Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-13-96 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION - Lou Bone 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 Rosa Ceja, Assistant Planner Barbara Reyes, Planning Commission Recording Secretary Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer PUBLIC CONCERNS: No one from the audience addressed the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the April 22, 1996 Planninq Commission Meetinq. Final Tract Map 14447 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: SAN JUAN GROUP IRVINE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES ROBINSON DRIVE LOTS 18 AND "BB" OF TRACT 12870 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATE 18 ACRE SITE INTO 8 NUMBERED LOTS AND 6 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 436 CONDOMINIUMS. Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3439 recommending that the City Council approve Final Tract Map 14447. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer secondedj to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Time Extension To Conditional Use Permit 93-016 APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SILICON SYSTEMS 14511 MYFORD ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-I) THE TIME EXTENSION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-016 HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS AUTHORIZATION OF A THREE YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY, LOCATED AT 14511 MYFORD ROAD. Recommendation - That the Planning Commission approve a three year time extension of Conditional Use Permit 93-016 by adopting Resolution No. 3440, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Rosa Ceja, Assistant Planner Chairwoman Kasalek stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Lou Bone conducted the procedure. Commissioner Mitzman asked staff to explain what was meant by a temporary structure according to the City Planning Code. Daniel Fox, Senior Planner, stated that there really are no set parameters for what is considered a temporary structure. The Zoning Code only deals with time frames for certain or special uses and who reviews that authority. The Public Hearing opened at 7:05 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to approve the time extension of Conditional Use Permit 93-016 by adopting Resolution No. 3440 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasalek abstained. Chairwoman Kasalek resumed her position and the meetinq proceeded. Amendment To Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 13908 and Desiqn Review 95-042 (PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996) APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA TRACT 13908 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - RESIDENTIAL) (LOW DENSITY THIS PROJECT CERTIFIED EIR SPECIFIC PLAN. REQUIRED. IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 3 REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ADD THREE 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, Senior Planner Commissioner Bone asked if there had been any change to Sector 8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) and if this project was in compliance. Staff stated that there had been no change to Sector 8 of the ETSP and that the project was in compliance. Commissioner Mitzman stated for the record that he had been an employee of the applicant and heavily involved with the project about 4-5 years previous and was also the first president of the Homeowners Association Board. He stated that he received an opinion from the City Attorney that there was no conflict of interest on his part. The Public Hearing was reopened at 7:15 p.m. Jeff Roos, Bramalea California, referred to his letter which is part of the staff report and which states Bramalea's position. He stated that his company has made compromises and that the product is compatible with what is existing in the area. He stated that he may have inadvertently created some of the anxieties by not educating the homeowners as well as he could have concerning the amenity levels and pricing. He wanted to demonstrate to the homeowners that the proposed product is architecturally similar to the existing product and is going to be of outstanding quality. Since it is difficult to visualize by looking at a set of plans, Bramalea would demonstrate by building a new set of models showing the Plan 8. As far as relocating the model complex to use the emergency fire access as a temporary road, Bramalea had some safety concerns regarding traffic hazards. Concerning the comments that Bramalea had guaranteed the homeowners that the existing product would be built on all of the home sites in San Marino, Mr. Roos stated that Bramalea is not in a position to construct the existing product. He further stated that there were no such assurances that the tract would be built out with the same product. Commissioner Vandaveer asked where the new proposed model complex was to be located. Jeff Roos stated that the proposed model complex is to be located on Lots 40 through 43. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there was any flexibility from his standpoint in regard to the location of these model homes. She asked Mr. Roos to explain the major exterior differences between the old and the new homes. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 4 Jeff Roos stated that the location Bramalea has chosen for the models is the best marketing window and he does not see any problem concerning the existing homes in that area. Regarding the exterior of the homes, as far as the material differences the roof tiles would be changed from clay to concrete, however, the colors will be identical. The garage doors will be changed from wood sectional roll up to metal because they require less maintenance and the windows will be vinyl since they would require less maintenance while being equal in energy efficiency. Commissioner Bone stated he would like to see the proposed models moved to either Lots 44-47 or 81-84 with a temporary green belt and directional signs to the models. He also asked why there was no proposal to build a single story model. Jeff Roos stated that he would be willing to consider moving the model homes. He stated it was not economically feasible to build a four home model complex. Potential homeowners could see the homes already built. Mark Franzen, 2145 Chandler Drive, stated that he was astonished at Bramalea's arrogance and the meetings the homeowners have had are unproductive. He stated that Bramalea keeps repackaging the same proposals. He stated that Mr. Roos has no vested interest in the neighborhood while the homeowners do. He stated that he believes the surveys alluded to by Mr. Roos concerning vinyl windows and metal doors are non-existent. He asked the Commission to do the right thing. Christopher R. Clark, of the law firm Fingal, Fahrney and Clark, representing the San Marino homeowners, stated that the homeowners are not convinced that they will like the new product and that the proposal by Mr. Roos was not a compromise. He stated that the Planning Commission's decision will impact the entire project since once 41 new product homes are built and there are only 27 people living in the older product; therefore, Bramalea will have the odds stacked in their favor to force the new product to be built in the area of the existing homeowners. John P. Fruhauf, 12295 Marlow, appealed to the Commission to protect his interest as a homeowner, voter and a taxpayer. Carl Hattermann,2180 Lindsey Court, stated that he moved into Tustin Ranch because he liked the master plan and that the homeowners did not have the where-with-all to fight a big builder and he hoped the Commission would be on the homeowner side. Michael Nermon, 2460 Kiser, stated that the East Tustin Specific Plan had been revised four times and is a joke and an insult to anyone who buys a home in this area. He stated that the new proposed Bramalea product will diminish property values. He stated that the solution is to segregate or create some definition between the two projects as was done with Standard Pacific at San Rafael. Elain Nermon, 2460 Kiser, stated that Mr. Roos made a parallel with Bramalea and Standard Pacific and that there was none since Standard Pacific worked with the homeowners and Bramalea has not. Linda L. Lowder, 2522 Stutsman Drive, submitted and read a petition from the homeowners of San Miguel in support of the homeowners of San Marino signed by over 60 of the homeowners. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 5 Jeff Roos stated that this is an emotional issue but that Bramalea is not looking to deviate from the master plan. They have met with the homeowners many times but not everyone of the homeowners agreed on the segregation proposal. He stated that pricing cannot be guaranteed but Bramalea feels that on a comparative basis the comparative product will sell for the same price as if Bramalea were to rebuild the existing product. Bramalea is not opposed to moving the models to Lot 81-84. Commissioner Kasalek asked if Bramalea was willing to be flexible on the exterior changes to make the products more compatible with the existing homes. Jeff Roos stated they would be happy to offer any of the changes as options, including the skylights. Commissioner Bone asked that if the new product is built would there be a separate homeowners association. The Director stated at this point they would be in the same homeowners association and the developer would have the ability to create a separate association. Christopher Clark stated the questions from the Commission have hit the nail on the head, since if options have to be offered, it clearly shows the product is certainly different and does not conform with what was built. Jeff Roos stated that he is not comfortable with giving a quick answer on the issue of separate homeowners associations since it might be more cumbersome on the existing homeowners. If the Commission feels strongly about that he would be glad to research the issue. Elain Nermon stated that there is a tract in Tustin Ranch that chose their own options and that a negatively had been established. Bramalea may offer the options but perhaps prospective homeowners would not be able to afford what is offered. Marshall Roem, San Marino, asked what assurances the City had that Bramalea will fulfil their obligations even if they agree since they have not met their commitments in the past. He does not believe that they should represent this product as being the same since it is not the same product. Commissioner Kasalek stated that any decisions of the Planning Commission cannot be made because of claims of fraud or promises made. Jack Junq, 11995 Lambert, San Rafael, stated that there was a similar problem with San Rafael and that the Planning Commission had suggested at that time, the best solution was for the homeowners and builder to get-together to work out the problems. They decided to maintain two identities, and that worked well and seems to be the solution here also. A1 W. Hensling, 2205 Lindsey Court, stated he was not only a homeowner in San Marino but also president of a very large residential real estate lending firm. He stated that the new product will draw the existing product down significantly. In terms of the CC&R's and changing the name of the product that can be done under the same association. He stated that something along the lines of segregating the development is what the homeowners are looking for. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 6 Michael Nermon stated he understood that the Commission could not consider promises made but that should lead to at least questioning the credibility of some of the promises the builder is making at the present time. Jeff Roos stated that he did not recall the exact conversation with Mr. Roem but that everyone would be getting a statement about the bankruptcies and a copy of the reorganization plan and that Lenar is a very strong and capable developer would could build as proposed. The Public Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman stated he had a lot of problems with this project and agrees with the homeowners that once the 41 lots on the south are developed, from his experience as a home builder, there is no chance that the original project will get built out on the remaining lots. The idea of providing skylights and wood windows as an after thought option for a homebuyer is impractical since once the homebuyer gets to that stage the home would already have been framed and these things cannot be added. The metal doors are a cheaper product and do not look or sound good. The only way he could see supporting the change is to cut the project at the natural line, use monumentation and designate this section as a new project. Commissioner Bone stated that the Commission is basically concerned with the safety, health and welfare of the area. The project is in compliance with Sector 8 of the ETSP and he believes the product is not so totally different. He will not support the La Colina Drive entrance but will support the project if a few conditions are met such as the models being moved from lots 40-41; optional items as discussed and that a new name is given to the project along with a separate homeowners association. Commissioner Vandaveer stated he was also in favor of moving the model units to Lots 81-84 and although he would like to see the product be a little different, it does comply with the ETSP. He is not sure a name change would be enough. He asked if the homeowners group was divided up in the Standard Pacific example. The Public Hearing opened at 8:52 p.m. Elain Nermon stated that in the example of the Standard Pacific question they kept the San Rafael homeowners association, and the 60 additional homes from San Marcos would be added. The Public Hearing closed at 8:53 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer stated that he can see some definite differences between the drawings of the proposed to the actual that have already been constructed. If the model homes are moved, the requirements would be met. Commissioner Lunn stated she cannot support the La Colina entrance but she does support moving the models and deleting the lots where the current models are proposed. The criteria and ETSP requirements are met but she would like to see some resolution between the homeowners and developer. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 7 Commissioner Kasalek stated this particular project has been extremely hard for her as she can see both sides of the issue. She cannot support the project as is and that the two projects are not compatible. She did not think that splitting this project makes sense. She did not like the location of the models. Commissioner Mitzman stated that since this was a critical decision this action should be continued to the next meeting. Daniel Fox , Senior Planner, stated that according to the permit streamlining act, staff would need to have specific authorization from the applicant or else the Planning Commission is obligated to take an action. The Public Hearing opened at 9:04 p.m. Jeff Roos stated that he would agree to continue to the meeting of May 28, 1996. The Public Hearing closed at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Lunn stated she would like to see the homeowners and developer come to some agreement but she would also like to see the project split. Commissioner Bone asked if it were feasible to build the existing product on the remaining lots. The Public Hearing opened at 9:14 p.m. Jeff Roos stated that depends on what is meant by feasible, because if Bramalea thought it was feasible he would not be here asking for a new product. The floor plan is very similar and Bramalea is agreeable to offering the existing Plan One. The Plan Three sold but the Plan Two did not sell at all. Elain Nermon stated that there is now a different market, Bramalea does not have any direct competition anywhere in Tustin Ranch, and there is a demand and a market for estate size homes. John Fruhauf stated that 2~ years later the same exact compromise is being proposed. The homeowners are interested in a split since a split worked with the Standard Pacific project. Commissioner Kasalek asked that if there was agreement that the existing product were to be put in the areas in question, would that mean building only the Plan Four. Jeff Roos stated that this would be a market plan decision and he does not know the answer right now. The Public Hearing closed at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman moved, Lunn seconded, to continue this item to the meeting of May 28, 1996. The Director asked that the Commission provide some clear direction before a vote was taken so that there is a base to begin negotiation. Commissioner Lunn stated that she would like to see the two sides agree on something they can both live with. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner Mitzman would like to see the split but with the lots on the south as a new product with a separate homeowners association and monumentation so that the project would seem different and, he would like to see the developer build out the remaining lots with the existing product. Commissioner Vandaveer stated that the 29 omitted lots should be built out with Plans One through Four and he would like to see a completely different product on the other project. Commissioner Bone stated that he believes the project will end up with a split because tastes and amenities have changed since 1990 and we have to live with the situation. He has no problems with the project as proposed; he would like to see more options which have been alluded to in the south section. The north section is a real problem since Bramalea has facts that these models are not selling. He has a problem with the center section and does not have an answer to the dilemma. Commissioner Kasalek is not in favor of the split if it can be avoided since she can see no logical place for a split; she would like to see one more try for compromise between the homeowners and developer. The Director stated that staff would need something back from the homeowner/developer by the 20th of May to prepare for the meeting of May 28, 1996. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. Desiqn Review 96-004 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY CITY OF TUSTIN CITY WIDE THIS PROJECT IS DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGHOUT THE CITY. Recommendation That the Planning Commission approve Design Review 96-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3445, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner A recess was called at 9:35 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:38 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer asked how the lighting would be provided and about the comfort of the benches. Gary Tolar, Tolar Manufacturing, stated that in the specifications the advertising kiosk has lighting as well as the dome light on the interior of the shelter which remains on from dusk to dawn. These are on a timer and they are not solar. These benches are not comfortable to lie on and have vagrant bars. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner Bone inquired if the structures were open on four sides and how does this keep rain, wind and sun from the people who use them. He asked if there was a way to monitor the advertising copy and suggested a review committee. Daniel Fox stated the structures is made up of four posts. There was a trade off because of the problems with graffiti. These benches are modeled after the Tustin Marketplace which are heavily frequented and seem to work well. The Director stated there was a condition after the fact that required Eller Media to remove objectionable copy within 24 hours. Joe Meyers, Public Works Department, stated that the franchise agreement with Eller Media does allow for the City to review advertising prior to placement. Commissioner Lunn pickup. asked if two times a week was enough for trash Joe Meyers stated that Eller Media was responsible for maintenance of all the facilities. Co~issioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to approve Design Review 96-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3445, revised as follows: Exhibit B, page 2, Condition 2.2 ("60 degrees is to be changed to 70 degrees"). Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: Report on actions taken at the May 6, 1996 City Council meetinq. The Director reported on the subject agenda. She also suggested that the Planning Co~..ission consider developing a Planning Commission Work Program for the fiscal year. Staff will draft for the Commission's consideration, a year in review s,,mm~ry and a milestone plan for future projects. This plan would provide a good focus and also allows the City Council to know the issues and concerns facing individuals in the planning process. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Vandaveer Asked about the replacement of the lighted bollard at Main and E1 Camino Real. Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer, stated that the Public Works Department is currently trying to locate an identical pole for replacement but is also considering the question of compliance with the ADA Act regulations of 1991 by using these bollards. Public Works will see that the Commissioner is kept informed on this matter. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 10 Commissioner Bone Inquired as to why Tustin Gardens had to have an extension of cable service since it was his belief that the whole City had already been wired for cable a few years ago. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director, stated that it was the complex itself that had not been previously wired for cable hookup. Inquired about the amount of time needed for posting public hearing notices. The Director responded that a 10 day notice is required as well as 21 days for a Negative Declaration and an EIR could require 30-45 days. Stated that he had read the latest letter from Mr. Pai and that if Mr. Pai would spend as much time upgrading his apartments as writing letters, he might get some thing done. Stated that he would like to see the Code address the issue of using garages as storage facilities while the vehicles are parked on the street or in driveways. The Director stated that this code issue can certainly be addressed. Encouraged everyone to attend the State of the City luncheon on June 7, 1996, sponsored by the City and the Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Lunn Inquired about the status of the McFadden off ramp and who was maintaining the existing fence. Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer stated that the Public Works Department has scheduled a block wall to be constructed there within the next fiscal year and that the existing wire fence is being maintained by Caltrans. Asked if anything could be done about the trash and debris located in and about the dumpster behind the buildings on McFadden. The Director stated that the property owner would be contacted and asked to address the problem. Inquired on the status of the Pai apartments. The Director stated that Mr. Pai has until May 17, 1996 to comply before the City can commence any action against him and that the City Council has requested that the City Attorney expedite this matter. Commissioner Mitzman - None Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 Page 11 Commissioner Kasalek - Congratulated Commissioner Bone on his Small Business Advocate of the Year award. ADJOURNMENT: Commission Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on May 28, 1996 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairwoman Recording Secretary