Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes 07-10-06 ITEM #1 A WORKSHOP REGARDING OFFICE USE PROVISIONS IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT WAS HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 6:30 P.M. Given MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2006 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Menard, Chairperson Pro Tem Floyd Commissioners Lee and Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Puckett Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Jason Retterer, Deputy City Attorney Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 12, 2006, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Lee, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adopted Resolution 2. Nos. 4026 and 4027 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17026, SUBDIVIDING 805.5 ACRES INTO THIRTY-SIX (36) PARCELS FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY. THIS PROPERTY IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY EDINGER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND RED HILL AVENUE TO THE WEST AND IS LOCATED IN PLANNING AREAS 7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4026 recommending that the City Council find that the proposed Tentative Tract Map 17026 for conveyance purposes is within the scope of the adopted FEIS/EIR for the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Reuse and Specific Plan and will have no environmental impacts; and, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4027 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17026 to subdivide the 805.5 gross acres area into thirty-six (36) parcels for financing and conveyance purposes only. 7:10 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Willkom Presented the staff report. Simon Whitmey, Tustin Legacy Community Partners Indicated he was available for any questions the Commissioners might have. 7:15 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Lee, seconded by Nielsen, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4026 and 4027. Motion carried 4-0. Adopted Resolution 3. No. 4025, with modifications AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16581 (COLUMBUS SQUARE), AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW 04-004 (COLUMBUS SQUARE), AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-006 (COLUMBUS GROVE). THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ARE REQUESTED: A) REVISE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF AINSLEY PARK (CLUSTER DUPLEX UNITS) IN COLUMBUS GROVE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AS TWO DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES INTO ONE SIMPLIFIED STRUCTURE CONTAINING TWO UNITS; B) AN AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE RECREATION BUILDING FOR COLUMBUS SQUARE FROM 5,467 SQUARE FEET TO 3,765 SQUARE FEET AND REVISE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE COLUMBUS Minutes - Pianning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 2 SQUARE RECREATION BUILDING TO A MORE SIMPLIFIED ARCHITECTURE WITHOUT TOWERS AND DECORATIVE PARAPETS; C) 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; D) AN AMENDMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN TO RELOCATE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT (CAMDEN PLACE) IN COLUMBUS SQUARE FROM A MODEL HOME UNIT TO A PRODUCTION UNIT IN PHASE ONE; AND, E) 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. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4025 for the following actions: . Deny the proposed modifications to the architectural design for Ainsley Park duplex units; . Deny the proposed modifications to the architectural design of the Columbus Square recreation center; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to reduce the size and architectural modifications to the recreation center in Columbus Square; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to defer the construction of the recreation center and two park sites 420lh building permit condition to the 950lh building permit; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to relocate an affordable housing unit from a model home site to Phase One production unit; and, . Recommend that the City Council deny applicant's request for eight (8) phases of construction for the senior housing project and approve a compromise to complete construction of the senior housing project within five (5) phases including model homes and built-out. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 3 7:17 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Ashabi Director Added, as noted in the staff report, when the comprehensive proposals were brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council, there were various deviations from the standards of the Tustin City Code and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that were recommended by staff in order to create quality communities. These allowances included the following: · Specific Plan Amendments that permitted the new development standards for new product types-the carriageway units; . the reduced rear yard setbacks; . the provision that allowed for 100 percent guest parking permitted on private streets versus 50 percent; . reduced street widths and turning radii; . reduced minimum development site sizes; . the transfer of affordable units from Planning Area 21 to Planning Areas 4 and 5; . 182 density bonus units; . density averaging within a planning area; . various Specific Plan amendments to accommodate the senior housing product to traverse over planning area lines; . the concentration of affordable units in the senior product area which contains approximately 63 percent of the affordability; . $4.5 million of parkland credit; . reduction of the 3-acre minimum to one acre to be eligible for parkland credit; . accept park public use for in-lieu fees; . $675,000 in park in-lieu credits. The recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council was for a package approval; since the project was approved, there have been various modifications handled administratively; staff has worked with the applicant through weekly meetings; various members of the applicant team fell out of the meetings; staff wanted to ensure that the conditions were being met in a timely fashion; staff continued to ask for the senior product for months before it was finally submitted and approved. Where possible and where it met the spirit and intent of the original approval, staff approved changes administratively. Now that various other changes are being requested, all the other allowances and deviations should be taken into consideration; staff might not have recommended approval if these issues had been included. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 4 Menard Director Rich Knowland, Lennar, representing both William Lyon Homes and Lennar Nielsen Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Nielsen Mr. Knowland Staff met with Lennar again last Friday afternoon; Lennar submitted estimated schedules regarding the recreation center. The plancheck for the project that was approved was allowed to expire in October 2005. There was no effort to move the recreation center forward since that time. Asked if the Building Code has changed since the project was approved. Responded there have been some Building Code modifications to Title 24. , Noted that staff and the developer are getting closer on the Ainsley Park architecture; while the recommendation is for denial of the request, staff may be able to review the changes at the administrative level if some of the styles are modified; if not, that request will be brought back to the Planning Commission. Stated that in all his years of coming before Commissions and Councils, he has never faced straight-across denial such as this; referred to each request individually and iterated Lennar's reasons for believing all the requests are fair and reasonable; and, referred to various denials as fundamental project deal-breakers. Asked if Lennar was seriously considering walking away from the project. Clarified that Lennar cannot except a denial and that Lennar would appeal to the City Council; Lennar must move forward on these projects. Asked for clarification regarding Ainsley Park and affordable housing in terms of Lennar's willingness to accept staff's demands. Answered that those two issues would not be deal-breakers. Asked what sort of compromise would be acceptable regarding the 950th building permit versus 420th building permit, such as perhaps the 750th building permit. Stated Lennar would prefer 12 months from the time the building permit is pulled. Asked if five phases for the senior housing project would be acceptable. Stated that the reality would be that more than one building will be in the building stage; about halfway through the process, if the Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 5 Nielsen Floyd Mr. Knowland Floyd Mr. Knowland Floyd Mr. Knowland Lee Mr. Knowland Lee buildings are selling, the next building will begin; the senior project will be built in the same time frame as any other product; the phasing is designed for the builder to move smoothly through the process; the buildings will be built as last as sales allow. Thanked staff for working with the applicant to try to keep the project within the direction of Planning Commission and City Council. Stated that what Lennar considers minor seems quite major; for example, taking 1,700 square feet from the recreation center is a major change in the plan; when the original designs were brought to the Planning Commission, everyone was excited about what the project would bring to our community; the proposed change to the recreation center would result in the structure being smaller than some of the homes and will not meet the needs of the residents; a 3,700 square foot structure will not be sufficient for the 835 homes that will be supporting the center. Responded that the request regarding the recreation center would primarily remove inefficient space; Merit Property Management was consulted and indicated the reduced square footage would accommodate 170 people; if necessary, Lennar will go back to the original building plan. Reiterated that the original plan for the recreation center and the Ainsley Park product were part of what convinced the Commission; to change everything at this point is unacceptable. Insisted the developer is changing very little of the original plan. Agreed to disagree with Mr. Knowland; and, stated his agreement with Commissioner Nielsen regarding: occupancy permits on the 420th versus the 950111; compromises will need to be agreed upon; the phases of the senior housing should be no problem, because there will be high demand for those units. Stated that the nature of the business is to build as the demand increases; and, suggested that perhaps the agreement could be when 50 percent of the homes are sold, the next phase will begin. Asked if there are other things staff could do to allow building to continue or will the building stop. Answered that, as things stand now, Lennar cannot pull any more building permits. Suggested that does not mean construction stops. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26. 2006 - Page 6 Mr. Knowland Lee Nielsen Menard Mr. Knowland Menard Mr. Knowland Matthew Zaist, William Lyon Homes 8:17 p.m. Lee Indicated that building would not stop; future permits would. Indicated there has to be a way to compromise; staff does a terrific job and has gone above and beyond what would be required; it is not staff's job to hinder progress; the agreement was made regarding the product, and it seems this issue should not even be back before the Planning Commission; if Lennar had issues, there was time to review the original report, rather than taking issue after the fact; in looking at the two product types for Ainsley Park, noted his desire for the better-looking product. Reiterated his understanding that this is a massive project for which the Planning Commission was given designs to approve; to return and insist that the agreed upon package will not be possible seems to be a bait-and-switch maneuver; it is the Commission's job to expect the best value for future residents. Asked why the building permit was allowed to expire last October. Stated the focus was on many other things and the timeline was overlooked; and, added he was not aware that the permit had expired until this evening. Stated his agreement with his colleagues on the Commission; and, asked, since it did not appear that everything was resolved, if the developer can work with staff further on the issues. Answered that the builder would need direction from the Commission, because there seems to be an impasse; the preference would be to move forward with the original recreation building design; the developer would rather make the compromises this evening than wait two more weeks; reiterated that this is a large scale master planned community and as things progress the changing market will require re-evaluation and fine-tuning. Stated the various reasons for the requested changes to the Ainsley Park designs indicated he has had two very productive meetings with staff and feels they are very close to agreeing on a product of which the City and the builder can be proud. The Public Hearing closed. Stated that John Laing has a similar duplex product with two architectural styles and a similar recreation center; and, asked if the issuance of building permits was the same for that development. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 7 Ashabi Indicated there was no requirement; none was necessary as the recreation building was completed during the initial phase of the project. Lee Sug~ested that Lennar/Lyon was already allowed relief with the 420 permit requirement. Ashabi Added that the Laing duplexes are designed with two different architectural styles. Mr. Zaist Indicated that the Laing duplexes are different in that their duplexes are side-to-side attached as opposed to front-to-back; the Lyon structure is approximately 45 feet wide by 72 feet deep with only the 45 feet visible from the street; the Laing design is toward the street with a traditional alleyway behind; the Lyon mass is similar to larger alley load products found in the Square and the Grove. Lee Asked for the square footage of each unit. Mr. Zaist Stated the front unit is approximately 1,600 square feet and the rear unit about 1,800 square feet. Nielsen Suggested the following: · the clubhouse will remain as originally planned; · the original design of Ainsley Park should remain; · the affordable housing unit can be relocated; · staff and the applicant should work together regarding the permit number requirement; · the phasing plan can be worked out by staff and the developer. Floyd Asked staff for clarification regarding how to approach each issue. Director Replied, using Ainsley Park as an example, that staff is recommending denial or if the Planning Commission agrees, staff can work with Lyon toward an acceptable design and approve that design at a staff level; some of the requests are Planning Commission decisions and some are recommended actions to the City Council; this application is scheduled for City Council action on Monday, July 3. Floyd Asked if that would be based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations. Director Answered in the affirmative. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 8 Floyd Asked, for example, if the Planning Commission referred to Item a) and asked staff to work with the developer on an acceptable design, that could be left at the staff level. Director Indicated that the resolution could be left as it is and allow staff to proceed at the staff level; if staff cannot agree with the developer, the item can be brought back to the Commission. Noted, regarding the 420th building permit, that staff when first meeting with the developer suggested a different threshold; that threshold was not acceptable; discussion included prior to occupancy of the 420th building permit, and the applicant came back with the 950th building permit; while it might seem as though staff was not willing to compromise, that was not the case. Staff would prefer to take the application forward, modifying a resolution that would go forward anyway. Taking a proposal that is 12 months from the date of issuance of building permits allows staff no control as to when a plan check is submitted. Staff has been in a position of asking for various submittals, and the applicant has not been responsive. If the Planning Commission would like staff to modify the resolution, staff can do so. Nielsen Stated he sympathizes with staff regarding the delay; this is a very large project with a lot at stake; allowing the applicant more breathing room may be advised. Lee Asked if the applicant has already pulled the 420th permit. Director Answered the permit number is approximately 200. Nielsen Asked for clarification that this reference is to the building of the recreation center; therefore, to allow building to continue, a compromise should be reached. Lee Stated that his concern was how to determine an arbitrary number. Director Noted the number 420 could remain and see how the applicant moves forward with the structure. Nielsen Asked if that would then refer to the occupancy of the 420th unit. Director Restated that staff's recommendation is contained in the report before the Commission this evening; anything the Planning Commission does is a recommendation; the resolution can be modified according to Planning Commission direction. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 9 Floyd Stated he agreed with Commissioner Nielsen's suggestions. Lee Noted that the Planning Commission depends upon staff's recommendations; while the Commission is a governing body for design and use, staff should be allowed to do their job. Director Clarified that the Planning Commission recommends the fOllowing: . Item a), no change; . Item b), no change; · Item c) should be modified to indicate the issuance of the 420th final inspection; · Item d) would approve the location change; and · Item e) would propose five (5) phases. Staff will prepare a new resolution for Chair Menard's signature. It was moved by Floyd to adopt Resolution No. 4025, as modified, seconded by Lee. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 4. TUSTIN LEGACY UPDATE This is a comprehensive table tracking all residential projects within Tustin Legacy. The table reflects the number of permitted units (including affordable housing), building permits issued, and units under construction, completed, and/or occupied. Director Indicated the Legacy Update represents reporting similar to that provided during the buildout of Tustin Ranch; the update will be provided to the Planning Commission on a monthly basis and will also be included in the Project Summary that is provided to the Commission on a quarterly basis. STAFF CONCERNS 5. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE JUNE 19 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Director Stated that staff presented the Regional Housing Needs Assessment to the City Council; the Southern California Association of Governments is proposing a pilot program that is very important to the City; the numbers are used for the Housing Update, how many affordable units are to be developed in the City, Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 10 etc. There may be legislation proposed. The final presentation will be provided to the Planning Commission. The City Council held the first reading on the Code Amendment recommended by the Planning Commission regarding self-storage facilities; the second reading will take place at the July Srd meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Nielsen Stated that the ULI visit was interesting. Lee Thanked staff for their hard work on the items this evening and especially their direction. Stated that staff does a terrific job, and it is good to know they can always be counted on in difficult situations. Referred to the low-energy water heating suggested by Council Member Worley; and, asked if that could be an option Lennar provides for the homebuyer. Floyd Added his thanks to the staff; and, stated he looks forward to staff working with the developer and to seeing the results. Wished everyone a Happy Fourth of July. Menard Stated that staff did a great job and the compromises agreed upon should help staff and the developer to reach a suitable agreement on the issues. Wished everyone Happy Fourth. 8:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at SOO Centennial Way. Minutes - Planning Commission June 26, 2006 - Page 11