Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MIN 10-14-14MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2014 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Pro Tern Lumbard Present: Chairperson Thompson Chair Pro Tern Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith 11 None. PUBLIC CONCERNS Approved. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2014, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the September 231 2014 meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lumbard, to approve the September 23, 2014 Minutes. Motion carried 5-0. ■ Item 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-15 & DESIGN REVIEW 2014-009 Continued. The proposed project is a request for an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot tall mono-eucalyptus faux tree with twelve (12) panel antennas and associated equipment mounted to the structure. The project site is developed with nine (9) storage buildings and is located at 14861 Franklin Avenue in the Planned Community Industrial (PC IND) Zoning District. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-15 and Design Review (DR) 2014- 009 were properly noticed for an October 14, 2014, public hearing. However, based on the property owner's desire to change the proposed location of the facility on the project site, the applicant requested a continuance of the item to December 9, 2014. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 1 of 9 That the Planning Commission continue consideration of CUP 2014-15 and DR 2014-009 to December 9, 2014. 7:03 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Altowaiji, to continue CUP 2014-15 and DR 2014-009 to the December 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Adopted 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-10 FOR ANTON LEGACY Resolution APARTMENT HOMES MASTER SIGN PLAN No. 4270. A request to establish a master sign plan to allow signage at the Anton Legacy Apartment Homes APPLICANT: Andy Davidson Anton Legacy Tustin, LP 1801 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95811 OWNER: Steve Eggert Anton Legacy Tustin, LP 1801 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95811 LOCATION: 3100 Park Avenue, Tustin This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4270 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-10 to authorize establishment of a master sign plan for the Anton Legacy Apartment Homes as required in the Tustin City Sign Code. Stonich Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard requested clarification regarding the wording "At Tustin Legacy" being added to the main monuments. Stonich In response to Lumbard's comments, Stonich confirmed that the Conditions of Approval state that the main monument signs (El and E9) would have the words "At Tustin Legacy" added. Agenda — Planning Commission -- October 14, 2014 — Page 2 of 9 Thompson Thompson had favorable comments regarding the "flow" of the context on the monuments. He asked if the remaining signs throughout the Legacy project would follow the main monuments motif or if the sign proposed was unique to the local community enclave. Thompson also asked about the affordable housing nature of the project being part of the signs or advertising. Stonich Stonich responded to Thompson's question regarding the monuments, stating the remaining pylon signs throughout the Legacy project would be compatible with the main monuments. 7:11 p.m. Public Hearing opened. The applicant, Andy Davidson, spoke on behalf of the project. Mr. Davidson's comments generally included: There would be no flags for advertising, only signs and advertising in local magazines. Thompson Thompson asked Mr. Davidson how he would handle the non-qualifying applicants for the affordable housing units. Mr. Davidson stated Anton Legacy would direct the non-qualifying applicants to The Irvine Company's (TIC) development (located across the street from Anton Legacy). Altowaiji Altowaiji asked Mr. Davidson if the current affordable housing list would be "first come, first serve"; when the list was made public; and would those displaced from the affordable Irvine Company units in Tustin Ranch receive preference. Mr. Davidson stated the list would be qualified and based on Fair Housing laws. Management has a list in place, which continues to grow, and those residents living in TIC's affordable communities in Tustin Ranch would have preference. Binsack In response to Altowaiji's question, St. Anton sent out an extensively advertised press release mid-summer, handled by St. Anton's partners, as well as the City's website. All applicants would need to be qualified; however there would be preference for those applicants living and/or working in the City of Tustin. The residents at the affordable communities in Tustin Ranch could apply and/or TIC would direct them to St. Anton. 7:14 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Smith Smith thanked staff and the developer for continuing the branding around the Tustin Legacy. Kozak Kozak had favorable comments regarding the Master Sign Plan. Motion: It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4270. Motion carried 5-0. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page _3 of 9 Adopted 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 17717 AND DESIGN REVIEW Reso. No. (DR) 2014-02 4271, as amended. A request to subdivide an approximately 2.25 acre site for condominium purposes and construct twenty-six (26) for-sale single family detached residences. APPLICANT: Waft Communities LLC 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 =1019:01:40 OWNER: Jack E. & Marguerite M. Gould Family Trust & Marguerite M. Gould 2003 Trust 636 Ambrose Lane Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1872 San Juan Street ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to in-fill development. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4271 approving TTM 17717 and DR 2014-02 authorizing the subdivision of an approximately 2.25 acre parcel consisting of one (1) numbered lot for the development of twenty-six (26) single family detached condominiums. Swiontek Presentation given. A letter of support, from the adjacent San Juan Meadows Townhome Homeowner's Association, was presented to the dais. Smith Smith asked staff about the Park Impact fees. He also asked for clarification on specifications in the CC&R's requiring parking enforcement and making use of both spaces in the garage. Swiontek Swiontek's response to Smith's questions generally included: The formula in the Tustin City Code (TCC) is based on the amount of units and a certain percentage of acreage per unit; the actual cost would need to be assessed by the fair market value which is to be determined at this point; and the TCC requirement is to use both spaces in garage for parking vehicles and must maintain a 10x20 foot of free and clear space which will be reiterated in the CC&R's and is also stated in the TCC. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2414 — Page 4 of 9 Thompson Thompson referred to a letter within the report from the City of Irvine with regard to traffic impacts at the City of Tustin's intersections. Swiontek In response to Thompson's question, Swiontek referred to the North Irvine Traffic Mitigation report which included some intersections in the City and how levels of service would be impacted within the City. 7:3 9 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Ms. Donna Clark, resident of San Juan Meadows, asked why the project referred to the units as condominiums if they are 2-story single-family homes. She stated condominiums usually share a common wall with another unit. Ms. Clark is concerned with the noise being an issue when construction commences and also asked if an ordinance was in place referencing hours of construction. Swiontek Swiontek's responses to Ms. Clark's concerns generally included: There is an ordinance on hours of construction, which typically start at 7:00 a.m. (weekdays), 9:00 a.m. (Saturdays), no work on Sundays or on Federal holidays that the City observes. Thompson Thompson asked staff when construction activity must cease. He also asked if there would be a noise level regulation at the property line. Thompson asked the applicant to explain the schedule/start of construction and if there would be any impacts for the residents. Lastly, he asked what the cost for the units would be. Swiontek Swiontek's responses to Thompson's questions generally included: Construction activity would cease at 6:00 p.m. [5:00 p.m. on Saturdays] and noise levels are exempt during hours of construction since construction is on a temporary basis; the applicant would need to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District with regard to construction, dust, debris, etc. on the site; and if any issues should arise, Code Enforcement would get involved. In response to questions/comments previously mentioned, the applicant, Efrern Joelson stated in general: Introduced members of his team in the audience; thanked Swiontek and staff for the positive staff report and the process of the project; reiterated highlights of the project - pedestrian connectivity; looped drive-ways; emergency access, trash access, livable plan; secondary (common) water connection point with San Juan Meadows; approximate parkland fees would be $525,000 ($20,000 per unit); Waft Communities is on the homeowners' association (HOA) board and would encourage the HOA to come up with their own parking regulations which residents would need to adhere to; explained the difference between single-family residence and a condominium unit (no lot lines); HOA to maintain common areas; required to provide dust, erosion control during construction, muffling, for heavy equipment; construction would begin in the front row (Phase 1), then move backwards; plans to start Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 5 of 9 construction would commence approximately February 2015, construction of the homes would take approximately 6 months, depending on the lender and the sale of homes already built and on the housing market; cost would start in the low $600K's; and models to be complete right after grading in the first row of homes. 7:53 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Altowaiii Altowaiji's comments/concerns generally included: Requested clarification on dedication/easement of San Juan Street and on the required 25 ft. easement required for the entrance; sewer system (public vs. private); favorable comments to staff; and appreciates the cooperation of the developer on the modified design. Swiontek Swiontek stated that the property is still owned to center line of San Juan Street. He then referred question to the Public Works Department. *0 Nishikawa Nishikawa's response to Altowaiiis comments/concerns generally included: Explanation of the research done on the project; the area in question would be dedicated in fee; there would also be a water easement; and the sewer is part of the O.C. Sanitation District therefore he could not respond to whether or not it would be public/private. Swiontek In response to whether or not the sewer would be public/private, Swiontek stated anything on private property is private", except the water which would be maintained by the City. ["I Kozak Kozak had favorable comments for staff and the developer which generally included: Cooperation and collaboration with the project; would like amendments be made to the resolution stating "meets all development standards" and that a "traffic assessment" (streets/intersections) was complete. Lumbard Lumbard had favorable comments for the project ("positive project for our community"). His concern would be the effects of the construction for the neighbors. Smith Smith had favorable comments which generally included: The ingenuity of the front of houses facing out onto San Juan; sense of single-family neighborhood; relatively temporary state of affairs as far as construction and noise levels; and he is confident that South Coast Air Quality Management District would ensure the dust is taken care of. Thompson Thompson had favorable comments which generally included: Well under density; good circulation and surrounding areas; and he was bewildered by the City of Irvine's traffic impact request and asked staff to add clarification to the Resolution. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 6 of 9 Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Altowaiji, to adopt Resolution No. 4271, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 5. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2014-001 (ORDINANCE NO. Reso. No. 1450), MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 4269 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR Addendums and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. 1 1:1*01111 iii iiii; • That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4269, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1450, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2014-001, amending Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding park related uses as permitted and conditionally permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Reekstin Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff if amending the SPA would be easier to include the conditional permitted uses rather than adjust the zones (Planning Area boundaries). Reekstin In response to Lumbard's question, Reekstin stated it was not a significant change adding park related uses which would be consistent with the uses in Planning Area 1. Primarily, it is to accommodate the Park Master Plan. Binsack Binsack stated that the current uses would continue for some time, therefore it would be easier to proceed with the park planning for the near future and it would allow for existing uses to continue. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 7 of 9 Bobak Bobak stated recommending amendment of the provision of the MCAS Specific Plan relating to permit and conditionally permitted uses would make park uses a permitted use and would not require a conditional use permit. Altowaiii Altowaiii questioned permitted" vs. conditionally permitted He also questioned the need for "extensive detail" of the Environmental Checklist. Bobak Bobak's response to Altowalji's question generally included: The amendment does state "permit"; and the actual amendment to the Specific Plan allows for these permitted uses but the heading of the section that is being amended states "conditionally and permitted uses ". . 04 Binsack To further respond to Altowalji's question, Binsack referred to Exhibit B of the Draft Ordinance 1450, sub header A section, which states "permitted and conditionally permitted uses" and lists a grouping of uses where parks are permitted uses. In response to the comment on the Environmental Checklist, Binsack stated it is required by State law. City staff is ensuring compliance with State law. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Thompson, to adopt Resolution No. 4269. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission that the comments from the October 1, 2014 DCCP Workshop are in the process of being compiled and that a summary would be provided to the Commission at the next Commission meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith No concerns. Lumbard Lumbard attended the October 1, 2014 Downtown Commercial Core Plan (DCCP) Workshop — favorable comments; and he encouraged increased communication to get more residents involved at the December workshop. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for the agenda and he attended the following events: • 9/28: Divine Wine Affair — fundraiser • 9/30: Water Symposium 0 10/1: DCCP Workshop • 10/2: Tustin Tiller Days Kick-off • 10/4: Tustin Tiller Day Parade • 10/18: Tustin Art Walk Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 8 of 9 I Altowaiji Altowaiji attended the following: • 10/1: DCCP Workshop • 10/4: Tiller Days Pancake Breakfast and Reception He also had favorable comments for Parks & Recreation. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 9/30: Water Symposium • 10/1: DCCP Workshop • 10/2: Presentation to American Society's Civil Engineers • 10/4: Tustin Tiller Day Parade • 10/9: Mayor's First Annual Business Recognition Luncheon • 10/18: Participating in the tours at the upcoming Art Walk in Tustin. • 10/20: Attending the ULI Conference in New York. 8:19 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Agenda -- Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 9 of 9