HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4025
RESOLUTION NO. 4025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATIONS 04-004 AND 04-006 FOR AINSLEY PARK AND
COLUMBUS SQUARE RECREATION CENTER AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 16581 TO
REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE RECREATION CENTER, AND
RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
RELOCATION OF AN AFFORDABLE UNIT AND AN AMENDMENT
TO SENIOR HOUSING PHASING PLAN TO ALLOW COMPLETE
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN FIVE (5) PHASES INCLUDING THE
MODEL HOMES AND BUILD-OUT FOR THE PROJECTS
LOCATED IN PLANNING AREAS 4, 5 AND 21 OF MCAS TUSTIN
KNOWN AS COLUMBUS SQUARE AND COLUMBUS GROVE
I. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find as follows:
A. An application was filed by Lennar Homes on behalf of Moffett Meadows
Partners on May 3, 2006, to modify Design Review applications 04-004
and 04-006, Tentative Tract Maps 16581 and 16582 and Affordable
Housing Plan to simplify the architectural design of Ainsley Park cluster
units, reduce the size of the Columbus Square recreation center from 5,467
to 3,765 square feet and simplify the architectural design, defer completion
of the Columbus Square recreation center from the 420th building permit
to the 950lh building permit, relocate an affordable unit in Camden Place
from a model home site to a phase one production unit, and revise the
phasing plan for senior housing to eight (8) construction phases for the
project sites located within planning Area 4, 5 and 21 of MCAS Tustin.
B. The properties are located at the southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and
West Connector and Harvard Avenue south of Moffett Avenue within
Planning Areas 4, 5 and 21 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designated as
Low Density and Medium Density Residential and the MCAS Tustin
Planned Community General Plan land use designation.
C. Low density and Medium density residential development is permitted in
Planning Areas 4, 5, and 21 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the
proposed amendments will not modify the approved uses.
D. On February 22, 2005, the City Council approved the site and
architectural design of 1,077 residential units in Columbus Square and
465 units in Columbus Grove with adoption of Resolutions 05-37 and 05-
40.
E. A public hearing by the Planning Commission was duly noticed and held
on June 26, 2006.
Resolution No. 4025
Page 2
F. An amendment to revise the architectural design of this duplex product to
simplify the structures so that the same architecture is carried out on both
residences was requested by the applicant.
The Planning Commission denies the requested revisions and directs the
applicant to work with staff to provide a compatible design for Ainsley Park
that suits the approved dominant architectural styles within the community
and continues to provide distinctive character for both units.
G. An amendment to reduce the approved size of the recreation building for
Columbus Square from 5,467 square feet to 3,765 square feet and to
revise the architectural design of the Columbus Square recreation building
to a more simplified architecture without towers and decorative parapets
was requested.
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council deny the
proposed modifications to reduce the size of the Columbus Square
recreation center since the center should accommodate a variety of uses
and conflicting events, and if approved the recreation center at Columbus
Square (a community of 835 total units including 552 multiple family units
with no private yards) would be approximately 1,300 square feet smaller
than the recreation center at Columbus Grove (a community of 465 homes
including 279 single family homes with private backyards). Considering that
there are 835 single family and multiple family residential units in
Columbus Square, the community would not benefit from a smaller size
community center.
H. An amendment to simplify the architectural design of the recreation center
by removing the tower element from the main building and the easterly and
the westerly courtyard colonnades and eliminating the widow's walk parapet
was requested.
The Planning Commission denies the requested modification since the
proposed architecture is too simplified and lacks the visual interest and
importance that the recreation building was intended to bring to the
community. The original architectural design was proposed with the
development plans and should have been included in the project budget
and the revision is not justified at this point of development when all initial
phases of the homes are under construction. In addition, there are no
reasonable justifications for the revisions.
I. An amendment to Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 05-40 of Tentative
Tract Map 16581 (Columbus Square) to defer completion of the required
recreation center from prior to issuance of the 420th building permit to prior
to the 950th building permit was requested.
Resolution No. 4025
Page 3
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve a
revision to Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 05-40 to defer the requirement
for completion of the recreation center from prior to issuance of the 420th
building permit to prior to final inspection of the 420th residential unit to allow
the developer more time for construction of the Columbus Square
recreation center.
J. An amendment to the affordable housing plan to relocate an affordable
housing unit (Low income) within a multiple family product (Camden
Place) in Columbus Square from a proposed model home unit to a
production unit in phase one was requested.
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve
the proposed relocation of an affordable unit from a model home unit in
Camden Place to phase one so that this unit is available for occupancy
upon completion.
K. An amendment to the phasing plan of Columbus Square to allow
construction of the senior housing project in eight (8) phases instead of
the approved three (3) phases was requested.
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council deny
the proposed phasing plan with eight (8) phases since this revision could
negatively impact the Planning Commission and City Council's original
intent that the entire project site be developed concurrently. The senior
housing project includes 63 percent of the required affordable housing for
the Villages of Columbus, and it is essential that the construction of these
units be accomplished proportionately with construction of the market rate
units. Given that this site will have a late start, eight (8) phases of
construction could lead to a major delay in delivering the affordable
housing units and defeat the original intent of the project's phasing. As a
compromise, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City
Council approve an amendment that would allow construction of minimum
two structures concurrently for a total of five (5) phases including models
and built-out to allow the developer additional time and lead the project
toward completion within a reasonable time.
L. When the comprehensive developments were presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council for a recommended action, the
recommendation was based on a comprehensive proposal which also
included variations from the required standards. In summary, these
development projects received many allowances so that quality and livable
communities would be developed to accommodate a variety of households.
These allowances included the following:
· Specific Plan Amendments that allowed for new development
standards for a new product type (carriage way units);
· Reduced rear yard setbacks for carriage way units;
Resolution No. 4025
Page 4
. One hundred percent on-street guest parking versus 50 percent;
. Reduced street widths and turning radius;
. Reduced minimum development site size;
. Transfer of affordable housing units between planning areas;
. 182 additional units with approval of a density bonus;
. Density averaging within planning areas;
. Concentration of affordable units in the senior housing project;
. Parkland credit; and,
. Reduction of 3-acre minimum park site to one (1) acre to be eligible
for park credit and accept public use of the parks for in-lieu fees.
In addition, since the project included many deviations from the standard
requirements, one aspect of project may not have been recommended
without another and staff's recommendation to approve the projects took
into consideration the comprehensive proposal.
During the plan check process and in an effort to record the final maps in a
timely manner, staff worked with the applicant to allow for submittal into
early plan check and modified conditions administratively where the
modifications met the spirit and intent of the Planning Commission and City
Council's original approval. The requested modifications are extensive and
will deter from the overall design and quality of the community
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 26th day of June, 2006.
ATHAN MENARD
CHAIRPERSON
Z~~d A'72~:.-.A~
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Resolution No. 4025
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4025
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 26t1i day of June, 2006.
a;"bk Ai:?; -'- if
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary