Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-13-85MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~MISSION REGUL~J~ INEETING MAY 13, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett Absent: Sharp Chairman White announced the resignation of Commissioner Sharp. He will be unable to continue to serve on the Planning Commission because he has moved out of the City of Tustin. White expressed the Commission's disappointment over the loss of his knowledge, experience and guidance. He requested the staff write a letter on behalf of the Commission thanking him for his tenure on the Commission and wishing him well. PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting April 8, 1985 2. Final Parcel Map 84-1033 Commissioner Well moved, McCarthy second to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman White, with the consent of the Commission, rearranged the public hearings. He moved public hearing item 6 for consideration first. 6. VARIANCE 85-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Paul and Steve Amort 13642 Green Valley Drive Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, lot size, and side yard set-back requirements of the Multiple Family 2700) Residential District. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Commissioner Well questioned if the neighbors' additions and/or variances were done before the area was annexed to the City. Jeff Davis responded affirmatively. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Paul and Steve Amort, project applicants, spoke in favor of Variance 85-2. They objected to the conditions that the existing structure be upgraded; specifically, Items 2 and 13 contained in the Conditions of Approval. Planntng Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page two Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Puckett second approval of Variance 85-2 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A" with two exceptions. Item 2 shall allow the existing tree to be replaced by two 24" box trees; and, Item 13 shall allow the existing structure to be upgraded to the satisfaction of the planning staff. Motion carried 4-0. Chairman White combined consideration of Phase I Residential Draft EIR 84-3, General Plan Amendment 84-4 and Zone Change 85-4 with consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 for discussion and public input. 3. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/PHASE I RESIDENTIAL Ao Draft EIR 84-3 General Plan Amendment 84-4 Zone Change 85-4 Applicant: Loca ti on: Request: Presentation: Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To amend the General Plan Land Use designation and property zoning to permit development of a Planned Residential Community consisting of single-family detached, attached and apartment dwelling units adjoining a public park. Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345 Applicant: Location: Request: Monlca Florlan on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To subdivide approximately 107 acres of land providing for development of specific land uses pursuant to the Phase I Planned Community zoning regulations. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Chairman White introduced two pieces of correspondence for the record. First, a letter dated May 13, 1985 from the law firm of Parker and Covert representing the Tustin Unified School District. Second, a letter dated May 13, 1985 from The Irvine Company regarding parking standards. Coralee Newman, Government Relations Manager with The Irvine Company, gave a brief overview of the planning process leadng up to this hearing. Jay Pierce, Phase I Project Manager for The Irvine Company, explained that this is a community plan. He informed the Commission that the Irvine Pacific Development Company and the Bren Company will join their development team. Planntng Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page three Steven Ross, Urban Design Specialist for The Irvtne Company, narrated a slide presentation depicting projects in Irvine that could be similar to East Tustin. Chairman White expressed his confusion over the density. This project proposes density to the maximum, yet the slide presentation just shown depicts housing density way under the density being proposed. Jay Pierce explained that net acres are exclusive of the green areas. Gross acres would include to the center line of the street. The density proposed is gross acres. Commission discussion ensued over the review and approval process and questions were raised as to what future control the Commission would have if the items before them tonight were approved. Don Lamm explained that all future development plans would go through a design review process at staff level only. The Planned Community Regulations stipulate that these projects would come to the Commission for a "Non Discretionary Review Process". The Planning Commission would only have the right to architecturally change items. The Planning Commission's goal would be to determine compatibility with the zone standards and design compatibility. If the Commission wants the prerogative to say "no", it must change the planned community zone text to require a public hearing. Commissioner Wetl expressed concern that the only thing that would come before the Commission in the future is the design review. She expressed confusion over what is actually proposed to be built and the proposed density. She would like the Commission to review what the developer actually proposes. She recommended the Conditional Use Permit process to ensure more review and control in the area. Commissioner McCarthy clarified that tonight the Commission should come up with a more standard density so that when the Irvtne Company goes to the builder they can tell the builder how many homes they can put on the property. He further stated that the density right now is not acceptable. (This raised applause by the audience) Commissioner Puckett wants to proceed with the issue tonight to avoid dragging it on for months. He does not feel the density is the issue tonight. (This raised concern from the audience.) Don Lamm explained that density will be determined by two factors: the General Plan designation and zoning. At present, they dictate 4 UPA. Through the application process it would be raised to an average of 11 units per gross acre maximum. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. on the Draft EIR 84-3, General Plan Amendment 84-4, Zone Change 85-4 and Tentative Tract Map 12345 Hubert Clark, East Tusttn Homeowners, asked for a reduction of 8% to 10% in the number of homes proposed. By reducing the number in Phase I it would allow a higher density to the north and provide more tax benefits from the higher priced product. Stephen Johnson, Santiago Municipal Advisory Commission, addressed the EIR and Zone Change. Their interest is with: 1) The county areas within the sphere of influence of the City of Tustin, specifically North Tusttn, citing Government Code Section 54774; 2) Tustin Unified School District reaction; 3) frontage on Bryan and Browning and the entire intersection of Browning and Irvine Blvd., two corners of Redhill and Irvine. EIR premises regarding traffic shows only a slight incremental increase. He rejects this premise in fact and theory. The size of the project indicates there P]anntng Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page four will be a tremendous number of people and automobile traffic generated. Referenced page 7 of the EIR regarding mitigation measures. Regional circulation improvement plan is not fully addressed and wants the traffic study up front now. Once the project is built you cannot ask the developer to make this study and build the roads. What is the effect of this increased traffic flow on the existing residences? This is only one small percentage of this entire project. 93~ of the intersection of Irvine and Redhill will be used up by 1990; what about the rest of the build up? The Irvine Company still has 80~ of their land, yet they have saturated one intersection to grid lock. In this project only, 500 cars will want to turn left from Redhill to Irvine. Who's going to pay for all the improvements that will be necessary? What's the cost to the taxpayers? Rebutted page 67, traffic distribution. If took a poll, probably everybody travelling north on the Santa Aha freeway would want to get off the freeway if there was a grid lock. They would take off down Browning, 17th, La Coltna, Skyline. We are extremely concerned with the School District. Their job is to educate the students. Why are they alarmed about this plan? In order to build the schools in the Irvine area we will have to sell off school sites in the other areas. When this temporary blessing of over abundance of schools passes and we get re-populated, what is going to be the effect of that? The EIR has missed most of the issues that should have been discussed. We are just starting this matter and if this goes on, we will wind up with a locomotive out of control. Asked the Planning Commission to reject the EIR and continue the issue of the zone change until the Irvine Company can document the mitigation statements. Ida Dickinson, 1429 Bryan Avenue, Tustin Gold Key Association, concerned with the density as it will affect the traffic on Bryan Avenue, Irvine Blvd., Laguna Road and Redhill. Cost of the development to current residents. Lack of need for this high of density and low/moderate cost housing in the area. Clark Marks, 1672 Lear Lane, expressed concern with density; transttioning by townhomes from apartments to single family homes only extends through part of the development; traffic; further expressed concern with the Planning Commission being allowed a design review only if they approve this tonight. Most of the residents living in the area are against the high density of apartments. Tusttn has many more apartments than is true in most cities. Suggest the Commission review this as well as the issues that were not reviewed in the EIR. Charles Larkin, 1802 Andrews, asked what the buildable density would be. Jay Pierce responded it would be around 17. So the density would increase from 4 to 17/18. He expressed concern with the traffic impacts on San Juan. Also, the area along the freeway proposed to contain apartments is not city it is county area. Robert Capalety, 1931 Sierra Vista, county island, concerned with traffic. Opposed to the density. Would like it to remain at 4 per acre. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page fi ve Arlen (Jim) Hughes, 1752 Lance Dr., concerned with streets and adverse impacts. There is already adverse impacts, how can this not contribute to them. Also, concerned with density. Is fearful that East Tustin will be known as a separate community and as the high density area. Suggested negotiation on density to a more realistic level, possibly 8. Net density is the concern of the individual who will buy there; gross density is our concern. Jackie Haney, 13352 Nlxon Circle, encouraged the Commission to take their time in making this decision. It will affect the community for years. Carol Taylor, 13532 Farmtngton Rd., questioned when work would begin on the E1Modena Channel. It was supposed to be done in conjunction with the auto center; they have started work on the auto center. Also, Myford was scheduled to be completed in 1988, but nothing has been done on it. Berm around the auto center and raised portion around this track would push the water back into the surrounding area. The Irvine Company to date has not answered any of the citizens questions raised at the Town Hall meeting or tonight. Terry Austin, traffic consultant for the EIR, addressed density as it affects traffic. For residential, the per acre generation is somewhat constant. It is not constant on a per unit basis due to the variable types of residents. Lowering density does not give you a comensurate reduction in the amount of traffic. Redhill is the major issue for traffic. When the Jamboree interchange is completed in 1988 there will be a shift in traffic from Redhill. The result is that Redhill will be better than it is today. The Myford interchange is being reconstructed by the State. It is approved and funded and in the design stages. This will increase the capacity of an existing interchange. Jamboree is a new interchange; it is locally funded and committed by the City and it is also in the design stages. The location has been decided but the final design has not yet been approved. Chairman White questioned if they are assuming a connection of Laguna Road on the east side of Jamboree extending to Myford. Is it being submitted with this project or the auto center? Terry Austin said it is a committed project partially committed to the auto center and the remainder is committed to by the City. It will be a mitigation to the Myford and Bryan intersection. He responded affirmatively that the Jamboree Road extension from Bryan to the freeway, but not the interchange, is being installed with the auto center and there is a road paralleling and just below Bryan from Jamboree to Myford being put in as part of the auto center. Commissioner McCarthy questioned the flood control measures to be completed along with the auto center. Jay Pierce responded that within the month they should be starting with the E1Modena Channel improvements to remove the constrictions. Currently in design phase to make the further improvements under Bryan Avenue. These should be completed with the auto center. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page six Jim McDonald, with RBF (flood consultants), responded to Commissioner Well's concerns with flooding. The current proposal is that until upstream development of the regional water courses is effected there really isn't the need or desirability to improve to 100[ capacities within the project. Ultimately, we will provide capacities consistent with current capacities upstream. We would be able to pass design flows which arrive at the project site continuously through the project site downstream. They will be removing the constrictions consisting of the Bryan Avenue undercrosstng, the farm bridge crossing. Additionally, flood control berms are currently being constructed around the auto center and will continue as part of the integrated plan of the residential component. The affect of this berming action is to divert flows along Bryan Avenue; combined affect is to reduce the flooding along Browning Avenue. Under current conditions today, we do see a significant ponding condition, flooding condition along Browning which is created by a railroad berm. With implementation of the project and incorporation of a swale adjacent to the Browning right-of-way we will reduce the impacts of flooding adjacent to the existing residents along Browning Avenue. In further response to Commissioner Well's question concerning improvement of the culvert that parallels the freeway, Mr. McDonald explained that that is a regional issue which will see Caltrans, County and the City participating in an ultimate solution. The County's master plan calls for a facility to parallel the freeway which it currently does today. The exact size of that is dependent upon the regional solutions. Those being implementation of an enlarged channel facility upstream of the Bryan/Browning intersection. Until those issues are resolved at the County level and amongst the city decision making policies, that answer cannot be given at this point. Downstream of the freeway continuing into the city of Irvtne, the channel facility is also undersized. The County has recently put together a project report for the E1 Modena/Irvtne channel system which originates at the Peters Canyon confluence and continues all the way up through Tusttn. The project report, which will surface and be approved by the Board of Supervisors, identifies deficiencies and project improvements which will alleviate the flooding issues. Commissioner Wetl further questioned if any improvements would be made to the flood channel that runs along side the auto center. Mr. McDonald said there would be some improvements to that primarily to provide capacity which is consistent with what is being delivered upstream. The portion of the undercrossing under the freeway will not be opened at this point in time until the downstream solution is reached on a regional basis with the cities of Tustin, Irvine and the County. It is undersized at this point in time with the constrictions in place. Edward Stamford, 13201 Hickory Branch Road, questioned if the city has contacted any of the other communities in this area to see if this project will impact them. Oscar Barnhard, 13872 Karen Way, expressed further concern with the flood situation and stated the EIR is inadequate. He informed the Commission of his observations during the rainy season in that area. There is a lake bed near the freeway and it is a serious situation. Bonnie Perkins, 13382 Epplng Way, expressed her concern with the traffic. What is the City of Tustin going to do about the traffic this project is going to bring into this area. Especially, on Bryan coming through Tustin on Browning. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page seven Brad Olson, The Irvine Company, summarized some solutions: 1) Schools. It has not been their practice to force schools into overcrowding situations and do anything but try to enhance the situation. They will continue to work with the District. 2) Traffic. The combination of this project and the auto center brings some significant improvements to the circulation system. 3) Drainage. This is part of the total regional problem. The project and auto center carry with it the first steps in improving the linkage in the regional solution of the E1 Modena Channel. 4) Density. A driving force in this was to try to provide housing that would be attractive, could be attractively maintained and could be marketed along the Jamboree Road, across from the auto center. We are using careful construction of apartments to mitigate from noise, where we can control the maintenance on the property and where we can provide an attractive form of housing for a part of the market that needs housing at an affordable price. The question of what density is appropriate for the single family and what should go along Bryan Avenue is difficult. Density of 4 per acre is not feasible in today's market. This density will address the needs of young people and young families. The prices will range up to $150,000 per unit with income levels between $35,000 and $60,000. The Commission then received several informal questions/comments from the audience. Bill Bangert, Foothill Community Association, expressed concern with the traffic penetrating above the East Tustin area. Chairman White, seeing no one further wishing to speak, closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. He called a recess until 10:00 p.m. Chairman White reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Commission discussion ensued concerning the issues raised by the citizens and the action needed tonight. Several Commissioners had questions/issues to be resolved (density, parking ratios, site coverage, private street standards) and they needed time to discuss with staff before making a decision. Commissioner Puckett commented that in tours of similar Irvine Company projects he did not see parking as a problem. He felt density and traffic are the same issue. He did not think flooding a major issue. He did not believe The Irvine Company would build a project in a flood plain or in the center of an area that has not been adequately addressed. He felt this project will begin the mitigation measures aimed at the traffic problems. He believed The Irvine Company would do a good job. He thought of this as a good project; the best land use for this available area. He supported The Irvtne Company and this project. Chairman White expressed his confusion with the incongruity between the projects that have been shown to the Commission and the densities described in the PC regs. Either the process is serious about building the projects seen or the process is serious about building to the density limits. Would like to zero in on the specifics of the project, not just the general. The mitigation measures are in deed in the city's long term benefit. Since we are dealing with projects and development standards we haven't dealt with before. On that basis it is asking a lot to remove these projects from the Conditional Use Permit process for common interest subdivisions (condominiums and higher densities); our zoning code calls for the Conditional Use Permit process and thinks it wise to consider implementing that here. Rather than free up 170 acres for 1200 units with nothing more than a staff control of that process. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page eight Commissioner Well moved, McCarthy second to continue these items to June lOth (due to the lack of a quorum on May 28, 1985) to allow more time to address the Commission's and staff concerns. Motion carried 3-1, Puckett opposed. Chairman White recessed at 10:25 to allow the majority of the audience to leave. Reconvened at 10:27 p.m. 5. USE PERMIT 85-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Carver Development on behalf of Tustin Main Associated, Ltd. Properties bounded by Main Street, Newport Avenue and E1Camino Real. Authorization to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center and 40,000 square feet of professional office buildings. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:46 p.m. David Neish, architect for Carver Development, agreed with staff's recommendation and discussed pulling building permits at different times for the retail/office structures. Margaret Greinke, 230 S. "A" St., spoke in opposition to the proposed architecture. She would like to see it blend with the theme of Old Towne. This is the last large piece of developable land left in Tustin and should be thought out carefully; not turned into another strip center. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the hearing at 11:01 p.m. Commissioner McCarthy moved, Puckett second approve UP 85-9 with modification to condition I that says the site plan elevations be approved by the Planning Commission; condition 25 C be left as it is; condition 26 be added requiring building permits for the retail be issued prior to or concurrent with building permits for the office but excluding buildings 1 and 2 from that requirement; add condition 27 providing for benches or other seating areas shall be provided in the site development plan. Motion carried 4-0. Planntng Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page ntne ADMINISTRATIVE I~I'I'ERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 7. Review of City Council action May 6, 1985 Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COI~ISSIOM CONCERNS None. ADdOURNNENT Adjourned at 11:17 p.m. to the meeting scheduled June 10, 1985. 'DONN~ ORR, Recording Secretary Chairman