Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-24-91TUSTTN PZ~,NNTN(~ COI~ITSS'rON MEETING JUNE 24, 3.993. CALL TO ORDER: 7:06 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGI~CE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek 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 June 19, 1991 planning CommissioD meetinq. Modification to a Condition of Approva% to Allow a Six-Month Extension of Desiqn Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a modification to Condition No. 1.3 of Resolution No. 2729 to allow a six-month extension to Design Review 88-70 by adopting Resolution No. 2914, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconde~ to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HE~RINGS: Tentative Tract Map 14397, Desiqn Review 90-50 and Hillside Review 91-01 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: FOOTHILL COMMUNITY BUILDERS (THE IRVINE COMPANY) 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 LOTS 9, 10, Y, DD AND A PORTION OF PARCEL B OF TRACT 13627 ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/HILLSIDE DISTRICT - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1991 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 118 NUMBERED LOTS AND 44 LETTERED LOTS BY SUBDIVIDING APPROXIMATELY 63.6 ACRES FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAND SALES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. 2. APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 3. 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. Continue these items to a date certain and provide direction to staff and the applicant to make revisions to the conceptual grading plans that would incorporate the feasible mitigation measures identified in certified EIR (85-2) for the East Tustin Specific Plan and those requirements stated for Hillside Review in City Code Section 8914(c)(8), the East Tustin Specific Plan Section 2.13 and 2.14 and the city's Grading Manual Section 10.0; and 2. Request that the applicant agree on the public record to waive the 50-day time limit, as required by Section 66452.1(a) of the California Government Code, which requires that a recommending body (the Tustin Planning Commission) take action on a tentative map within 50 days from the application was accepted as complete, which establishes a time frame for the Planning Commission to render a decision on the project by July 17, 1991. Should the applicant decline waiving this requirement, it is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to July 8, 1991 to render a decision. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the City was amenable to the second submittal. Staff commented that the first submittal grading did not reflect the guidelines of the Grading Manual, the Hillside Review, and the Tustin City Code; that the second submittal was a step in the right direction; and that they have lessened the number of units, but the number of pads is not necessarily an issue. Commissioner Kasparian asked if all of the submittals propose the flat-top grading technique. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:24 p.m. Norm Smith, representing the Irvine Company, stated that they submitted the application for lots 9 and 10 in November 1990 to be marketed to builders in small groupings or for individual custom homes; that they are in agreement with the guidelines of the ETSP and the Tustin City Codes on most of the proposal, except the topography of F Drive. He also stated that they want to proceed as quickly as possible, so continuance is not an alternative; that the topography to be preserved was clearly identified in the Specific Plan and the grading manual; and that the application lives up to the requirements. Jay Pierce, representing the Irvine Company, stated that in the development of the Specific Plan, the City only addressed "the Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1991 Page 3 knoll" and the Peter's Canyon Ridge and no other significant features or ridges as areas to be preserved; that they are slightly under-building the area; that they meet all other guidelines and have met the intent of the Specific Plan; and that the application should be approved as it is. ~rnie Vasqu~z, representing McClarren, Vasquez and Associates, stated that they intend to preserve the natural terrain with a small sense of neighborhood; that they intend to keep the "nose" of the knoll in a natural state and work around the formation of the land; that the profile of the buildings will be kept down; and that the streets curving around the terrain and the shorter cul-de-sacs are intended to work with the terrain of the site. Mr. Smith commented that the Irvine Company has lived up to its promises; they have provided the criteria for preservation of specific topographic features, the Peter's Canyon Ridge; and they selectively treat areas not designated in the guidelines as areas not slated for preservation. He continued with noting that they believe that mitigation measures made are feasible to the project; and offered a fifth option by noting that the project could be found consistent with the applicable codes; and offered a list of resolutions and list of conditions for approval. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeu~e asked if there are any other sensitive topographic features that will be coming before the Commission. Staff replied that the site falls within the Hillside District; that the Peter's Canyon Ridge falls outside of the tract boundaries; that there are other hills to be considered in future tracts and that this is the first builder level review in the hillside district. The Director commented that there are specific provisions in the ETSP, the Grading Manual, and the Grading Ordinance that require preservation of certain ridge lines and "the knoll"; that there are other standards that relate to other areas where land forms should be protected. She provided language from a separate section of the ETSP requiring the preservation or enhancement of important vistas; maintaining landform characteristics; noting that typical padded lots should be avoided on sloped areas of greater than 25% and grading should be minimized; structures should be sited so that the roof slope falls below the natural grade; buildings and alignments of roadways should be sited to maximize public visual exposure away from natural visual features; and that where level pads are required, they should conform to the natural contours. She continued by stating that these are examples of standards in each of the noted documents that went beyond the ridgeline issue; that there will be other landforms in the Hillside District that could be affected by this evening's decision. She also noted that the Irvine Company should be commended for their efforts made elsewhere within the tract, but there is a more sensitive approach that could be applied in the vicinity of 'F' Drive. Commiss$oner Le Jeune asked what was attractive about the second submittal and how did it differ. Staff replied that the second submittal was not necessarily more attractive; that the cul-de-sac was shortened and brought back away from the knoll; and that the knoll would still be reduced in height, but there would be more of the natural point left. T- 111 1"11-3---[ r- ii i Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1991 Page 4 Commissioner Le Jeune asked what would be considered as an attractive option. The Director replied that there are a variety of technical ways to deal with the design issues; that they are not proposing that the City design the tract, but want the issue addressed more sensitively; that the option presented by Mr. Smith is not applicable this evening as staff cannot provide resolutions of approval without discussing it with the Public Works Department. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the area of the second submittal. The Director replied that they compared the first and second submittals and noted that it is still a flat pad, but is carried back further on the slope. Commissioner Kasparian asked if one of the options would be to terrace the lots and maintain the natural topography of the knoll. Staff replied that smaller pads instead of one large pad is encouraged. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the difference was between "the knoll" and this knoll and why this one was not identified as needing to be preserved. The Director replied that "the knoll" is part of the area designated for the community park site north of the golf course. Commissioner Kasparian asked if it was more location than physical differences. The Director replied that there are ridge lines and knolls at a higher elevation with greater view potential, but that "the knoll" was considered as a public vista. Commissioner Baker commented that a knoll that they took a field trip to visit was not yet mentioned and that this is not "the knoll". The Director replied that "the knoll" that is capitalized in the Plan is the one with the grapefruit trees, but it is not the highest point where development would occur within East Tustin. Staff commented that the area that Commissioner Baker was referring to was on Lot 13 which is in the Hillside District and has not been dealt with yet. Commissioner Baker noted that this is in precedence to future knolls. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he has read the ETSP, the Grading Manual, and the Hillside Review document; that it differentiates between the ridgeline and "the knoll" and important vistas; that he visited the site and noticed that this vista is prominent and qualifies as an important vista; and that leveling off the top is inconsistent with the intent of the documents, which is to maintain the topography for the interest of the general public. He continued with stating that if the top is flattened, it will be beneficial to the 8 people on top, but does nothing for others in the subdivision; and that he would not approve the plan to flatten the top as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Kasalek agreed and noted that she has been in meetings on this issue, and spent time at the site; that she feels that the knoll is a significant extension of Peter's Canyon Ridge and is very visible from Jamboree Road; that it will make a very negative impact for the surrounding people; that she appreciates that the Irvine Company is in the business to make money and provide quality homes, but would prefer a compromise by them of providing stepped- up lots that are more sensitive to the hillside and retaining the knoll but still providing prime property. Commiss$oners Shaheen and Baker concurred. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who would be representing the Irvine Company in regards to the 50-day time limit. The Director suggested re-opening the public hearing to request the applicant to waive the 50-day period. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the applicant to agree to waive the 50- day time limit as required by Section 66452-1A of the California Government Code. Mr. Smith responded that they would not like to waive the 50-day period. He then offered additional comments regarding outstanding mitigation measures by noting that all measures were implemented in some manner, but not all were implemented in all areas; that F Drive has small cluster lots instead of large builder pads allowing for preservation of several acres of major natural slope areas which would be destroyed in the conventional non-hillside approach. He continued with noting that roadways follow contours with reduced design speed standards wherever possible; but on F Drive modified road standards would have little or no positive grading impact; that the proposed grading would provide over 18 acres of open space that would be retained in a natural state or landscaped to provide the appearance of a natural hillside; that the clustering of the lots on F Drive as opposed to the natural grading approach has maximized the preservation of a major natural slope area. He also stated that preservation of the Peter's Canyon Ridge will provide screening of the project for homes from the west; that the natural slope surrounding F Drive will be enhanced with landscaping; and that the nose of the knoll will blend into the surrounding homes; that the small cluster of lots on F Drive avoids the surrounding natural slope areas which are generally steeper than 25%; that typical padded lots would have flattened this entire area, which they do not want. He continued with noting that the entire site is designed with the intent of siting buildings and roadways to conform with the natural topography by minimizing grading; that the cluster of lots on F Drive are to be graded to a daylight line; that the homes will conform to and be reflective of the hill mass; and that the proposed project grading is reflective of the natural topography by creating small clusters rather than leveling off the entire site as might be expected in an unsensitive flatland site. The Director commented that staff would like the responses to the applicant's positions on the items to reflect the data and factual evidence provided on the record in the staff report. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. The Director stated that with the applicant's decision to not waive the 50-day period there are two options available to the Commission: 1) the matter could be continued to July 8 with Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1991 Page 6 request of the applicant to submit an alternate proposal this week; or 2) adopt Resolutions 2915 and 2916 denying the Hillside Review and Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the options. The Director replied that one option would be to deny the Tract Map and the Hillside review, whereby the applicant could appeal to the City Council or submit a revised proposal; or the Commission could continue the item to July 8 to meet the 50-day time limit and then decide to consider another proposal or to approve or deny the project. Commissioner Baker asked if it was physically possible for the applicant to submit a new proposal. The Director replied that the applicant might need to be referred to, but that in staff discussion with The Company there has been little willingness to compromise as evidenced by there reluctance to waive the 50-day time limit. Commissioner Baker suggested that this should be continued to July 8 to keep the discussion open. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to continue the item to July 8, 1991 and instructing Irvine Company to prepare an alternative hilltop design in vicinity of "F" Drive. Motion carried 4-1. Opposed by Commissioner Kasalek. OLD BUSINESS~ 4. Traffic Controller Cabinet Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2916 to establish policy guidelines for reviewing public improvement plans for traffic signal controller cabinets. Presentation: Sara J. Pashalides, Associate Planner The Director commented that the Public Works Department suggested postponing this item. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve a minute action to continue the item until July 8, 1991 and to request a representative from the Public Works Department be present at that meeting. Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: 5. Report on actions taken at June 17, 1991 city Council meeting. Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there would be a mailing regarding water saving devices. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1991 Page 7 The Director replied that there will be a brochure highlighting the devices for the public that want to waive from the consumption ordinance; and that other mailings would depend on financing. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Item 23 regarding levying of annual assessments; and asked what is the landscape and lighting district. The Director replied that distribution costs on medians and lighting are determined annually in certain areas of the landscape and lighting maintenance district, and this was the process for the annual assessment. COMMISSION CONCERNS~ Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired about activity occurring on land behind Peppertree homes. Commissioner Kasparian -Requested that City Hall make available information on where to dump household hazardous waste Commissioner Le Jeune -Inquired about a letter in the paper regarding an item that had appeared before the Planning Commission almost a year ago. -Inquired about letter from property owner regarding the kiosk in Old Town. -Commented on large real estate sign in front of Jalapeno's restaurant. -Reported an overgrowth of weeds on the meat company property. -Commented on the water company obtaining screening for the yard. Commissioner Le Jeune had requested the City Attorney report on the enforceability of an unwarranted stop sign within the City. The City Attorney reported that if a stop sign is approved by the City Council then it is enforceable by law and traffic tickets would be upheld. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:24. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker left the meeting before adjournment. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on July 8, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council C~amberst~300 Centennial Way, Tustin ~/~~/~/?.~__~ ..._~ C-~0n¢~dTLe Jeune ,/Chairman ~athleen ~lan~y Secretary · .....T i' '-Iii-ir ...... 1 -flu T -- T' I I'1