, the two facilities will be very compatible. The District's project will be funded entirely by local property taxes paid by citizens of the School District. He stated that the comments and recommendations of the City staff were appreciated, and the District concurs with most of the recommendations and has incorporated them into the plans. These include the Fire Department suggestion regarding the extension and loop in the water line to connect to another main; this will add some $7,500 to the cost of the project, but appears to be a necessary and worthwhile expenditure. Also, automatic sprinklers are being provided for the entire building in accordance with the City's Fire Code. The plans include the landscaping, as recommended, and the materials and colors of the building exterior treatment will be compatible with the adjacent City Maintenance Yard. As for the recommend- ation of the Building Department, although legally we do not come within their cognizance or requirements, we concur that the City review plans and make inspections to assure that construction is in accordance with appli- cable laws and ordinances. We also intend to have the C~ty staff review the plans for outdoor security lighting as recommended. The Police Depart- ment recommends installation of TV monitors as additional security measures. We understand that they would be agreeable to having the monitors tied in to the City's system planned for their Corporation Yard, so that the police watch could keep the entire area under surveillance. This may be a sound recommendation, which we will investigate further as to expense, along with the other detection and alarm systems. We do not favor use of guard dogs. We have not reached a decision on this item. ~o of the recommendations we have considered and at present do not concur with: (1) the concrete block wall along the back perimeter; and (2) the truck loading area being visible from the Service Road, requiring screening. We will be reviewing further these two items, and expect to obtain a decision by the Board of Education at an upcoming meeting. Since the total cost of the School District project is being pa~d by local property owners in their taxes, we are seriously concerned about all expenditures which might be unnecessary or of questionable value. We have been planning that the back perimeter fence be chain link, since a concrete block wall, as recommended, would add about $10,000 to the total cost. We need to investigate further the report that the project is within the Flood Plain area, as designated by HUD, and, if so, whether a block wall is, in fact, required or justified. As for the location of the truck loading area, we will re-examine the other possibilities and/or explore ways to reduce visibility from the Service Road. Of course, the size and shape of the property serious].y limits the alternatives. It is also pertinent, we believe, to note that the viewers of the area will be very limited, in number, since the Service Road serves only the School and City yards, and only from a portion of the school playground will the area be visible. £f, after thorough review, we con- clude that there is no other acceptable alternative, it may be that the governing board of the School District will resolve to override the objec- tion and proceed with the project as planned. Mr. Eric Palmer, owner of the California Apartments, stated his concerns regarding the inadequate water system and vehicles parking against the boundary wall which abuts his property. Mr. Sutherland explained that schoo~ buses would be operating from this property but the hours would be no earlier ~an 7:00 a.m. and from Monday through Friday and not on weekends. Mr. Palmer stated that he felt the School District should provide for drainage protection at the westerly property wall. Planning Commission Minutes 1/10/77 Page 3 The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. After some discussion, it was moved by Lathrop, seconded by McHarris, to continue this item to the next meeting. Commissioner McHarris requested that the following items be studied further: (1) screening of the loading area; (2) fence; (3) Police Department request for more security measures. 3. Pre-zone 77-1 To prezone Irvine-Myford area from the Orange County Agriculture to the City of Tustin Planned Community District. After the staff report was presented by Dr. Fleagle, the public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Hans Vogel, Director of Administrative Services for the Tustin Unified School District, stated that he had several issues that he would like to discuss, and requested postponing this action for two weeks. Mr. Vogel informed the Commission that he had received the EIR only last week and had never had a request for any input into this EIR. He commented that he did not agree with staff's projections of enrollment for this area, and also felt that development plans should accompany this change. Since funding is so critical and such a great problem at this time, Mr. Vogel requested that the School District receive the input for this projection at the earliest possible date. Speaking against the prezoning were the following individuals: Nancy Williams, Ranchwood Road Earl Coate, Burnt Mill Road Robert Green, Wickshire Road The public ~rtion of the hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. After discussion among the Commissioners, it was moved by Lathro~, seconded by McHarris to recommend to the City Council a~roval of Pre-zone 77-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1588. Motion carried: 4-0. 4. Environmental Impact Report 76-4 An EIR for the purpose of evaluating the impact of the proposed E1 Camino Real Storm Drain project. After the staff report was presented by Dr. Fleagle, the public portion of the hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. Seeing and hearing no one, the hearing closed at 9:26 p.m. After some discussion pertaining to the completion date of the storm drain, it was moved b~ McHarris, seconded by Lathro~ to recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report 76-4 as amended, and in order to reduce adverse impacts, the Commission recommends that the storm drain be completed by June 1, 1977. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 1. ?'irst Christian Church - 2nd Phase Location: 1372 Irvine Boulevard Planning Commission Minutes 1-10-77, l~age 4 Bill IIiqham, representative of the First Christian Church, informed the Commission of the items in the staff report that have been corrected and requested that they be? allowed to use the railroad ties ~nstead of con- crete curbing. Discussion centered around the landscaping of the building, and the Com- mission requested that landscaping be provided on the easterly and south- erly side of the new building to be shown on later plans. Moved by Lathrop, seconded by Robbins to approve Phase 2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1587 with 2.b. to read: 2.5. That 6" concrete curbing shall be provided in the parking area in lieu of the existing railroad tie curbing per Development Guidel.~nes in Phase 3. ;,lOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Review of [~arking Lot Standards Commissioners Lathro~ arid :.lcHarris were appointed by the Commission to work with staff and study the present standards and report back to the Commission in a workshop session. :.4eyed by Iii]l, seconded by Robbins to defer this mat~er to a workshop ses- sion after the sub committee has investigated the standards. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 3. Final ~arcel [4a~) No. 76-83 - Walter Opp,_.applJ_c_a..n._t. [~oved by Lathrot~, seconded by McHarris to recommend to the City Council approval of Final Parcel !4ap No. 76-83. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 4. Irvine General Plan Amendment 4 Moved by Lathro~3, seconded by Robbins to continue this matter for further study. MOTION CARRI¥,D: 4-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORI~SPONDENCE - None STAFF CONCERNS ~z'. Flea$1c retorted that a workshoi~, session would be held with the City Council on January 3]., ]977 to review capital improvement plans. CO~5%~ISS ION CONCERNS Commissioner McHarris requested that his concern regarding the striping on Sycamore between Red Hill and Newport Avenues again be reviewed. Chairman Hill informed the Commission,with deep regret, that they would be voting for a new chairman at the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT [4oved by McHarris, seconded by Robbins,/t~ adjourn at ].0:25 p.m. to the next regular meeting. -~// ~ ~ ~ CIDAIh~IAN OF THE P~NNING CO~ISSION ~ iLANN~NG CO~ISSION RECORD~ING SECRETARY