Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-10-96 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COMMISSIONER VANDAVEER INVOCATION - COMMISSIONER KASALEK ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Marjorie Kasalek, Chairwoman Lou Bone, Vice Chairman Nanette Lunn David Vandaveer Howard Mitzman Staff Present: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Barbara Reyes, Planning Commission Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: No one from the audience addressed the Commission. 1. Minutes of the May 28, 1996 Planninq Commission Meetinq. 2. Final Tract Map 15292 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GREYSTONE HOMES THE IRVINE COMPANY LOTS 17 AND 18 OF TRACT 13627 MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 13 ACRE SITE INTO 65 NUMBERED LOTS AND 16 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 65 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. Recommendation - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3452 recommending that the City Council approve Final Tract Map 15292. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Bone seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908 And Design Review 95-042 (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1996) APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA TRACT 13908, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP DRIVE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Recommendation - That the Planning Commission: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3431; Approve Design Review 95-042 by adopting Resolution No. 3432, as submitted or revised; and, Recommend that the City Council approve Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908 by adopting Resolution No. 3433, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner Commissioner Bone inquired if both the builder and the homeowners had agreed to Plans 1, 3 and 4; that Plan 5 has been eliminated and that the residents also want Plan 6 eliminated from the mix. Dan Fox, Senior Planner, affirmed this to be correct. The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. Christopher Clark, representing the San Marino Homeowners Associa- tion, stated that there have been meetings and discussions directly with Bramalea but no common resolutions on the issues, especially the elimination of Plan 6, have been achieved. The Homeowners Association is not scheduled to meet until June 19, 1996, so Mr. Clark stated he would not be able to endorse any proposal until the association members voted. The homeowners do not want to see any Plan 6s and agreement has not been met on that issue. The other outstanding issues are the sunken livingrooms, which the builder wants to delete in the new homes, and moving the location of the model complex without the construction of Plan 6. Residents want one of the models to be a Plan 4, phasing to begin closest to the infill lots working back to the construction access point and for the builder to rename the new phase. There is agreement on Plans 1, 3, 4 & 7 provided amenities can be agreed upon and conditioned on review of the modified Plan 3. Mr. Clark stated he would prefer that the homeowners had a chance to vote formally on final agreements with Bramalea and then proceed without any further negotiation to the City Council meeting. To resolve these issues, he requested a continuance of the item. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Kasalek inquired if all 27 homeowners have met during the last two months of discussions. Christopher Clark stated they had not met as a group but had been given information. The first formal Homeowners Association meeting will be on June 19, 1996. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there had been any effort made to move that meeting up to observe the time limits of the Planning Commission hearings. Christopher Clark stated there was no way that could be done, since before this Planning Commission meeting the small homeowners group needed more time to continue discussion with the builder. Because the homeowners were not in full agreement with the builder, the smaller homeowners group preferred to narrow all the items down before bringing the matter for a vote at the Homeowners Association meeting on June 19, 1996. Jeff Roos, representing Bramalea California, stated that there have been a number of meetings and he believes things have moved significantly in a new direction. Originally the product proposed was an elimination of the existing product. Bramalea has come up with a completely new product, consisting of three floor plans. Bramalea will build Plan 7 which is the same square footage as the previous Plan 2; the new Plan 6 is larger than the previous smallest home in the existing development. They wish to build a Plan 6 because it is a 2 story home needed in the mix for marketing. Bramalea also agree to move the model complex and not build a Plan 6 in the models or north of Lot 84. They have agreed to limit Plan 2 to a maximum number. Concerning the amenity levels, they will install wood garage doors, optional skylights and a choice of clay or concrete roof tile at a no cost option to the buyer. Bramalea appreciates the fact that the homeowners want them to build the large homes so they share a common goal. He wants to have the flexibility to plot the products that sell. Commissioner Kasalek asked what number of Plan 6s would be acceptable to Bramalea. Jeff Roos stated he would agree to 20 and agreed to the homeowners phasing request for Phase 1. Bramalea wishes to delay building in Phase 3 (Lots 40-43 where the model complex was originally to be) because he wished to preserve a view to the models. Commissioner Bone asked if homebuyers would be informed that the wood garage doors need to be painted on a regular basis. He also inquired if the "pick a lot" program would continue. Jeff Roos stated that Bramalea has not decided if they will continue with the "pick a lot" program, where a buyer is allowed to build a particular plan on a particular lot, and if they decide to continue it would be done on a phase basis. Commissioner Kasalek clarified that the issue of fire places, windows and sunken livingrooms were not agreed upon but that optional fire places and vinyl windows were proposed. She asked if Mr. Roos was willing to continue this item. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 4 Jeff Roos stated he was not aware that continuation was an issue until this evening and that he would like to move ahead. He stated that he will not be in town on June 24, for the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the homeowners have a chance to voice their opinions at the City Council meeting even if they do not meet formally until June 19th. Michael Nermon 2460 Kiser, requested that the item be continued a bit longer. Christopher Clark stated that after the previous Planning Commission meeting they left with a view toward a divided or split development but in the ensuing discussions both sides agreed that if an acceptable product mix could be agreed upon a united development would be preferred. He stated that it was only since last week that the small homeowners group had time to inform the homeowners that a united development would be the optional solution. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that sufficient notice will be given before the City Council hearing since the City is required to give statutory notice for the July 1, 1996 City Council meeting. Also, she reminded everyone that the terms of the current Planning Commissioners will expire in July and if this item was continued, it would be difficult for a reconstituted Planning Commission to give this item the necessary attention. Christopher Clark stated that he was aware of the terms, but believed there will be one more Planning Commission meeting on June 24th before the terms expire. Commissioner Kasalek stated she has not seen a lot of movement from the homeowners and questioned if Mr. Clark really believed a two week continuance would make a difference. Christopher Clark stated he would request a vote in favor of the homeowners right now if he didn't feel it would make a difference. He stated that up to two weeks ago the homeowners were making all the moves. Since then Bramalea has done a good job and has garnered good faith in eliminating a couple of the smaller models but that there is more to discuss and he hopes Bramalea will not pull back now and not finish the process. Commissioner Kasalek stated that amenity levels are not within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Christopher Clark stated that although amenity levels are a concern to the homeowners, agreement on the Plan 6 model was a key decision as well as plotting of the first Phase and review of what Plan 3 includes. Carl Hatterman, President of the Homeowners Association, commended Mr. Roos for making changes and stated that this was a fluid situation. The homeowners do have concerns and there is need to delay the vote tonight since the homeowners look to the Planning Commission as their defense. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 5 Jeff Roos stated he was under the impression that a vote would be taken tonight and had not heard of anything different from the homeowners until tonight. He stated that Bramalea has been making concessions all along, and have been receptive to homeowners giving input on plotting for Phase 1 but Bramalea is at the end of their rope and his instructions are to proceed with the vote. He does not wish to have the item continued. Also he stated he will not be in town June 24, 1996 since he has a scheduled vacation planned. Commissioner Kasalek asked what would happen if the first Phase does not sell. The Director stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to add conditions to provide a range of various units. Jeff Roos stated that a big concern of the homeowners was the Plan 6 so, in the first four Phases there will be no Plan 6. It was not proposed as a safety valve since they are already limited to the number of the Plan 6 they can build. Commissioner Bone asked if Bramalea would agree to building 17 Plan 6 units as a compromise between the 20 which the builder wanted and what the homeowners wanted. Christopher Clark stated that building of only 15 Plan 6 units was already conceded by Bramalea in a phone conversation with Mr. Roos. Mr. Clark believes that 12 would be more acceptable. He stated that the homeowners would like to approve what is plotted adjacent to the existing residents. The homeowners want a Plan 4 as a mandatory model. Phases 1 and 3 are the closest to the existing homes so homeowners wish to have input and approval. Commissioner Mitzman asked the City attorney if the Planning Commission had the right to condition a project, subject to the homeowners approval. Lois Bobak stated there was no problem with that if the builder consented to the condition of approval. The Planning Commission is giving approval to subdivide the map and for Design Review. If the Planning Commission wants to condition that the homeowners approve the plotting, that is within their authority. The City would be authorizing reasonable concurrence, and if the builder believes that the homeowners are unreasonably withholding approval the builder can come back to staff and the matter can then be resolved administratively. Jeff Roos stated he is concerned that the homeowners will not give approval and this could hold up construction. He stated that Bramalea is more than willing to work with the homeowners but agreeing to a condition for their approval is not acceptable. Christopher Clark stated he did not believe there was a problem in that regard as long as construction is as plotted and the builder does not make changes. He stated that the homeowners did not want all Plan 4s because that would not look like a neighborhood. Elain Nermon 2460 Kiser, stated that this decision will also affect all of TRUCCA 3 and she does not understand the rush for a vote this evening. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 6 Lois Bobak stated that state law precludes the Planning Commission from unilaterally continuing this matter. Under the Permit Streamlining Act the Planning Commission only has a certain amount of time to take action on a matter. That time ran out in March and the builder consented to continuance but the builder is not consenting to any further extensions. If the Planning Commission fails to take action this evening, the matter would be deemed approved. The Public Hearing closed at 8:42 p.m. Commissioner Bone asked if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Plan 6 units be limited to 15. Commissioner Kasalek stated she would be more comfortable with limiting the Plan 6 units to 12. Commissioner Vandaveer agreed with Commissioner Kasalek. Commissioner Lunn stated she was comfortable with limiting construction to 12 Plan 6 units as long as the builder can return to the Commission to increase that number if necessary. The Public Hearing opened at 8:50 p.m. Jeff Roos inquired if Condition 3.5 required breaking the median at the construction access point. Staff stated it was understood that construction access has already been approved for that point along La Colina without breaking the median. The Public Hearing closed at 8:51 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3431. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to approve Design Review 95-042 by adopting Resolution No. 3432 revised as follows: Condition 3.2, last sentence amended to read, "However, the maximum number of Plan 6s shall not exceed 12 unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission." Condition 3.3 revised to read, "The Model Complex shall be located on Lots 81-84 and shall include a Plan 4 and Plans 3 and/or 7. No Plan 6 shall be constructed in the model complex." Condition 3.10 added, to read, "No plotting mix change shall be made in Phase 1." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract map 13908 by adopting Resolution No. 3433 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: None Scheduled Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 7 STAFF CONCERNS: Report on Actions taken at the June Meetinq. Staff reported on the subject agenda. 3, 1996 City Council As a follow up to a question from Commissioner Bone at the last Planning Commission Meeting about parking for the apartments being moved at 1602 Nisson Road, staff reported that the City Traffic Engineer, Doug Anderson, had looked at the striping opportunities to allow for additional parking on Nisson. The only additional parking will be the small stretch where driveways will be closed up. Commissioner Bone stated that his concern was to see "no parking" posted on the curve. Staff will ask Transportation Engineer, Doug Anderson, to call Commissioner Bone on this matter. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Lunn Stated that this would be her last Planning Commission meeting. She is scheduled for surgery and will not be reapplying for the position. She expressed her thanks and appreciation to the members of the Commission and staff, stating that she had enjoyed her tenure. She congratulated Chairwoman Kasalek on the editorial recently run about her in the Tustin Weekly. Commissioner Mitzman Inquired about the Shea Homes sign on the Case Swayne pole sign. Staff stated that the Redevelopment Department has been working with Shea Homes for the use of that pole and perhaps it was just a simulation test since the sign is no longer up. Stated he had noticed that vehicles have been offered for sale on the old high school site and that informing the Police Department seems to do no good. Commissioner Vandaveer Inquired about the Zoning Designation of a property at 1111 E1 Camino Real. The Director will call the Commissioner tomorrow with the information. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner Bone Echoed the sentiments of the Tustin Weekly editorial on Chairwoman Kasalek, stating that she was a fine leader, does a lot for the community and deserved the recognition. Inquired about Royal Auto. Staff declined to comment at this time for this item may be the subject of potential litigation. Concerning the June 5, 1996 Code Enforcement Status Letter, he wished to inform staff that a poor job had been done of removing weeds at the Arco Gas Station at 14152 Newport Avenue. He also informed staff that vehicles have been parked at the Lucky Market parking lot with sale prices painted across their windshields. He also noticed that vehicles are using the high school site for this activity. The Director stated that this situation was being monitored by Code Enforcement. Commissioner Kasalek Commended Commissioner Bone on his planning efforts and the success of the State of the City luncheon. She also stated that the Chili Cookoff was a great success. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Lunnseconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on June 24, 1996 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairw~fnan BARBA~ ~EY~S Recording Secretary