Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-09-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RE~ULARHEETING DECEMBER 9~ ~99~ CALL TO ORDER= 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Le Jeune, Kasparian, Kasalek and Weil Absent: 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 November 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13734 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE BREN COMPANY 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 C/O MR. WILLIAM L. MOORHOUS LOTS 9, 10, I, J AND K OF TRACT 12870 AND PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 89-03, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND LA COLINA DRIVE. PLANNED COMMUNITY - RESIDENTIAL (PC-R) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. EXTENSION OF SIX (6) MONTHS TO THE EXPIRATION DATE OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13734 PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN SUBDIVISION CODE SECTION 9335.08 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission grant a ninety (90) day extension to the expiration date of Vesting Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1991 Page 2 Tentative Tract Map 13734 by adoption of Resolution No. 2984, as submitted. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Le Jeune abstained due to an absence at the last meetinq. Item #2 was pulled for discussion and it was decided that the approval would be for ninety (90) days and not six (6) months. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Design Review 89-44 and Variance 90-11 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. AMAURI NICASIO 13651 GREEN VALLEY TUSTIN, CA 92630 MR. AMAURI NICASIO 13651 GREEN VALLEY MULTIPLE FAMILY (2,700) RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DISTRICT CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW A VARIANCE FROM TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9271q TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA FOR MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS FROM 7,000-SQUARE FEET TO 6,783-SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE SUBJECT SITE WHICH IS SUBSTANDARD IN SIZE. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Approve Design Review 89-44; and Variance 90-11, subject to the Conditions of Resolution No. 2986, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked why 50 feet was allowed for lot width when the minimum lot width required was 70 feet. Staff replied that the existing lot was annexed into the City and is a legal lot size. Commissioner Kasparian asked the procedure for determining a zoning code when annexing an area; and for a clarification of undergrounding of utilities. The Director replied that the policy was to designate an area closely to comparable areas; and that as part of the Municipal Code, new construction is required to drop utilities to ground level. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m. Amauri Nicasio, 25282 De Salle Street, Tustin, introduced himself to the Commission. Commissioner Weil thanked the applicant for the clear drawings of the project. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. CQ~issioner Le Jeune asked the advantage of connecting multiple housing as required by the Zoning Code. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1991 Page 3 Staff replied that there are a number of different ways to develop in the R-3 district, and that since the applicant wanted to establish a second larger unit, a duplex was better for his use. The Director stated that staff would provide a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance with the General Plan review. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 89-44 and Variance 90-11 by adopting Resolution No. 2986, revised as follows: Exhibits B and C were added. Exhibit A, page 3, Condition 1.5, add at the end of first sentence "consistent with the partial plan and elevation as depicted in Exhibits B and C". Motion carried 5-0. Tentative Tract Map 14396, Desiqn Review 90-49, Conditional Use Permit 91-21 and Hillside Review 91-03 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FOOTHILL COMMUNITY BUILDERS P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 ATTENTION: MR. DAVE CONLEY LOTS 12, 13, 24, AND 25 OF TRACT 13627 ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/HILLSIDE DISTRICT - 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. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 351 NUMBERED LOTS AND 90 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF 351 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS; 2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS; 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE "CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT" STANDARDS OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT; AND 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HILLSIDE REVIEW. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2987; 2. Approve Hillside Review 91-03 by adopting Resolution No. 2988, as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Design Review 90-49 by adopting Resolution No. 2989, as submitted or revised; 4. Approve Conditional Use Permit 91-21 by adopting Resolution No. 2990, as submitted or revised; and 5. Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14396 by adopting Resolution No. 2991, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil asked for an explanation of the slope warranty agreement. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1991 Page 4 Staff replied that the developer is responsible for repair of slopes greater than 5 feet with a 2:1 to 4:1 ratio for three (3) years. The Director stated that the warranty allows for repair of the slope when necessary while responsibility is determined. Commissioner Weil asked what percentage of the project would be built out in three years. Staff replied that, due to the market at this time, no builders are ready. The Director stated that Tustin is one of only two cities in California to use the slope repair agreement; that it is a creative way to deal with the repair issue. Commissio~gr Kasparian asked if there were other homeowners associations other than the master association. Staff replied that there could be individual homeowners associations within the area depending on how they are set up; that one association could defer authority to another; and that an association is created with the recording of the tract map. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the grading manual was a requirement of a guideline; and if any areas of the grading manual were unfulfilled. Staff replied that it is a guideline; and that they fulfilled all requirements. Commissioner Kasparian asked who was responsible for maintenance of the dust. Staff replied that the homebuilder is responsible for the dust; and that it would be watered during construction activity. The Director responded that the grading manual requires dust and erosion control. Commissioner Kasalek asked the timeframe of the phases. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the one (1) gallon trees. Staff replied that 15 gallon trees are typically required, but that the one gallon trees will grow faster and develop a better root system over a 2-3 year period. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any complaints from the neighbors regarding dust. Staff was unaware of any complaints. The Director replied that there were some complaints, but that the City reacts quickly by having the area watered down. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. Dave Conley, Foothill Builders, commented that the development was well thought out and conformed to the topography of the area; that there will be removal of the eucalyptus trees and replacement; that the project will be the showplace of Tustin Ranch. He thanked Ms. Shingleton and Dan Fox for their hardwork and the Commission for Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1991 Page 5 their special interest in the project. He continued with stating that they are in agreement with the special conditions; that they plan to proceed with rough grading for 8 months to a year and then look at the market to determine feasibility of moving on; that dust control is the responsibility of the contractor for the project; and that there is a 24-hour hot-line number for the City to contact someone if there is a problem. Leason Pomeroy, 11222 Vista Del Lago, stated that he was delighted in how the project has evolved; that the edges are generous and that he is happy with the reforestation. Thomas Crosby, Jr., 2211 Pavillion, noted that he is not a member of any environmental organization nor a contributor, but read part 21166 of the Environmental Code into the record (and submitted a copy to staff) and read the EIR into the record to indicate that when a rare or endangered species is found in an area, a new EIR must be completed. He submitted photographs and newspaper articles as proof of the rare and endangered species of Cactus Wren that has been discovered in the hills. He invited the Commission on a tour of the area to see the nests. He continued with noting that the current EIR does not discuss the bird; and that the project will destroy the habitat of the bird since the cactus cannot be removed without removing the bird; and that this seems to be an important habitat for the birds since there are nests throughout the hillside. Commis$%Qner Weil asked if Mr. Crosby was an attorney or a bird expert; and if the birds are just in this area or in other areas; and why he did not discuss it last time he spoke. Mr. Crosby stated that he no longer practices law; and that he is not a bird expert; and that the only two areas he has looked are in the eucalyptus grove and on the opposite side of the hill; and that he did not discuss it previously because he wanted to be sure of his facts. Commissioner Weil asked how Mr. Crosby was able to gain such easy access to the area. Mr. Crosby replied that he had never encountered a guard; that it is open for recreational use; and that if it were fenced off, the Irvine Company would be responsible for hazards. Judy Almquist, 2281 Pavillion, thanked the Commission for listening to their concerns and Ms. Shingleton for her assistance; stated that the cluster homes do not impact her, but her neighbors would have to view the clustering plan; that a lot of the open space is uninhabitable, and should be relocated; that there are dust and noise problems and fire danger from the weeds; that the 24-hour hot-line was never mentioned. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:24 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a time period that the houses must be built in after the sale of the lots. Staff replied that the City had no requirement and that it was not a part of the marketing program at this time. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the Irvine Company has "bent over backwards" to save the hillsides and the ridgelines and adjacent property lines; and that, assuming the EIR is alright, she approved of the project. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1991 Page 6 John Shaw, City Attorney, concurred with Mr. Crosby in that a new EIR may be necessary when new circumstances arise; that the issue is whether this bird is considered additional circumstances; that the appropriate procedure is to initiate a staff review; that it would be a mistake to ignore the item; and that they would need to contact federal and state agencies for information on the bird. The Director recommended continuing the item until the first meeting in January. Commissioner Baker asked the applicant if a 24-hour hot-line was available for dirt and noise issues. Mr. Conley replied that the number is available to the City. Commissioner Baker suggested the number be given to Mrs. Almquist. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the project would be held up for a specified period of time if there is a question regarding the bird. The Director replied that it would be speculative at this time; and that noticing requirements are difficult and may or may not be necessary. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the item until the next Planning Commission meeting on January 13, 1992. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 5. General Plan Goals and Policies Commissioner Weil stated that any areas wanting to be annexed into the City should have to pay for improvements; that none of the annexations currently in the "pipeline" should be affected; that some areas require a lot of infrastructure; and that residents of the hillside district have purposely chosen less infrastructure, which may be a liability to the City. Commissioner Kasparian suggested areas pay a one-time fee when the City wants them to be annexed. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed with the concept, but not fees concept. Commissioner Baker agreed; and that it should not be that specific in the General Plan. Commissioner Weil read the revision into the record, upon. Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS: 6. as agreed Pushcart Ordinance A combination of Options 3 and 5 were accepted by four out of five commissioners with Commissioner Le Jeune voting for Option 1. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 1991 Page 7 STAFF CONCERNS: 7. Report on actions taken at December 2, meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. 1991 City Council COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Le Jeune -Asked if the City had considered using a night answering service. Wished everyone Happy Holidays. Commissioner Kasparian -Asked if the General Plan addresses annexations rigidly. -Has a problem reading drawings in reports due to the size. Commissioner Weil -Asked if the cable company that covers the City Council meetings has plans to extend the service area. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The second meeting of the month, December 23, 1991, has been canceled. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on January 13, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. C~->~' ai~~er Kathleen Clancy Secretary