Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-13-95MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGUL~%R MEETING MARCH 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman and Weil PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the February 27, 1995 Planninq Commission Meetinq. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 94-029 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE CHURCH ON RED HILL C/O FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF TUSTIN 13841 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 13841 RED HILL AVENUE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A DAY CARE FACILITY, TO INSTALL A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN AND TO MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-027. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-029 for a day care facility and denial of a monument sign by adopting Resolution No. 3345, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if the monument sign were enlarged, how much larger could it be. Staff stated there were no specific development standards but it would be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. Commissioner Weil asked the number of staff members. Staff stated that there are 4 classrooms with one staff member per classroom. The Public Hearing opened at 7:07 p.m. Tom Towle, representing the Church on Red Hill, stated he agrees with all of the conditions except for the matter of the sign. He stated that the monument sign could be enlarged to 64 feet by stacking it and putting a 4 foot x 8 foot sign on top of the one already there but feels that would create a safety problem and look unsightly; he would consider adding 16 square feet which would make the present sign 6 feet x 8 feet and he does not feel that adding a second monument sign would add sign clutter since there are only three monument signs on the block. The present sign is a pole sign but could be redesigned to match the sign on the north end of their property. He stated he did not know of any other church sites in Tustin with more than one monument sign but asked for approval of the addition of a second sign for their church property. Don Saltarelli, 13751 Red Hill Avenue, stated that the church was an extremely good neighbor, have opened access to Red Hill Avenue, act instantaneously to remove graffiti and maintain their landscaping well. He is in favor of the proposal as submitted. The Public Hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Weil agrees with the two speakers and is in favor of the second monument sign. Commissioner Lunn also agrees since there is a long expanse of property which could accommodate the monument sign. Commissioner Mitzman asked if he had heard correctly that the second sign was a pole sign and why was it designed that way. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 3 The Public Hearing opened at 7:16 p.m. Tom Towle stated "yes" it was one foot off the ground sitting on two 4 inch steel posts but could be modified with a slumpstone base. It had just been less expensive to design it as a pole sign. The Public Hearing closed at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman is in favor of a monument sign. Commissioner Kasalek feels another sign is appropriate but would also want it to be a monument sign. Commissioner Weil moved, Mitzman seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-029 as submitted with direction for staff to return at next meeting with a confirming resolution. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 92-049 And Design Review 92-056 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GARY W. MILLER ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES 350 WEST 5TH STREET, SUITE 206 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 LOT 7, TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH FACILITY, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3338. Approve Conditional Use Permit 92-049 and Design Review 92-056 by adopting Resolution No. 3339, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paul Krueger, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil asked if there was a traffic light at Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. Staff affirmed The Public Hearing opened at 7:26 p.m. Gary Bronson, representing Gary W. Miller Architects & Associates, has read and agrees with the conditions and requested approval of the project. Commissioner Kasalek stated that one activity she knows of that would generate a lot of traffic was the teen age dances and asked if they would be held at this facility. Gary Bronson stated that normally these dances are held at their stake center, that this was a ward building and dances would not be held here. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the 6:30 a.m. meetings were small and what were they for. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 4 Gary Bronson stated that these meetings were for religious lessons for high school students prior to the beginning of school. The Public Hearing closed at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Weil congratulated the church and thought it very refreshing to see all of the City's regulations complied with. Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3338 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-049 and Design Review 92-056 by adopting Resolution No. 3339 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement & Tentative Tract Map 15055 (Irvine Company) APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 SECTORS 2, 6, 8 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PI~%NNED COMMUNITY; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM #5 TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870. 2. ZONE CHANGE 94-004 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315. 3. SECOND AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO LOTS 16/17 AND 27 OF TRACT 13627, AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88- 315. 4. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE LAND USE MAP, SECTOR DESCRIPTIONS TEXT AND STATISTICAL SUMMARIES TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2 AND 3 ABOVE. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTOR 11 TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. 6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055 TO SUBDIVIDE A 40 ACRE SITE (PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD INTO THREE (3) NUMBERED LOTS AND SEVEN (7) LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 350 FAMILY- ORIENTED APARTMENT UNITS, UP TO 163 SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND A 5 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONSISTENT WITH REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Mitzman stepped down due to potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Lunn stepped down due to potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Baker declared no conflict of interest but deferred to Chairperson Protem, Kasalek, to conduct the meeting at this point. The Public Hearing opened at 7:48 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 5 Mike LeBlanc, representing the Irvine Company, stated that the Irvine Company is proposing what they hope to be the final amendment to the East Tustin Specific Plan. This land use change stems from the decision of the school district to release sites that they no longer need for school purposes and reflects a refinement on the Company's part for the buildout of the Tustin Ranch Plan. He feels the proposed changes are appropriate, will fulfill the goals of the Specific Plan, and are compatible land uses which will produce less traffic than the original uses. He stated that the key benefits of the project are the provision for the five acre neighborhood park, an expanded setback along Tustin Ranch Road, and the provision of land for added parking for the neighborhood park to the north. The Company has agreed not to provide a hotel development. The project planned will be gate guarded communities which will address the problem of parking. The Company wants to retain sufficient flexibility for their architects and designers to come up with a quality product at these locations but are limiting to a total of units which is less than what City zoning allows. They have committed to a two story profile along Irvine Boulevard but are concerned with the wording in the staff report with respect to the berm affect which will be used to conceal the garage level. They have met with members of the community who are concerned about property values. The Company is asking for the ability to do one more apartment project then would otherwise be allowed under the existing plan. When the Specific Plan was initially established it was also meant to promote other goals of the plan with a full variety of housing projects. At that time they thought there would be a 40 acre high school site and a 30 acre commercial site but since things have changed they feel this is an appropriate land use with the appropriate density. The Company has held the land for ten years, reserving the site until the school district needed it and now wants the support of the Commission to recommend this project to the City Council. Commissioner Weil asked if the 2,294 apartments mentioned in the report as planned included all multiple family units or just apartments and if they were ultimately converted to condominiums would that mean more apartments would be allowed. Mike LeBlanc affirmed. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the height of the buildings with the garage was considered three stories. Mike LeBlanc stated that if measured from the street edge it was considered a two story element, if measured inside the project it is a different grade level. The berm will add to the open space look giving the appearance of only two stories. Ray Himmelberg, resident of Miramonte at 2570 Allister, and is concerned about traffic and questions the validity of the traffic study and requested a more up-dated traffic study from the Irvine Company. Feels that five acres for the park is insufficient in this area for the number of dwelling units being added. He feels the project will have a negative impact since Miramonte would be surrounded on three sides by apartments. He stated that no one from the Irvine Company ever came to Miramonte to get input from them. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 6 Jane Anderson, president of Sevilla Homeowners Association, stated that they have no problem with the park but do not want the apartments. She agrees with the former speaker that an up-dated traffic study is needed. She stated that their own development is constantly battling traffic and parking problems and they are across from a gated community. She is opposed to the density created by the apartments. She stated she personally paid a premium of $6000 for a view of the hills, and a three story complex in that area will obliterate the view which she resents since it directly affects her financially. She is also concerned about crime. Jon Reynolds, 2461 Allister Avenue, stated that Mr. LeBlanc spoke to the economic viability of the various projects that Irvine Company is seeking to develop in this area. He stated that since 1978 the Irvine Company projects have increased steadily over time but now because of the economic downturn they have decided on this apartment project in order to produce income for the developer. While he acknowledges that the developer has a right to develop the land, the developer also has a responsibility for the projects that they are empowered to develop so that they do not diminish in value over time to adversely affect surrounding property owners who have no control in the overall development of the area. He cautioned that once apartments are constructed they will still be there 20 years from now and asked the Commission to look at what happened to the southwest neighborhood of Tustin to see that this plan is completely inconsistent for this land use. He believes that if the status quo were kept there would still be traffic problems but with an apartment project he feels this will increase significantly. Karen Johnson, 2561 Alister, shares the common goal of the Commission and the Irvine Company to want to provide a stable population which she feels means homeowners and not apartment dwellers who are inherently transient. Her concern is the location of the apartment project which will make the single family homes closer to the commercial site. She would prefer to see the single family dwellings against Irvine Boulevard. She feels the park in its current location does not extend the Tustin Ranch Golf Course open space. She challenged the Irvine Company to extend the green area along the Irvine Street side and provide a better street scape in that area. She feels that no matter how you cut it a 40 foot height remains 40 feet, even with a berm to conceal the first level and that it is too high a structure for this neighborhood. Michael Nermon, 2460 Kiser, stated that when he purchased his home he was presented with the City land use plan which indicated a public school would be built on the property and feels this project is quite a departure from what had been presented. He requested that there be a change in the zoning of that area to low density and for a green belt to be provided for open space. He feels that as long as the Irvine Company controls the board of Tustin Ranch III Homeowners Association he is fearful that they will be forced to include the Lot 6 area into the association and would like some protection for the homeowners against this. Ed Stumpp, 13681 Coretta Dr., stated that when he purchased, two school sites were represented to him which he felt was a positive influence in the area and since this is now not the case he feels the Irvine Company used this to promote and market units they were selling to make the area more attractive to the buyers. Jackie Check, stated she is opposed to the project for all the reasons that the previous speakers had and questioned the reason for the special bond assessments since now there is no school being built. She wanted to know where that money would be going and how would the removal of the school site affect future tax bills. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 7 .~!o~ ~ Max Hoskins, 13091 Solinda, stated that when he purchased he was also shown the school sites and promised an upscale community and now feels that if these apartments are put this would be going in the wrong direction. Homes in his area have already lost $100 to $200 thousand in value per home so he cannot imagine that apartments will increase his property value as Mr. LeBlanc has suggested. He noted that traffic is already seriously backed up on Red Hill and the school site with its hours of from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. would not have affected the rush hour traffic as an apartment complex will so he does not agree with the traffic report. Bill Stracker, 13062 Cortina, stated he lives across from the proposed apartment project. He stated that his wife likes the view which will be destroyed with the addition of this project. Stated that he feels that the Irvine Company is in fact implying that if the residents don't like this project they will come up with something else that the community can't live with and he is concerned. Regarding the traffic he thinks traffic could be re- assigned but that the apartments would have to be located at Heritage Way. He stated that if there were no problems then there would be no reason for the buffer or expanded setback. He feels that if these apartments are allowed they will fuel a sign frenzy with leasing signs all over the City and he provided the Commission with photos he had taken to prove his point. He feels that Robinson Drive does not have the throat to provide an effective traffic signal. The apartments will be a sea of asphalt on private land which will deteriorate and he is concerned about who will maintain it so that it does not bring the area as a whole down. Tom McClain, 13082 Cortina, stated his property backs up to Tustin Ranch Road and the proposed apartments. He thanked the Irvine Company and Mr. Saltarelli who were here tonight for their previous presentations and meetings with the Association but that they had presented basically the same thing that was being presented now and he feels that a lot of good points were brought out so far by the previous speakers. He feels that the most land value would be created for the Irvine Company since this project serves the real estate investment trust. He stated that all the Irvine Company projects were marketed and sold at a profit to the builders. He does not see a good reason for apartments in this area except for economic value to the Irvine Company. He suggested the creation of kidney shaped green areas along Tustin Ranch Road and adjoining this apartment project to the existing apartments. He wants to keep the views and is opposed to the traffic situation the project will create. Christa Lockard, 2448 Paseo Circulo, believes that putting apartments on Heritage Way would create a significant problem for those who live there. She feels the apartment project will affect the way the City will look in the future. She feels taxes have been accelerated and that residents should get a refund if the high school is now not going to be built. Mike Anderson, Sevilla, 2473 Via Corella, agrees with previous speakers, he also feels Heritage Way could not possibly accommodate traffic created by apartments. He feels that the general consensus of the homeowners in the area is that they do not want more apartments. Berklee Mauqhan, stated that he does not live in East Tustin, and wishes that more people would come to these hearings. He stated that the Commission had worked hard on the Specific Plan, were concerned with the density issue and impacts on the City created by the southwest neighborhood and should not now abandon their principals. He stated that no one ever increased the quality of life in any city by increasing density. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 8 Mike LeBlanc stated that he appreciated all the comments by members of the audience. He believes that the Irvine Company has been a partner with the City of Tustin in developing the land agreement but wanted to clarify that it was the Tustin Unified School District and not the Irvine Company who made the decision with respect to its need for school sites. They feel they have come up with an appropriate land use to replace the high school site which will not increase density for this use is within density limits of the City now. He stated that the traffic study had been up-dated and it showed a dramatic reduction in traffic, that they had tried to meet with as many homeowner groups as possible and in fact did meet with Miramonte on March 8th. He feels that the location of the park as proposed is the best possible place for it with the 5 acres providing optimum use for recreation purposes and that the kidney shaped green areas as suggested would not lend themselves to the most effective use of the land. As far as the buffer notion (expanded setback) they are not hiding the apartment project with it but felt that this would extend open space along Tustin Ranch Road. He stated that there is no market now for single family homes and if they could get a builder to construct them they would be priced well below what adjoining property owners have paid which would adversely affect the neighborhood more than the apartment project. The apartments would be a quality upscale project like they have designed at Promontory Point and would be well maintained. He asked the Commission to examine the situation and look at the empirical evidence concerning traffic as it appears in the study approved by the City. He feels that it is not fair to blame the Irvine Company for destroying views, that with respect to height the high school would have been as high as 40 feet. He stated that the Irvine Company will pay their fair share because by using this site now more land will be subject to the assessment district and he reminded everyone that the Irvine Company had agreed to donate one million dollars to the school district. Tom McClain stated that if a high school 40 feet high were to be put on that site it would be the largest high school in the United States. He stated that he was concerned with long term property value and that if a builder priced homes to sell for under what he purchased for the upshot of that would only be that when the market improved all would benefit but that the builder would just benefit at a faster rate. He prefers land owners on that land realize a profit as opposed to the Irvine Company or Mr. Bren. Jane Anderson stated that when Mr. LeBlanc compared this apartment project to Promontory Point it is like comparing Tustin to Stanton. She feels that it was very nice for the Irvine Company to donate the one million to the school district but that they would recoup this amount in four months time with the apartment project and that they should have donated money in proportion to this use. Bill Stracker stated that the traffic study that the Irvine Company keeps referring to which shows decreased traffic is on an over all basis but when taking specific locations into consideration this is not uhe case. Traffic will be concentrated at two intersections, one at Irvine Boulevard and one at Tustin Ranch Road where there wil£ be the greatest impacts. The Public Hearing closed at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she would like to hear from staff on the type of traffic study that was done and did it take into consideration traffic as a whole. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 9 Douq Anderson, City Transportation Engineer, stated that there were two traffic studies done. The first looked at the overall impacts of the proposed land use variations, zoning, etc. and the second reviewed that report, updated the information and made conclusions based on it. He stated that both Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road were designed and constructed as major arterial highways with six through lanes in each direction to accommodate 55,000 vehicles a day at the buildout of the area. Currently on Irvine Boulevard there are 35,000 and on Tustin Ranch Road 20,000 vehicles per day. At the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard there have been concerns identified by the County of Orange when they deleted LaColina from the County master plan and identified a substantial impact to that intersection that Tustin would received. Also proposed was a temporary measure to accommodate the north bound Tustin Ranch Road left turn traffic onto Irvine Boulevard. The City Engineering Department has done their own studies and identified that the majority of the traffic utilizing that movement is bypass traffic from the SR 55 construction and that in the future there will be a need for an additional left turn pocket at that location. It has not been constructed on an incremental basis for it may place the City in jeopardy of future funding since Tustin would not then be in compliance with the master plan of arterial highways. As this apartment development comes in for review, it has been conditioned to dedicate added land to accommodate an additional left turn at this location. The high school site would have generated 4,400 trips per day impacting at Tustin Ranch Road, the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard and Robinson and Robinson and Irvine Boulevard. The apartment complex will generate 2,500 vehicles per day, the 163 single family homes will generate 1,630 and the park will generate 20 per vehicles per day, for a total of 4,100 vehicles per day versus 4,400 vehicles per day that would occur from the current plan. This is an approximate 8% decrease in traffic. Distribution of traffic patterns shows that the apartment project would generate approximately 18% of the traffic versus the high school at 25% of the traffic in the peak morning hours. He agrees that in the pm peak hours more of an impact would be created with traffic circulation in relation to this site versus the high school site but the infrastructure was designed and constructed to accommodate that traffic generated by the high school site or the worst case scenario. Based on the conclusions and the analysis of the study, staff feels that the traffic generated by this site can be accommodated. Commissioner Weil stated she wanted to reemphasize that when the Commission worked on the Specific Plan originally there was a big discussion on the amount of students generated by this development and the school district insisted that the figures would be much higher. Apparently the City was right and the school sites they thought they would need are not now needed so and as far as the developer misleading anyone it is a bit more complicated than that. She asked the Director if she knew the percentage of parks per resident that was originally talked about in the Specific Plan. The Director stated the figure is three acres per thousand population and the thousand population is determined based on the average density by each type of development proposed within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. This standard is the maximum that can be imposed by state law, and with this project the developer will be in excess of state law. Commissioner Weil reminded everyone that there is a 300 acre regional park which was donated by the Irvine Company that connects the Peters Canyon regional park which is open space. She asked if the five acre park was to be maintained by the City. Staff affirmed. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 10 Commissioner Weil asked if Irvine Boulevard would be widened further. Staff stated it is at its ultimate width. Commissioner Kasalek wanted the concern expressed by one of the speakers about the Homeowner Association being run by the Irvine Company to be addressed. She thought that recently the Commission had made some sort of condition about this. The Director stated the issue was whether or not this Commission would be able to mandate that Lot 6 never be added to Tustin Ranch Association No. III, that it was her belief that this was not possible and not similar in any way to the recent Standard Pacific approvals. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated it was difficult for the City to impose the structure of a homeowners association. The City does not have that detailed control. The Director stated that should that property ever be subdivided with the single family development there would be a review process on the tentative subdivision map for that project and adjacent residents could voice concerns about the project and have an opportunity to review and address specific concerns. Lois Bobak stated that when those specifics are know it may make the question as to which Homeowners Association those residents become a member of more clear. Commissioner Weil on the request to raise the cap on the amount of apartments to be allowed, asked if the 350 apartments proposed for the high school site were included. She stated that she had a problem in raising the cap and is not in favor of it. Staff stated that under the current terms of the development agreement the applicant would have the ability to propose 440 additional apartment units and that would be the 25% limit. This number is current and does include the apartment project currently under construction across from the Sports Park. Commissioner Kasalek agreed that the cap should not be raised. Commissioner Weil stated that she feels the parking standards for the multiple family units are not high enough. Staff has come up with some suggested parking standards which reflect what the Commission had desired and she wants to continue this issue to come up with a revised set of standards. She is in favor of leaving the building height limit at 40 feet. Commissioner Kasalek stated she does not have a problem with the 40 foot height at certain locations but has a major problem with that height along the street fronts that are near the single family homes across the street. She is also not sure a 50 foot setback is sufficient. The Public Hearing opened at 9:45 p.m. Mike LeBlanc, stated that the development agreement is a two way street and feels the City should help the Irvine Company secure the economic rights to its land and he is concerned with not being able to place apartments on both sites. If it would be helpful to spend more time to discuss these issues he is agreeable to a continuance to the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated that as a representative of the Irvine Company, he is asking for the right to build apartments not the obligation to build them. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 11 Commissioner Weil to continue. She would like to work through this and wishes Commissioner Weil moved to continue this public hearing until 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 1995. There was no second. Jane Anderson, stated that the public must be allowed to attend this hearing and 5:00 p.m. is too early for people who work until 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded, to continue this public hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 27, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 2-1. Commissioner Baker abstained. Commissioner Baker again took over the meeting as Chairman. REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. Customer Service Report Presentation: Rita Westfield, Assistant Director Report was received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at March 6, 1995 City Council Meetinq Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek - none Commissioner Mitzman - none Commissioner Weil Stated that she had been awakened at 7:15 a.m. on Sunday morning by lawn mowing equipment operated by a professional service and asked if this was allowed under the new Noise Ordinance. Staff stated that standards due apply City wide with some exceptions. Staff will consult the Ordinance to see if lawn mowing equipment is among the exceptions. Commissioner Baker - none Commissioner Lunn - none ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, to adjourn and reconvene the meeting at 6:30 p.m. on March 27, 1995, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 12 The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on March 27, 1995 with a Brown Act/Conflict of Interest Workshop, 6:30 p.m. and subsequently to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council .... ~hambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairperson Recording Secretary