Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-25-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLAIqN'rN(~ COI4HTSSION REGULAR MEET'rN(~ JUNE 25~ 3.990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLE(FFANCE/'FNVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE 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 11, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Swearinq In of New Planning Commissioner Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar as revised; Minutes, page 18, Commissioner Kasparian, should read: "...telephone pole and a light standard that...". Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14068, DESIGN REVIEW 89-70 APPLICANT\ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WILLIAM LYON COMPANY 4490 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 LOTS 12, "L" AND "N" OF TRACT 12870 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (NO. 85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 10 NUMBERED AND 12 LETTERED LOTS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO ACCOMMODATE 200 DWELLING UNITS. 2. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2790; 2. Approve Design Review 89-70 by adopting Resolution No. 2791, as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14068 by adopting Resolution No. 2792, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1990 Page 2 Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked the purpose of the emergency exit; if smoke alarms are required; if there was a conflict between the applicant's names of Lyon Communities and William Lyon Company; asked if it was redundant to note the reference to being rated R- i in Resolution 2791; if items J and M of Exhibit A of Resolution 2791 were redundant. Staff replied that it was to provide an easy access for the Fire Department in case the main entrance is blocked; that some of the units were sprinkled, and that non-sprinkled units would be equipped with smoke detectors; that the names are the same; that the reference to R-1 in this instance does not refer to the zoning but is to ensure that the building conforms to the Building Code conditions; that it was assumed that Item J would prevail, but if the setbacks, etc. differ from Item J, then the Building Department's requirements may change. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item 5.1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2791 should be changed to include 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4; and if Item C of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2792 should be changed to say "preparation" instead of "submittal". Staff affirmed and changed, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked who maintains the underground storm drains within the project. Staff replied that the storm drains would be handled as any other storm drain on private property, but would look further for clarification. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Chris Hawke, Project Manager with William Lyon Company, noted that they concurred with all of the conditions on the staff report. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it looks like a nice project without controversy. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Resolution No. 2790 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Resolution No. 2791 as revised; Exhibit A, Page 2, item C should read: "...requirements of Condition 4.1 and 4.2 in Exhibit..."; Exhibit A, Page 8, item 5.1 should read: "...Condition 9.1 through 9.4 of Exhibit...". Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Resolution No. 2792 as revised; Exhibit A, Page 6, item C should read: "Submittal" instead of "Preparation". Motion carried 5-0. 4. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14168 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-76 APPLICANT\ OWNER: LOCATION: BAYCREST DEVELOPMENT CO. 1 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 275 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 C/O MR. CARY BREN LOTS 8, 28, MM, NN, PP, QQ, GGG, HHH, III AND JJJ OF AMENDED MAP NO. 1 OF TRACT 12870, NORTHWEST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP DRIVE Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1990 Page 3 ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: 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. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 22.2 ACRES INTO 137 NUMBERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 137 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 30 LETTERED LOTS FOR LAND- SCAPING, PRIVATE STREETS AND RECREATION PURPOSES. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2787; 2. Approve Design Review 89-76 by adoption of Resolution No. 2788, as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adoption of Resolution No. 2789, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff made changes to Page 4 of the staff report to indicate that the property owners will maintain the landscaping in front of the entry structures, not the homeowners association. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the text indicates that the development would be medium-low density, and asked if the developer accepted the criteria required; and if they should ask the developer to change the drawings to indicate medium density. Staff replied that when a single-family detached development is placed on a medium density lot, it must be developed in accordance with the medium-low development standards; and that the drawings need not be changed since the land use dedication for the ETSP is very clear. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the dedication of 1.4 acres for recreation area; and asked if the final tract map must be approved prior to the expiration of the tentative tract map in 24 months. Staff replied that when Tract 12870 was dedicated, the developer dedicated a specific number of acres as private and public parks; and affirmed that the developer has 24 months to have a final map recorded. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item C of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2788 should include reference to 4.2 and 4.3; and asked for a clarification of Item 3.7 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2788. Staff affirmed and changed, as moved; and replied that the development may have gates which may not be locked, and that there are requirements in the CC&R requirements to ensure compliance. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item 4.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2789 should be changed to five (5) feet instead of three (3) feet as changed in a prior application. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Commission was under the impression that they took action on the item for all applications. Staff replied that the change from three (3) to five (5) feet was for the prior application only; that this is what staff recommends, but that it could be changed. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Baker asked if this was the same type of slope. Staff replied that it was the same type of condition with a retaining wall and a slope going up to the fence line. The Assistant Director noted that she also understood the prior change to apply to the Standard Pacific Project only; but that it would be appropriate to change the requirement so that anything over five (5) feet would require access. Staff noted that without a retaining wall, then access is not required. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there is access across the top of the stairs, and if there is a requirement to traverse. Staff replied that the original requirement was to make it easier to traverse up the slope; that the stairs or other device are to be available to go up the face of the retaining wall to access the slope for maintenance; and that there is no requirement that they need to traverse across the top of the slope. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m. Mr. Cary Bren, Baycrest Development, noted that they concurred with the staff report. Commissioner Baker asked his opinion of the three (3) or five (5) foot requirement for slope access. Mr. Bren replied that there would not be a big difference. Commissioner Le Jeune asked his opinion of the colors. Mr. Bren replied that he spoke with staff that day to note that the deletion of the colors was not a problem, and to ensure that they would still be able to utilize six (6) colors based upon staff's approval. Commissioner Kasparian asked the pitch of the roofs. Mr. Bren replied that the pitch was 5 and 12. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:44 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to Resolution No. 2787 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. approve Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Resolution No. 2788 as revised; Exhibit A, Page 2, item C should read: "...Condition 4.1 through 4.3 in Exhibit...". Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Resolution No. 2789 as revised; Exhibit A, Page 5, item 4.3 should read: "...greater than ~ feet...". Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 5. Development Status Report Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1990 Page 5 Commissioner Baker asked if there was any indication of an expected decrease in transfer units. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any residential complaints regarding the Browning Corridor. Staff replied negatively. NEW BUSINESS ST~FF CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune questioned the Commission's or Council's ability to require the subsequent removal or reduction in height as it relates to the 35 foot sign for Carl's Jr. Commissioner Le Jeune also inquired regarding the Commission's ability to place time limits on use permits as a precedent for future projects. Tom Nixon replied he would check on this and report back to the Commission. 6. Report on Actions taken at June 18, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Assistant Director of Community Development Commissioner Baker asked if the Santa Fe Land Company would be notified regarding the workshop; and if there was a cost factor to consider for the time involved in notifying tenants. The Assistant Director replied that it was a workshop in which the public was invited, but it was not a public hearing; and that there was a cost factor, but that case planners could survey their route prior to their field work and incorporate some tenants in their itinerary. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the issue regarding the Carl's Jr. sign was resolved. The Assistant Director replied that at the completion of the I-5 freeway widening on the south side, the City could determine whether a reduction in height was necessary; and that Carl's Jr. would absorb the cost of the decision. Staff informed Commissioners Le Jeune and Kasparian of the Sign Code meeting on Friday, June 29 at 9:00 a.m. CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian -Asked if the Planning Commissioners would be able to attend the APA Conference in September. The Assistant Director said she would check and report back to him. -Wanted to commend the City for the quick response in repairing the loose bench. -Asked if we could follow up on locating the responsible party for the removal of the abandoned sign next to Coco's Restaurant on 17th Street. -Commended the change from styrofoam cups to paper. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1990 Page 6 Commissioner Baker -Inquired as to why they received duplicate plans, they receive copies of plans submitted by applicant and there are also copies in staff reports. Staff advised that applicant submits only enough full size sets for the Commissioners, that staff reports are for the public and therefore reduced plans need to be included. Staff questioned the Commission regarding their preference of full size plans versus reduced plans. Commissioner Le Jeune -Commented that in reviewing the Planning Commissioners Institute tapes he learned that Resolution findings should be very specific and inquired if maybe we were being too general. Tom Nixon replied that from a legal standpoint we should be as specific as possible. The Assistant Director advised that usually staff findings are adequate and that when denying a project findings need to be and are more specific. -Asked if the Southwest Neighborhood Stabilization Program workshop was open to the public. The Assistant Director confirmed that it would be. ia, DJOURNHENT At 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 9, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 5-0. Penni ~/~ley - ~ ~/ Secret~ary ~