The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC MINUTES 03-12-19 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2019 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Gallagher All present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Gallagher, Jha, Kozak, Mason, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: Kozak Kozak informed the members of the audience that the applicant for Item #3 withdrew his applications, therefore there would not be a presentation, but if members of the audience wanted to speak on that item, they were invited to address the Commission at this time. Ms. Joann Shelly, resident, voiced her concern with the Red Hill project, which generally included: parking is already an issue in the Tustin Meadows area; any new apartment project will impact surrounding neighborhood negatively (crime rate will increase); and traffic will be impacted near and around the Red Hili Avenue areas. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 26, 2019 Minutes of the February 26, 2099, as amended. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the February 26, 2019, Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Gallagher, to approve the Minutes of the February 26, 2019, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission March 12,2019—Page t of 5 REGULAR BUSINESS: Directed staff to 2. COMMENDATION ON TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION forward the FOR THE DEL RIO BUILDING commendation to the City Council with a recommendation to explore plaque differentiation before the recognition. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission, as Historic and Cultural Resources Advisor, approve the nomination of 195 El Camino Real to the City's Commendation Program and forward the commendation to the City Council for recognition. Dove Presentation given. Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to the Tustin Preservation Conservancy's email correspondence, dated February 13, 2019. In response to the email, she noted the project is one of the first buildings of a more modern nature that was submitted for the commendation program. Per Binsack, it was not staffs desire to create a false sense of history, but to commend a building as an example of good infill development into the Old Town area. She added that the intent was not to mimic the architecture, but to complement the architecture for the Old Town area. The commendation program just happens to be the Historic Register and the Commendation Program. Binsack stated that in prior commendations, it just so happened that they were historic buildings. If the Commission recommends forwarding the commendation to the City Council, and they approve the commendation, it is proposed that the building would receive a plaque. The plaque would identify the Del Rio building - 2014, but the building would not be placed on the City's historic register until presumably 2064. Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: agreed with Binsack's previous statement; the building complements the area; empathized with the letter submitted; and he agreed it was appropriate to bring new buildings to the commendation program to complement the Old Town area. Mason Mason referred to the work already placed in the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP). She made favorable comments to the work done with the Del Rio building, and how it"fits" in Tustin. Mason was also in favor of the commendation. Minutes—Planning Commission March 12,2019--Page 2 of 5 Gallagher Gallagher's comments generally included: the building is a good example for the DCCSP; the City's commendation program was established in order to recognize buildings that meet the City's vision; hopefully this commendation encourages future development to follow suit; and he was in favor of the commendation. Kozak Kozak was in support of the commendation. He was in agreement with the comments his fellow Commissioners made. He also made favorable comments to the property owner and building. Binsack Binsack added that although the item was not a public hearing item, members of the audience were welcome to step forward to address the Commission on the item. Mr. Mark Wiliken Mr. Mark Willken, resident, commented on the item: he asked who nominated the building and if there were any other modern buildings that received this recognition; he asked about the distinction between historic and modern buildings receiving plaques or if the plaques would be identical; he had no objection to the building being recognized, but suggested there needs to be a differentiation between the historic buildings and the newer buildings rather than collectively; and he asked the Commission to consider slightly different plaques to differentiate between historic and newer structures/buildings. Binsack To answer Mr.Willken's question, Binsack stated that City staff nominated the building. She added that all of the plaques in the program look the same, but the identifiers are different. How they are attributed are different (i.e. historic nature of the buildings could be different — the person that built the building, the person who lived there, etc.); and if approved the building will be identified on the plaque as the Del Rio building along with the year of construction. Thompson Thompson also commented on the plaques being different, but did not diminish the program or the commendation. He suggested staff look into plaque differentiation. Binsack Per Binsack, if it is the consensus of the Commission regarding the plaque differentiation, the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council with a modified plaque and staff could explore alternatives. Mason Mason concurred with Thompson on differentiating between the historic and newer building plaques. Kozak Kozak agreed with Mason on asking staff to look at alternatives for differentiation and then bring back to the Commission for their consideration, but was concerned with the commendation being held up. Minutes—Planning Commission March 12,2019—Page 3 of 5 Binsack In response to Kozak's suggestion, Binsack informed the Commission that they could still make the recommendation to the City Council and propose that staff look at alternative plaques, which staff could bring back to the Commission as well. She added that it would not stop the commendation program going forward since staff would still have to order the plaques, which would take time to prepare the plaque. Motion: It was moved by Mason to forward the item to the City Council with the caveat that staff will look at visual distinction between historic and newer buildings, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: ITEMWITHDRAWN AS OFMARCH; 8:20�9 Item was 3. CONTINUED ITEM FROM FEBRUARY 26, 2019: RESIDENTIAL Withdrawn. ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2019-00001; DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-0016; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-025; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-00002, 20% DENSITY BONUS, VARIANCES FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDING HEIGHT AND A WAIVER OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEES FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING 249 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE APPLICANT: CRAIG SWANSON IRVINE ASSET GROUP, LLC 4000 MACARTHUR BLVD., EAST TOWER, SUITE 600 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA requirements. CEQA Section 15270 states that"CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4378, denying Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2019-00001; Design Review (DR) 2017-0016; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-025; Lot Line Adjustment(LLA) 2017-00002, and a Density Bonus request for a mixed- use project containing 249 residential units and 7,000 square feet of retail commercial. Minutes—Planning Commission March 12,2019—Page 4 of 5 Binsack Binsack clarified that the applicant did withdraw the various applications and the applicant does anticipate resubmitting an application in the near future. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Gallagher None, Mason Mason asked staff about the possibility of electric scooters in Tustin. Binsack In response to Mason's previous comment, although electric scooters would be a great mode of transporation, they have been problematic in some, cities. She will work with staff on gathering information on the scooters then bring it back to the Commission at a later date. Jha None,. Thompson Thompson attended the following meetings: * 3/6 — ULI Capital Market's Annual Insight Overview 0 3/12 — ULI Planning Session —Attainable Housing Program Kozak Kozak attended the following meetings: 0 2/27 — City's Mandated Harassment Prevention Training 0 2/28 — CDBG Committee Meeting — Grant Funding 0 3/5 — City Council Meeting - 20,18 General Plan Annual Report 7:29 PJ17. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. V01.4� /STffW<OZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. PIN ACK Planning Commission Secretary WILItes— Planning Cojyjj�r NSSiOn Mafdl 12, 2019—Page 5 of 5