Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-23-87MZNUTES TUSTIM PLANNXNG CO)~MISSIOM REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/XNVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious 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 CALE#OAR: (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 November 9, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Wetl noted that page 7, paragraph 9 line 2 should read "be put onto private property." Commissioner Baker noted that page 3, paragraph 3 should read "Commissioner Baker moved..." Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve the minutes with the noted changes. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home at 135 Mountain View Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to permtt operation of a Large Family Day Care Home at 135 Mountain View. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS e Use Permit 87-25 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: LOUIE TONY CISNEROS 450 E. 1ST STREET, SUITE D TUSTIN, CA 92680 THOMAS LI #2 S. GARFIELD AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 450 E. 1ST STREET, STE D Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page two REQUEST: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: AUTHORIZATION FOR A TYPE 41, BEER AND WINE LICENSE RESTRICTED TO ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 981. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN CLASS 1: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION Resolution No. 2456 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 450 EAST FIRST STREET, TUSTIN. Presentation: Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune clarified the seating number at 15 due to parking. Commissioner Baker clarified that the applicant understood that the permit is for on-site consumption even though it is a take-out restaurant. Commissioner Well clarified with staff that Parents Who Care had been notified and that no response was received. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 87-25 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2456. Motion carried 5-0. APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Vesting Tentative Map No. 13106 and Design Review 87-18 HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 1) AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 9.98 ACRES INTO 110 NUMBERED AND 19 LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT, 2) APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED Resolution No. 2457 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 13106 AND DESIGN REVIEW 87-18 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planntng Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page three Resolution No. 2458 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 87-18 A PROJECT WITH 110 ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON 9.98 ACRES ON LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 Resolution No. 2459 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 13106 Presentation: Jeffrey Davis, Senior Planner The Director noted changes to the Resolutions. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Jerry Well, 1702 Summerville, Tustin, Ca., a former member of the Tustin Meadows Community Association Board of Directors noted that he had some problems with conditions in the resolutions regarding the set up of CC & R's. He assumed that the City wants to be assured that the East Tustin Develoment is properly maintained, that the Associations do not go bankrupt and that mechanisms are provided to maintain property values. Mr. Well feels that the City is unnecessarily involved. In his opinion, one third of these Associations will fail within three years because they are too small. He suggested that the City strongly look at dividing the small Associations up into five larger Associations. He feels that 300 - 500 units are necessary to enable an Association to have professional management and he estimated that 1,000 units were necessary for on-site management. Mr. Wetl further indicated his displeasure in the wording of Resolution No. 2459, Exhibit A, 7.1, involving the City in all enforcement procedures. He felt the City would be a party to law suits. He stated that the wording was too broad and suggested it be worded to provide the City enforcement of architectural control items and things that effect property values. Mr. Well took issue with Item E. He asked if the City will inspect the maintenance of the property at taxpayers expense. He also indicated that the wording of the driveway parking and RV restrictions were insensitive to the communities needs. Mr. Wetl also questioned the necessity to get Community Development Department approval for repairs, why names and addresses of Board of Directors must be filed with the City, the responsibility of block walls and the basis on which the Community Development Department would require approval of any CC & R Amendments. He suggested that this was done without good knowledge of Associations and recommended that the Community Development Department, City Attorney and someone qualified in the governing of Associations have discussions to get a better feeling of division of responsibility between the Associations and the City. Mr. Well volunteered his time. Commissioner Puckett asked what made Tusttn Meadows Community Association so successful and how dues were collected. Mr. Well noted that the Association was solid financially, large enough and has good people to draw upon. Dues are collected through a billing process. He suggested that the City has a legitimate concern in protecting the appearance and property values of the area. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page four Mr. Dave Langlols, representing Fieldstone, noted agreement with all of the conditions of approval for Tract Map 13106 and complimented Christine Shingleton and her staff for their help with the technical issues on the project. Jay Pierce, representing the Irvtne Company, noted a typographical error on Resolution 2458, Exhibit A, 3.12, line 2 "and" should be "and/or". The public hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m. Commissioner Pontlous questioned if lighting timers or sensors (Resolution 2458, Exhibit A, Condition 4.6) are required. Commissioner Well agreed that some sort of timing mechanism is needed for the lights in the paseos. Staff responded that the Association will have to provide a lighting plan for approval. Resolution No. 2459, Exhibit A, Condition 1.1 provides for paseo lighting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked that staff respond to Mr. Well's comments. Christine Shtn~leton, in reaction to Mr. Well's comments, feels that it is not that staff does not have knowledge in the way Associations work but in many cases the City's role in enforcement of CC & R's is a matter of City policy. She cited, as an example, the requirement for names and addresses of Homeowner's Association Officers was a previous City policy direction. The language included in CC & R's has been standardized for a number of years and has been subject to review by the City Attorney's office. She suggested that the Commission might want to refer the policy issue on CC & R enforcement to the City Council for their direction. She noted that Resolution No. 2459, Exhibit A, Condition 7.1 G should be corrected to read "subject to a building permit." She suggested that the Commission might want to send a memo to the City Council requesting clarification or direction on this matter. Lois Jeffrey stated that she had reviewed the CC & R's that have been reviewed by the City Attorney's office in the last 5 years. Those reviewed over the last two years contain the same provisions as are indicated in the attached resolutions. If a Homeowner's Association is sued, the City is not a party for liability purposes. It is a party in enforcement only. She also noted that it was generally standard for the Homeowner's Association to ensure that the association maintain the property and that this was not an assumption of inspection duties by the City. Commissioner Well asked if the City Council could get involved. Lois Jeffrey responded that as an enforcement issue the City Council could get involved. Commissioner Le Jeune noted the difference of the role of the City probably has changed from that of its role of 20 years ago. He noted that the City does not need CC & R's to get involved. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page five Commissioner Well asked why the provisions for City involvement were put in the CC& R's. Commissioner Ponttous asked if there was anything in the wording that would prevent the smaller Homeowner's Associations from combining to form one large one at a later time. Staff responded, that the City's role in CC&R enforcement was a matter of previous policy direction; that there was nothing in standard CC&R language restricting an Association from combining at a later time at their option. Commissioner Well asked if any type of mechanism could be used to encourage developers to group the Associations together. She asked for feedback from the developers that were in the audience. Mr. Lan~lots, representing Fieldstone, noted that he has never experienced a problem with Associations or developments of a small number of units. Mr. Forest Dtckason, representing LDM, shared Mr. Langlois' comments and noted that the Agency that is most responsible for the regulation, administration and enforcement of Associations is the State Department of Real Estate which must approve the CC & R's, Articles of Incorporation and budgets. Commissioner Wetl asked Mr. Pierce to comment on the Woodbrtdge development. Mr. Pierce noted that Woodbridge is set up so that community maintenance costs are handled by a master association. In addition, there are still maintenance associations for each development. The Irvine Company is looking at a master level plan for maintenance on private parks and the golf course in the East Tustin Development. Commissioner Puckett asked Mr. Wetl if the comments from staff lessened his concerns. Mr. Wetl responded that a few questions were answered but he felt that his major concerns should probably be brought before the City Council. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would be appropriate to send a memo to City Council requesting review and further clarification on the role of the City in CC&R enforcement. Commissioner Well felt that City Council was acting, in some respects, as a consumer Protection mechanism and it might be a bit overzealous to some degree. She suggested that a memo or list of concerns signed by the Planning Commission be sent to the City Council. Commissioner Le Jeune asked that staff prepare a draft memo for review at the December 14th Planning Commission meeting before transmitting the memo to City Council. Commissioner Baker asked how these discussions might affect tonight's decisions. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page slx Commissioner Wetl asked if we could grandfather tonights decisions in imposing CC&R provisions on the subject projects being considered. Christine Shlngleton responded that City Council could adopt a grandfathertng resolution modifying any previous actions. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Wetl seconded to direct staff to draft a letter to City Council for Planning Commission review at thetr next meettng, asking for discussion on the role the City should play in the review and enforcement of CC & R's. Motion carried by unanimous informal consent. Commissioner Baker questioned patio walls along the Flood Control Channel easement. Staff responded that any wall would have to be approved by the Orange County Flood Control District. Commtsloner Le Jeune questioned whether residents were expected to walk to the pools or if they were to drive would there be sufficient parking. Staff responded that due to the pedestrian circulation pattern of the project people would most likely walk, however, there are sufficient parking spaces if they choose to drive. Commissioner Baker questioned additional building upgrades that may be necessary for noise attenuation {Resolution 2462, Exhibit A, Condition 8.1A). Staff responded that this was to assure that the developer would guarantee that interior noise standards meet the state requirements. Commissioner Puckett complimented staff on the source notes on the sides of the exhibits. Commissioner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to find the EIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan adequate for this project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2457. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to approve Design Review 87-18 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2458 with revisions including various typographical errors, inclusion of a 10% setback adjustment and relocation of handicap parking stalls. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontlous seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Map No. 13106 by the adoption of Resolution No. 245g as revised to include the provision requiring approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Department of bus turnouts. Motion carried 5-0. APPLICANT: LOCATION: Tentative Tract Map No. 13161, Design Review 87-22 & Variance 87-5 LDM DEVELOPMENT INC. LOT 5 OF SECTOR TRACT 12763 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page seven REQUEST: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: 1) AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 11.3 ACRE SITE INTO 145 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 2) APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. Resolution No. 2460 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13161 AND DESIGN REVIEW 87-22 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Resolution No. 2461 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 87-22 AND VARIANCE 87-5 FOR A 145 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 11.3 ACRES ON LOT 5 OF SECTOR TRACT 12763. Resolution No. 2462 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13161 Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted changes to the Resolutions. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Forest Dtckason, representing LDM, commented that LDM had found the conditions acceptable. He also commended staff for their help in review of the project. The public hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Pontious noted that she liked the innovative manner of the street alignment. Commissioners Baker and Well agreed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for clarification regarding the fencing and security gate opposite the school. Staff noted that it was the concern of the Police Department that there would be a temptation to use this project as a shortcut and for overflow parking. Commissioner Wetl asked the position of the paseo and if it was necessary. Planntng Commission Minutes November 23, 1987 Page eight Staff responded that the Orange County Transit District asked for direct access to the project by way of a pedestrian paseo to be provided on the southwest portion of the tract subject to future review of the location. Mr. Dtckason noted that he does not want to see the wall changed, but the wording leaves design options. He noted ambivalence in that he feels that there could be a conflict in providing an open paseo and the whole reason for providing security gates. Christine Shln~leton noted that the actual location of the paseo was left open but the Commission should still respond to OCTD's request. Commissioner Well asked why the paseo was located 200 feet from the entrance. She stated that she does not feel that OCTD will get the rtdershtp in that area that they might expect. If LDM decides to put in security gates as a marketing feature the paseo breaches that security. She noted that she would like to give the developer more flexibility in regard to the paseo. Commissioner Pontious agreed. Commissioner Baker asked if the ingress was a paved sidewalk in order to encourage people to walk. Mr. Dtckason responded that both sides of the road have a paved sidewalk. Staff emphasized the Police Department's concern with vehicular movement and parking from a very highly intensive active sports facility. Security is not an issue. Christine Shlngleton noted that the language could be changed in Resolution 2461, Exhibit A, condition 2.6 after the first sentence to read "only in the event that perimeter security fencing is not required along Lagier Way pursuant to Condition 3.5" and Resolution 2462 could also be changed to reflect this change. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to find the EIR for the East Tustln Specific Plan adequate as the program EIR for the project. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 87-22 and Variance 87-5 by the adoption of Resolution' No. 2461 as revised to require the developer to provide alternative design regarding perimeter security fencing and gating and in the event security fencing was not needed along Lagter, a paseo may not be needed. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 13161 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2462 as revised to provide corrections to typographical error, approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department of bus turnouts, and posting "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs at loop roads, auto courts and stubs. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1986 Page nt ne OLD BUSZNESS NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 6. Report on City Council Actions taken on November 16, 1987 meeting Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development A general discussion ensued regarding workshops for the Mixed Use Center and the Cultural Resources District. COM#XSSZON CONCERNS Commissioner Wetl noted that she and Commissioner Ponttous had reviewed the Mixed Use Center and they feel that another workshop with the Commissioners would be very helpful. Commissioner Pontlous noted that the source notes on the sides of the exhibits to the resolutions were extremely helpful. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any information available about the intent of the Irvine Company's use of the transfer units at locations in other projects. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he thought the Commission should identify their goals for ~988 to include the revised Sign Code, etc., to let people know what they are trying to accomplish. He also asked that staff look into attendance, by our Commissioners, of Planning Commission meetings in Irvine and Orange to help gain some insight into the scope of development in the area. Commissioner Wetl asked the Commission to submit their goals to the Director and asked staff to agendize a discussion of the Planning Commission's goals and objectives for 1988 for the first meeting of 1988. Commissioner Wetl asked that the Planning Commissioners be provided with a Bike Trails Map of Orange County. She asked if the Barro's parking lot situation has been monitored by the Police Department. AD&OURII, IENT At 9:45 p.m the Planning Commission by unanimous consent adjourned to the a Planning Commission workshop on November 30, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers Conference Room. The November 30th meeting will adjourn to a workshop on December 14, 1987 at 6:30 p.m. in the Tustin Library Conference Room. Secretary