Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-26-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:07 p.m., Tustin Senior Center PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Kasalek, Baker, Butler, Stracker and Weil None 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. 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 April 12, 1993 Planninq Commission meetinq. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker 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 P~AISING 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. 2. ZONE CHANGE 93-001 (IRVINE COMPANY) APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 ATTENTION: MICHAEL LeBLANC EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 2 ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCLUDE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT TYPE DESCRIBED AS "PATIO HOMES" Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the environmental determination by adopting Resolution No. 3135 and; 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 93-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3136, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff made corrections to Resolution No. 3136, as moved. Commissioner Baker stated that he did not recall 900 square foot homes being discussed for estate sized lots; that he assumed there would be higher square footage unit sizes that he did not see the need in the estate size lots. Staff replied that there is currently no minimum unit size called out for the estate-low or medium-low densities; that only the medium density has a minimum called out at 800 square feet; that a minimum unit size of 900 square feet was used for consistency purposes; that, at this time, someone could purchase an estate size lot and place a 500 square foot home on it. Commissioner Baker asked if they should increase the minimum unit size to a larger square footage. Staff replied that cluster subdivisions may have smaller lots where a 900 square foot home would be more appropriate. Commissioner Baker asked how a patio home could be separated from a cluster development. Staff replied that the provisions of the Specific Plan are clear on defining a cluster development in that there is a specific benefit in preserving open space or a recreational element incorporated into a portion of the project; that the Specific Plan provides specific development standards such as set backs; that the patio home is like a detached condominium without lot lines, only fence lines. Commissioner Kasalek asked Commissioner Baker if a 900 square foot house would be built on a 10,000 square foot lot, realistically. Commissioner Baker replied that his concept for a patio home was of areas with narrow streets and little setbacks; he found it difficult to generalize from one example to the other. The Director replied by stating that the cluster concept could produce a product similar to the patio home; that there are stipulations under the cluster concept in the estate home category allowing lot sizes to go very low with the caveat that the homes are clustered to preserve an open space character. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 3 Commissioner Weil asked if this was necessary as a control tool. Staff replied that it was non-essential; that their were concerns that a minimum unit size was not established in all districts; and that they wanted to be consistent by requiring that the minimum unit size for all of East Tustin detached homes be 900 square feet. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had been approached with units approximately 900 square feet. Staff affirmed that they are presently reviewing four (4) tracts under patio home standards with two (2) projects having 950 square foot single story units in the medium density land use designation. Commissioner Weil stated that she would hate to have a project come before them in the future with 750 square feet homes; and could always change it in the future. Commissioner Baker asked if they wanted to require additional square footage for estate size lots. The Director replied that discretion to permit the cluster concept through a conditional use permit in the estate district could permit, subject to discretion of the Commission, homes of this size; that the development may have less than two (2) dwelling units per acre, but over a 300 acre site; that a patio home could be proposed in that estate lot with a proportionate lot size; and that the original intent of the estate district was to preserve a sense of openness while not exceeding a certain density limit over an entire area. Commissioner Weil stated that she would be inclined to leave it in. Commissioners Baker and Kasalek agreed. Commissioner Butler stated that there is no minimum requirement for estate zoning; that would not take away from the Irvine Company's right to build and the City will not lose anything; that they will probably not consider building less than a 1,000 square foot unit; that what is proposed is more restrictive than before. He continued with asking if the Commissioners realized that the DUI was reduced to 15 units and if it was alright with the Commissioners; and asked if there could be more flexibility on the "flag lots" left over on a project to allow a seventh unit to make it uniform within the development; asked if this only pertained to the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP); and if other development proposals would be allowed to consider a patio home development. Staff replied that the developer would have to process a variance; that they could consider a private street widened to 28 feet with a sidewalk on one side, thereby allowing up to 12 units; that certain findings need to be made regarding the size, shape, topography, and whether they are being denied a privilege; that the intent of the six (6) units was due to the Fire Department's concern of access with a maximum of 150 feet; that a seventh unit would extend the driveway; affirmed that it pertains to the ETSP; that a proposal would be allowed to use the planned community or planned development zoning which would include a Conditional Use Permit and site specific development plan; and that the Commission would be able to establish whatever standards were appropriate. The Director stated that there have been recent developments at Holt and Warren; that some have met with community opposition; that Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 4 with the Cultural Resources Overlay District in the downtown area, from the staff perspective, this would not be a development proposal that would be viewed consistent in character with the downtown area; that any developer has the right to use the planned development provisions allowing flexibility to design development standards around a specific development plan. Commissioner Butler asked for confirmation that no five (5) bedroom units were allowed; and if the projects were able to be done with the parking within a 200 foot radius of the units. Commissioner Stracker asked how the reference to 87 dwelling units on a private drive was determined. Staff replied that the number was based upon a previous policy determination that the East Tustin Policy Committee made relating to attached products; that it was based on the average number of daily trips that would be generated to the capacity of the 24-25 foot travel way with that type of product. Commissioner Stracker asked requirements. for a clarification of setback Staff replied that a conventional subdivision has front, side and rear yard setbacks; that this only has setbacks from the street and distance between buildings of 10 feet, or six (6) feet with no elevations; that along the private street there would be a 10 foot setback to the living area, that a garage could encroach five (5) feet; that 75% could have living space above the garage; that in private courts, the setback is seven (7) feet to the living area and three (3) feet to the garage; and that 50% of building frontage could be over the garage. Commissioner Stracker asked why the setback was three (3) feet instead of 5 feet in the private court. Staff replied that it was from the Irvine Company's original proposal; that staff would have preferred five (5) feet; that in the workshop presentations by The Irvine Company, it was discussed that three (3) feet would bring things closer to the street and create a different feeling within the court; and that the applicant might be able to provide more information on their intent. Commissioner Stracker asked if flow-through drains were allowed on the public streets or must drainage be picked up in underground systems. Staff replied that they must drain to underground systems; that the ramp detail would not accommodate that in the courts. The Director stated that there were no flow-through systems on any storm drains on any projects right now, that she is aware of. Commissioner Stracker stated that he was concerned about the three (3) foot minimum setback, due to damage from vehicles backing up, etc.; and asked if the setback could be larger. Commissioner Butler asked for a clarification of "no elevations" on at least one elevation on page 4 of the report. Commissioner Kasalek stated that it should be no windows on at least one elevation. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 5 The Public Hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Mike Le Blanc, representing The Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, expressed his appreciation of the staff's efforts and supported the Ordinance including the changes; stated that the 200 foot distance is workable in the site plans; that regarding the three (3) foot setback in the small patio home court developments, the intimate atmosphere allows flexibility to reduce the setbacks and create an open space. Commissioner Stracker noted that parallel parking was not allowed, and asked how a court could be feasibly kept free from vehicles illegally parking. Mr. Le Blanc replied that all of the circumstances were discussed at the workshops; that it is a sensible standard to keep; that it is a unique situation; and there will be low volume traffic; and that that issue will be able to be looked at when the specific design is presented. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that short of putting an 18-20 foot driveway in, they could not solve the problem; but that the three (3) foot driveway in the court would hopefully make people more aware; and that they were safer with the three (3) foot than the five (5) foot driveway. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve the environmental determination by adopting Resolution No. 3135 as submitted. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 93-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3136 revised as follows: Page 1, Item B.: change "April 12, 1993" to "April 26, 1993" Exhibit B, Page 1, Item B: 1993" change "April 12, 1993" to "April 26, Page 2, first line delete "of the City Council" Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 3. Status Reports Commissioner Baker noted that there was a lot of code enforcement activity. The Director replied that they now have an aggressive enforcement officer who is following up on complaints and referrals; that she has completed 95% of complaints; that some of the items are referrals in the southwest neighborhood, where money is granted to help complete the work. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to receive and file the subject report. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: 4. Report on actions taken at April 19, 1993 City Council meeting Commissioner Weil asked about the retrofitting of the Utt Juice Building regarding the issue of a single entrance. The Director replied that it is now completely vacated and cannot be used until it is retrofitted, as it is posted as an unsafe building; that the issue regarding the single entrance related to the way the tenant improvements were designed. Staff reported on the subject agenda. 5. Update on Marine Corps Base Closure The Director suggested a meeting for the Planning Commission to provide information regarding the closure. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there recommendations from the workshop. were any outstanding The Director replied that there is a need to balance the kind of amenities that the public would like against the fiscal impacts of the uses; that people would like open space with public recreational facilities, but needs to be offset by support for the site; that people feel that the blimp hangars should be preserved, but not at residents' expense; that people want things to pay for themselves, but the survey had things listed that do not pay. Commissioner Stracker asked if the 1,200 returned surveys of the 25,000 sent out, were spread out over the City. The Director replied that they were spread out; but that they receive the highest response rates from the highest voter turnout areas. Staff reported on the subject project. 6. Update on Urban Rail Commissioner Weil commented that there were statistical survey methods that could be cut through quickly and be done with a fraction of the amount of people and cost less with much better results; and that she was upset that OCTA was spending so much money on surveys; that they are spinning their wheels; and that she appreciated the report. The Director replied that there is an Urban Rail Working Group, comprised of representatives from each Orange County City that would be along the original 23 mile segment; the City of Tustin is not a full member, but an associate member due to not being part of the original alignment group; that they are interested due to the base closure and the potential location of any future urban rail system; that they are sending representatives to each meeting. Commissioner Stracker stated that he has attended the urban rail meetings and noted that they lack direction, and are floundering. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Weil noted that at the south end of the map is the multi-modal station across from E1 Toro Air Station and that she thinks we will see an international airport at E1 Toro. The Director suggested a field trip on the Blue Line to downtown Los Angeles with a Metro Link train from Union Station to Santa Ana with a guide to show the advantages and disadvantages; and that it could be publicized as a public meeting. Commissioner Stracker stated that Metro Link trains are comfortable and quiet, but expensive. Staff reported on the subject project. 7. Update on Commuter Rail Commissioner Kasalek asked what issues the Irvine homeowners associations had with locations B and C. Commissioner Stracker replied that they do not want the sites at those locations due to being close to homes, ball fields, and the associated costs. Commissioner Baker noted that fear was a factor; that they are afraid of the noise, odor, and their kids' safety at the ball fields. The Director stated that Harvard Avenue was a continuing issue; that if the commuter rail goes in, there would be less likelihood of making Harvard a cul-de-sac; that it is identified as a secondary highway on the Master Plan and cannot be removed without losing Measure M funding. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any potential of Harvard going over the tracks. The Director replied that Irvine has been discussing an above/below grade crossing; that the facility is expensive and not likely to have funding in the near future; and noted that Newport Avenue under-crossing will be $13-17 million. Commissioner Stracker noted that Culver would cost $20 million. Commissioner Baker noted that they are concerned with additional trains. Commissioner Stracker noted that they are concerned with being heavily impacted by the Eastern Transportation Corridor. The Director agreed that they are angry about the transition area of the Eastern Transportation Corridor being in their back yards; that they want to know what mitigation measures can be imposed; that the OCTA is covering all of the environmental issues; but will look only once the City has selected a site. Commissioner Weil stated that there was a value to the industrial park of having a rail station in Tustin; that people could walk or bicycle to work; that it would loosen up Tustin's transportation problems. Commissioner Baker stated that it would be an advantage with the base closure; and that, unfortunately, Tustin is paying the debt of development in south county. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 8 The Director replied that they are attempting to reach a consensus between the Irvine and Tustin staffs; and that once a decision is made, they will go back to the homeowners associations with recommendations for the City Councils; that this will occur within the next 30-45 days; that Irvine staff is opposing Site B and recommending Site C; that our homeowners are recommending site B; that the visibility of the site is critical; and that the proximity to the base is important to the City's mitigation measures. Commissioner Kasalek commented that she will arrange for residents at the meetings. The Director stated that the Irvine staff did little to diffuse their residents; and it is important to have Tustin residents at the meetings. Commissioner Stracker stated that for Site C, the bridge across Peter's Canyon Wash would have to be rebuilt due to not meeting railroad standards, thereby increasing costs. Staff reported on the subject project. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Stracker -Asked about the status of the Chevron station near Bryan Avenue. Staff informed the Commission that the project will not receive a certificate of occupancy until the existing problem with lighting and glare is handled. Commissioner Baker -Asked when Chestnut/Main Street would be opening. Staff replied that it would be opened in late June. Commissioner Butler -Congratulated new Mayor Potts and Mayor Pro-tem Saltarelli. -Asked for the date of the First Street bridge opening ceremony. Staff informed the Commission that the tentative date for the opening was May 6th at 4:00 p.m. Staff would have a confirmed date by the end of the week. -Asked about the Urban Rail Oversight Committee The Public Works Department will be bringing a report on the subject back to the Commission in the near future. -Informed staff of a commercial building owner who said that he received a letter from the City regarding the removal of graffiti on his property. The letter stated that if a signed release was not received a fine would be assessed. Staff stated that a letter of that type does not get sent until several attempts have been made to reach the owner. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1993 Page 9 -Informed the Commission of three Oversight Committee. (3) vacancies on the Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired about the status of K-Mart Staff noted that building permits were issued today on the property. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tustin Senior Center, 200 S. "C" Street, Tustin. Chairperson Kathleen Clancy Secretary