Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC Minutes 9-11-07ITEM #2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 7:06 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given, followed by PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE a moment of silence in remembrance of 9-11-01 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kozak, Murray, Nielsen, and Puckett Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director David Kendig, Deputy City Attorney Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner Reina Kapadia, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 28, 2007, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Murray, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Adopted Resolution 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , 07-003 AND DESIGN No. 4067 REVIEW 07-003 A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FELLOWSHIP HALL, CONSTRUCT A NEW 23,707 SQUARE FOOT CLASSROOM AND FELLOWSHIP HALL BUILDING, AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 2,150 SQUARE FOOT LUNCH SHELTER STRUCTURE TO A TEMPORARY FELLOWSHIP HALL AND EVENTUAL CLASSROOM AND KITCHEN FACILITY ON THE CAMPUS OF RED HILL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL AT 13200 RED HILL AVENUE. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONALe (P&I) ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 07-003 and Design Review 07-003 by adopting Resolution No. 4067. 7:08 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Kapadia Presented the staff report. Nielsen Asked for the height of the current hall. Kapadia Answered that the height was not indicated on the plan; perhaps that would be a question for the architect. Nielsen Asked if there is a basement in the existing structure. Kapadia Indicated that would also be a question for the applicant. Nielsen Asked if there is a left-turn pocket turning into the church for southbound traffic on Red Hill. Lutz Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Scott von Kaenel, Stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Lundstrom and Commission might have. Associates Nielsen Reiterated his question concerning the height of the existing fellowship hall. Mr. von Kaenel Answered that the height of the existing hall is approximately 20 feet. Nielsen Repeated his question regarding a basement in the existing hall. Mr. von Kaenel Responded in the negative. Nielsen Asked how long the project is expected to take from the beginning to the end of all phases. Mr. von Kaenel Answered that the expectation from start to completion would be approximately 18 months. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 2 Murray Asked if there might be traffic concerns regarding traffic backing up, particularly with the left turn, or any measures that have been considered by the school to address the traffic issues. Mr. von Kaenel Responded that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not indicate any expected impacts. Murray Suggested that perhaps someone from the school could respond to the question. John Lundstrom Noted that in the conditions of approval there is a condition that, if the City determines there are significant traffic impacts beyond what is projected in the TIA, the City reserves the right to notify Red Hill Lutheran Church and ask them to provide mitigation measures. Puckett Asked how long the three temporary units have been in use. Mr. Lundstrom Indicated that the two most recent modulars are approximately four years old; the older one approximately eight years old. Puckett Suggested that this remodeling will complete the campus. Kozak Stated that he saw conditions regarding screening and fencing around the site but no reference to construction schedules and whether or not the standard restrictions would apply. Director Answered the project would be subject to the standard construction activity schedule. 7:21 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Commissioners It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this is a welcome project and a beautiful addition to the Red Hill Lutheran site. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4067. Motion carried 4-0. Adopted Resolution 3. CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-010 No. 4062 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A 30- LANE BOWLING ALLEY, ARCADE, AND RESTAURANT WITHIN AN EXISTING 28,000 SQUARE .FOOT TENANT SPACE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 2405 PARK AVENUE IN THE SP-1-MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (PLANNING AREA 19 - COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4062 approving Conditional Use Permit 07-010. 7:23 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Swiontek Presented the staff report. Kozak Asked. if the Police Department and other departments are satisfied with the proposed conditions of approval. Director Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if other businesses are open until 2:00 a.m. Director Responded that there are expected to be other businesses that will be open until 2:00 a.m.; there are no restrictions at this point. Nielsen Asked if special mitigation has been considered regarding noise for the first floor neighbors. Director Indicated the applicant will incorporate improvements into the building plans. Puckett Asked what percentage of the business comes from the bowling and what comes from the entertainment. Director Suggested that question would be better directed to the applicant. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Brett Parker, Stated that the percentages vary from facility to facility; typically, the Strike Holdings business runs about 50-55 percent from bowling and shoes and the balance from food and beverage. Murray Asked if the Cupertino venue is larger than the one planned for Tustin. Mr. Parker Answered that the Cupertino venue is approximately 38,000 square feet. Murray Questioned whether or not there have been any unexpected challenges in Cupertino that might apply to the Tustin site. Mr. Parker Responded that the company has more than 10 years of operating history with these types of venues; the key is how the facility opens, how the situation is controlled during the first few weeks; less Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 4 experienced operators tend to open with a longer leash; the applicant knows the way to long-term happiness is to start with a very short leash and let it out over time if prudent; the biggest departure in Cupertino would be working more closely with the City than previously; Sheriff's deputies were hired through Santa Clara County to be on-site providing additional security. Murray Stated that he applauds those efforts; it is very important to establish good partnerships with the neighboring tenants and also with public safety; while wanting to ensure economic prosperity, it should not be at the expense of the quality of life for the citizens. Nielsen Suggested there has been a concern that this might become more of an entertainment facility, such as a nightclub or disco; and, asked if there were any long-term plans in that direction. Mr. Parker Indicated the long-term plan is to operate this business as planned from the start as a part of the community, not as a nightclub; a long- term commitment is the only way for it to make sense as an investment. Nielsen Asked for clarification regarding the security arrangements for this project. Mr. Parker Answered that it takes time to learn what is allowable in a community regarding police personnel which the applicant understands would not be allowed in Tustin; typically, there would be a combination of people who work for the company, subcontracted, bonded security people and, if appropriate, local police. Added that security is less of a concern than it would seem to be on the surface; this is not loud, dancing music but 80s frat rock; the idea behind the concept is to bring bowling back into favor as an activity for families. Nielsen Asked what the name will be. Mr. Parker Answered the name will be Strike Tustin. Noted there were two conditions the applicant wished to address as follows: Condition 1.5 makes the applicant responsible for the cost of enforcement of actions under the conditional use permit. If there were an action brought, the language suggests the applicant would be paying for unnecessary enforcement actions. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 5 Parker continued Condition 1.6 relates to a similar issue stating that the applicant will indemnify the City against third-party actions related to the conditional use permit. If someone were to sue the applicant, it would seem reasonable the applicant would defend that action. Kendig Stated that both are standard conditions, which are normally not objected to by applicants, and briefly explained the reasoning behind the conditions referred to above. Mr. Parker Reiterated that Condition 1.6 suggests the applicant would be paying double court costs, which seems onerous. Kendig Indicated the City Attorney would request the conditions remain. 7:41 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Kozak Asked for clarification from the City Attorney whether or not it would be acceptable to change Condition 1.5. Kendig Responded that it would be his recommendation that Condition 1.5 stand as it is; if the Planning Commission feels it should be changed, the City Attorney would not have a strong opinion on it. Kozak Indicated he would not be inclined to change standard conditions of approval; he supports the project and appreciates the extra time the applicant and staff took to reach a compromise and move forward. Murray Stated he concurred with the legal opinion and appreciated the efforts made between the applicant and the staff; this is a welcome project in the community. Puckett Questioned whether use restriction 5.1 is also a standard restriction. Director Answered in the affirmative, regarding this type of venue. Puckett Agreed with the other Commissioners that this is a good use of the property and something that will enhance the entertainment value of the District; he supports the project. Nielsen Noted that he also likes the project and hopes to spend time there with his family; and, stated the standard conditions should remain. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4062. Motion carried 4-0. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 6 Denied, 3-1 4. ZONE CHANGE 06-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024, AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 REQUESTING: 1. ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) ZONING DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH 77 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE THE 4.1-ACRE SITE (NET AREA) INTO A 77-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT; 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 TO CONSTRUCT STRUCTURES OVER 20 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT; AND, 4. DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4064 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as adequate for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for development of the proposed 77 residential condominium unit project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4065 approving Conditional Use Permit 06-024 for constructing buildings over 20 feet in height within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and Design Review 06-020 for the architectural/site design and amenities of the proposed condominium project. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4066 recommending that the City Council adopt the MND for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06- 024, and Design Review 06-020 and approve Tentative Tract Map 27096 for the purpose of subdividing and developing a 4.1-acre (net) site with 77 residential condominium units. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 7 7:47 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Ashabi Presented the staff report. Nielsen Asked if the zone change would allow the applicant to have up to 25 dwelling units density on the property. Ashabi Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Remarked for clarification that the current project would be 18.7 dwelling units; suggested that at some time in the future that could change to 25 dwelling units with this entitlement; and, asked if that would be automatically approved. Ashabi Responded that the 25 dwelling units per acre is a General Plan land use designation; the R-3 would allow up to 100 units, but the development standards would have to be met with submittal of a site plan and tentative tract map. Nielsen Asked for the logic for the current zoning and the new zoning being longest for the side yard setbacks. Ashabi Explained that the City Code definition for a front yard is the shortest dimension facing the street, which in this case would be Mitchell; the proposed site is referred to as a reverse corner lot. Nielsen Asked, regarding the current setbacks, what the dimensions are for the front and rear yards. Ashabi Answered the front would be 15 feet and the rear 10 feet. Nielsen Questioned what would be the maximum amount of units if the zoning did not change at the project location. Ashabi Indicated the maximum number of units would be 60. Director Added that the existing number is 60; if the existing units were to be removed, it would be 71 units. Nielsen Questioned whether the height restriction with current zoning would be 20 feet. Ashabi Answered that would be correct, 150 feet from the R-1 properties. Director Added that beyond the 150 linear feet it would be 35 feet. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 8 Nielsen Asked what mitigation measures could be taken regarding traffic leaving the project during school rush hours if traffic is deemed an issue. Director Questioned, as a point of clarification, whether Chair Nielsen was referring to potentially restricting traffic from leaving the site or entering the site. Nielsen Answered in the affirmative; and, stated his concern stems from the potential traffic issues and what the mitigation plan might be. Lutz Stated that one access point to the project is the best possible mitigation; there would be stacking on-site which would be the worst circulation problem; future mitigation iswell-covered. Nielsen Indicated that his concern relates to traffic during school rush hour, particularly since there is a pedestrian crosswalk that would be very close to the entry and exit point into the project; traffic leaving the project turning right onto Browning going towards Walnut will run into the school traffic; and, questioned whether or not staff has any plan if this becomes an issue. Lutz Answered there was nothing beyond the existing crossing guard, the best scenario for traffic control. Nielsen Verified that nothing has been planned for problems with traffic out of the project. Lutz Stated that the tum movement in that direction could be restricted if necessary. Nielsen Asked if the Tustin Unified School District was consulted regarding traffic or circulation studies the District may have done around Nelson School. Lutz Answered the District was not consulted regarding this project. Nielsen Asked if a zoning variance on the current zoning regarding extending side yard setbacks would be a possibility or would it have to be a zone change. Director Asked for clarification of Chair Nielsen's question. Nielsen Stated that, if the zoning remained the same and if the setbacks were increased, he was questioning whether that could be accomplished with a variance rather than changing the zoning. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 9 Director Responded that there are Findings the Commission would need to make to approve a variance. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Jim Magstadt Stated he has been doing this for a long time; the goal has been to acquire old, under-utilized rental properties and replace with upscale architecturally designed residential for- sale housing in order to satisfy the homebuyer demand for infill housing to minimize commuter time and to provide homes that are in close proximity to shopping, employment, schools, recreation, public transportation services; he met with residents of the community again due to his concerns regarding their comments at the last Planning Commission meeting; developing infill projects can be a challenge because the constraints are much higher; it is impossible to satisfy all the concerns and all the objections; in this situation, staff did a good job of summarizing the concerns of the citizens; in order to buy older properties, it is necessary to factor in what is being paid for the existing project and then be able to build enough density to make it economically feasible; it is his policy to check the General Plan to avoid proposing something that is not in concurrence with the goals of the City. • In summary, the developer is willing to make the following concessions: • The 10' to 15' setback along the westerly property line could be accommodated if the recommended 15' setback along Browning were eliminated. • Reduce height of Plan 4 and Plan 5 units from 32' 6" to 26' 6" by lowering the roof pitch and eliminating the lofts in the buildings adjacent to the southwestern property line. • Increase the setback along the southwest property line, which would be the side yard, from 10' to 15'. • Provide the 6' 8" block wall rather than the 6' wall and paint it to coordinate with the adjacent property owners. • Provide landscaping that will not drop leaves onto adjacent properties. • Provide additional landscaping along the private patio areas. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 10 Magstadt continued Added that the developer is very excited about The Legacy and proud to be a part of Tustin's growth and development. Reiterated his comments from the prior Planning Commission meeting regarding the existing landscaping with mature pine trees that so high anything behind them would be shielded and cause a minimum impact. Noted the developer has assembled an excellent team that was available to answer any additional questions. Puckett Asked if the reduction to 26' 6" would include all the buildings that would have been that height. Mr. Magstadt Responded it would include all the buildings along that property line, with the exception of the building that fronts Mitchell, a group of units that would maintain the same property line as the side yard at 10 feet. Puckett Asked if that could be accomplished without losing any square footage inside. Mr. Magstadt Indicated that this would require squeezing some of the units to pickup inches here and there. Murray Questioned whether or not this accommodation would change the total number of units but include removing the lofts. Mr. Magstadt Answered the lofts would be removed from the units along the side yard. Nielsen Invited the public to speak, requesting that a few spokespeople could be selected to speak; and, asked that only new information and comments be provided regarding the concessions the developer referred to above. Toby Moore, Reiterated his belief that the traffic component is flawed; there were Pinebrook resident incorrect baseline assumptions made regarding the existing site that had to do with access from three different locations, one on Browning and two on Mitchell; staff is still looking at the Traffic Analysis as being correct; 17 additional southbound trips going down Browning is incorrect by 120 percent. Nielsen Asked for consideration for all speakers and no audience intrusion. Mr. Moore Continued that Table 3 in the Traffic Study is based only on vehicles exiting from the current site and the proposed project; in that analysis, the current project to have 25 exiting vehicles and the Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 11 proposed project 43; the difference is 18 which assumes that 95 percent will make a turn going south on Browning; the problem is that the 25 assumes that is what currently occurs on the existing site which is not correct; there are three parking areas on this site; about 20 percent or less use the Browning location; the remainder use Mitchell; no study was done to determine how many vehicles exit, enter, or go down Mitchell as opposed to making a southbound turn going down Browning; the staff report states that the City's Engineer looked at the worst case scenario which is not the case; this is the worst case scenario: consider the 25 trips going out and assume that 20 percent are currently exiting that property on Browning and go south; that would be 5; 43 minus 5 is 38 which is very different from 17-124 percent more; that 17 number is used in all the other analyses of the Traffic Study, whether it is the flow numbers, intersection numbers, or the turn numbers, which are used to determine the level of service and whether in compliance with the City conditions. If the Study had been done correctly, perhaps those numbers still match what the City accepts for traffic on this street. It needs to be done. The Council [sic] should oppose the approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which is a condition for the zone change. Jacqueline Lui, Stated that the existing traffic is very bad when she goes to work; Browning resident when she comes home from her night classes, there are no parking spaces on the street for additional cars; 77 units would cause even more traffic and parking difficulties; five additional parking spaces will not be enough; the traffic for the school causes problems between 7:30-8:15 a.m.; affordable housing, with one bedroom, starts at $425,000 which many people cannot afford; people on fixed incomes will have no place to go. Georgia Abbott, Indicated she has lived on the corner of Browning and Mitchell for Browning resident 15 years; she planned on retiring and dying there; her family and friends enjoy coming to her home; if she has to leave her home, there is nothing in Tustin or Orange County she could afford to rent; this is a community that cares for each other and helps each other; there is a spirit of friendship and trust to live a peaceful, harmonious life; please reconsider the zoning and let the residents enjoy their lives. Peggy LeBeau, Stated she has lived in Rancho Sierra Vista for 20 years; she is 78 Browning resident years old and on a limited income; replacement housing for her is nonexistent and $500 would not be sufficient to cover moving costs; it is her hope that the Planning Commission will consider the huge advantage of recognizing the legitimate objections presented and allow this modest corner of Tustin to be an example of fair Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 12 housing which will help the entire neighborhood and keep many school children safe. Rick Satterlee, Stated his proposal is to keep the R-4 zoning and take away six Cloverbrook resident units; many of the projects with R-1 next to R-3 are very small and impact only a few homes; in his area, this project would impact a neighborhood with R-1 zoning on three sides. Danny Wassenaar, Referred to the poll recently published in the Orange County Cloverbrook resident Register in which homebuyers were asked what they considered most important to a home; 45 out of 100 people stated the most coveted feature is the backyard; regarding issues of height and density, staff refers to the Land Use Element of the General Plan Goals and Policies as their authority for allowing this construction; when he read the General Plan, he found that the Goals should be reviewed comprehensively, not one bullet at a time; what was excluded from the staff report, for example, was Goal 1.3 that discusses preserving existing low-density character and single- family zoned neighborhoods; or Goal 6.4 "to preserve and enhance the City's residential character and small-town quality by encouraging a maintaining Tustin's low-density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of existing land use .., and harmonious blending of buildings and landscapes." He does not believe the Planning Commissioner's predecessors from the late 1960s would approve of the proposed zone change; they had the foresight to see the big picture of how everything should fit together; this neighborhood is not in a special management area that needs redevelopment. Stephanie Satterle, Thanked staff for coming to her home and the developer for going Cloverbrook in the direction of lowering the height and increasing the setbacks; Resident Ordinance No. 862 states "the Zoning Code does not adequately protect the character of neighboring single stories in single-family districts and therefore should be amended with Ordinance No. 862; the ordinance must be there to protect single-family homes; the report states 24 parking spaces where only 18 are shown on the site plan, and it is a concern that 11 of the spaces will be used on trash days; it would be nice to preserve our neighborhood with appropriate setbacks; homes that have been added onto do not appear to be two stories. Julie Standish, Noted the residents of Pinebrook are very concerned that their Pinebrook resident street will bear the brunt of the changes on the Cloverbrook side; (no speaker form the cul-de-sac on which she lives is regularly used as a U-turn for presented) all of the people coming and going from the school; it is impossible to back out of her driveway during the peak times; eliminating the two driveways on Mitchell is an issue of great concern. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 13 Kim Keelin, Sandfield Indicated that the Sandfield, Fernbrook, Shadybrook neighbors all resident are united with the Cloverbrook and Pinebrook neighbors and agree with the no zoning change due to existing traffic congestion; there should be an additional Mitchell driveway. Juanita Haralson, Stated that she chose Tustin in 1974, particularly Rancho Sierra Browning resident Vista Apartments, because they were ideal at that time; being 81 years old, she has a fixed income of Social Security only; the apartments that have been listed for the seniors to look at have had no vacancies; when there is a vacancy, the waiting list is anywhere from two to three years long; the apartments range from $938- $1,056 at Heritage Plaza; for someone on Social Security, that would not be affordable. David Levy, Browning Submitted and read a statement into the record which is resident incorporated herein by reference. Jonathan Waaldridge, Stated he has lived in the Rancho Sierra Vista apartment complex Browning resident since he was five years old; he's 16 now; this is the home in which he grew up; it is unfair to have his home demolished for a project that does not seem necessary; affordable housing, such as Rancho Sierra Vista, is hard to come by; he lives with his 73-year-old grandmother who works full-time to support him and his disabled mother; he would like to know where the affordable housing is in Tustin; moving out of Tustin at this time in his life would interrupt his schooling to his detriment; this project should not be approved. Patricia Erol, Indicated that she and her husband recently moved into Rancho Browning resident Sierra Vista; they lived in Tustin in the past and came back to the area because of the charm; most places are corporate and tall and cold; getting to know one's neighbors is part of the lifestyle at the apartments and a rare thing; gardening is a big part of her husband's life and he spends time doing so in the backyard; this is what they consider home and do not look forward to moving. Lisa Curlee, Stated that she is a condo owner on Mitchell and asked the Mitchell resident following questions: What are we trying to achieve? 2. What are the goals for the neighborhood? What is being proposed does not seem to fit in. No one wants to stand in the way of progress, but this project does not seem to fit that definition. 3. What will this add to the community? 4. Who will buy these units? Many of the neighbors in the Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 14 area cannot afford to buy the homes they are living in now. 5. What will happen if these units are not sold? Would someone be renting them? 6. Who will safeguard the children's progress to school with the added traffic on Browning? Suggested the Traffic Study was based upon the people who live in the complex now, many of whom seem to be retirees; chances are the people moving into the proposed project will be working people with two incomes; the street parking problems that exist now should be addressed by the Police Department. Reminded everyone that Nelson Elementary would not be able to accept any children the project might house, because Nelson is full. Kay Shafer, Noted that the developer has been working with the residents to try Cloverbrook resident to come to a compromise but still has not given enough, this project would impact the entire neighborhood; if these residents agree to the concessions, the next developer may expect more; there is no need for a zone change that would set a precedent for all future rezones within single-family residential neighborhoods and open the City to development the residents have never seen nor would want to see; the taxpayers stand before the Commission to ask that this zone change and conditional use permit not be allowed to go forward; it would not enhance the community, would take away from current property values, and would take away the way of life the residents bought into so many years ago. Joe Vargas, Stated his opposition to the project for working families like his who Browning resident moved from Irvine to Tustin because Rancho Sierra Vista was charming and affordable; once people are there, they do not want to leave; it is a collaboration of retirees and working people who look out for their neighbors; he was speaking for them as well as his family. Maureen Kasinski, Indicated she is a forty-year Tustin resident; when she moved to 17th Street resident Tustin, it meant a backyard, green trees, open area; she is smothered by what has happened at Tustin Fields; this housing does not fit in Tustin; it does not provide quality of life to have three- story buildings with no backyard, just a garage and a little patio in front; Tustin residents have to have land and forty single-story cottages would be perfect on that property to take care of the seniors and the older people. Pam Poucher, Noted she has lived at her current location in Tustin for 29 years; Sandfield resident when Mr. Magstadt was speaking, he mentioned that he has been Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 15 doing this for many years and is very familiar with the whole operation; he commended the staff of the presentation; her question is why he would choose this property when the existing zoning would not allow the height and density proposed. Thelma Hatfield, Suggested that, if the .developer is looking for future properties for Mitchell resident these types of projects, Park Villas, where she has lived since 1975, may be next; pleaded with the Commission not to change the zoning; noted this is a well-kept, pleasant, safe neighborhood; the builder seems to be in this for the money, not for the quality of life; asked that Tustin be kept as it is. 9:08 p.m. Recess 9:23 p.m. Meeting reconvened. Nielsen Asked staff to respond to the public input. Director Indicated that staff would be happy to respond to any specific questions the Commission may have; the Traffic Engineer may want to respond specifically to the comments made regarding the Traffic Study and/or ask Mr. Foust, who prepared the study, to comment on the technical analysis; staff could respond to comments regarding the affordable housing component; some of the comments provided in the staff report were very general because there were several comments made at the first Public Hearing and in the correspondence that was received; staff tried to generalize those comments and provide responses accordingly, not do so point by point; regarding the density issue, one of the speakers was correct-it is an issue of gross versus net calculation; 60 is the net, 71 would be the gross; there will be a dedication requirement that extends into the street. Nielsen Verified that the maximum would be 60 under the current zoning. Director Stated that was correct. Nielsen Asked staff for clarification regarding Ordinance No. 862. Director Stated, without having the history of the ordinances with her, that Ordinance No. 862 may refer to the setback requirement that applies to R-3 and R-4 properties that are adjacent to single-family residences; staff can research the history of that law. Nielsen Questioned whether staff had comments regarding the traffic study. Lutz Stated he would defer specific questions to the Traffic Engineer, Joe Foust. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 16 Joe Foust, Austin- Referred to the 17 trips southbound being off as much as 120 Foust Associates percent; this analysis took, as CEQA requires, a worst-case analysis; that is, 95 percent of the project traffic would head south on Browning from the existing apartments as well as the proposed condominiums; with the assignment of 95 percent of the traffic going north and south on Browning, that constituted the most traffic that would be going through what was identified early on as one of the key traffic concerns of this project, Nelson School located close by; putting the project in perspective, these 77 units will generate approximately 600-700 trips a day; the county-wide CMP program exempts development projects up to 2,400; the City staff, rightfully so even though they might learn to regret it, chose to evaluate this project in detail even though it substantially exceeded what would be the criteria for a CMP type of traffic impact analysis; this project is well below what is normally considered one that would be subject to a CEQA and traffic impact basis on the county-wide CMP guidelines; Walnut is carrying approximately 20,000 cars a day; Browning has about 5,000 cars a day; there is a logic in going south to Walnut rather than north to Mitchell; the volume on Walnut is substantially higher than it is on Mitchell and Walnut leads to more destinations; regarding the total volume of this project, even at 95 percent on Browning; the volume of exiting traffic, whether turning right or left, would be 43 vehicles in a hour in the morning; there are already 800 vehicles on Browning, which is a five percent change if all the vehicles go one direction; that applies no credit at all for the existing apartments; whether the number is 17 or 22 or 34, 77 units would still have an insignificant impact in comparison with the total volume of traffic. In looking at the destinations and the direction of the traffic coming out of the new development, the traffic will go north and south through the crosswalk at Nelson School where there is a crossing guard; the real issue with the school is there is no left tum, requiring a U-turn within the intersection or onto the cul-de-sac street. That count is about one car per minute during the peak times making a U-turn. The point is that this project is adding 17 more dwelling units and whatever traffic that will generate; 95 percent of that traffic will go southbound on Browning. As a potential back-up plan, everyone could be forced to turn left out of the project. Those that want to get to Walnut would probably make a U-turn to do so. Nielsen Asked if the study included school days. Mr. Foust Answered that all the school counts took place when school was in session; other counts were taken at Browning and Walnut this spring; no counts were done when school was not in session. Nielsen Invited the applicant to come forward and respond. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 17 Mr. Magstadt Restated his position: the applicant has been in the process for one and a half years through five submittals; it has been complicated and time-consuming; adjustments have been made; modifications were made to the site plan; the applicant meets and exceeds all the development standards of the Tustin General Plan; concessions and refinements have been ongoing to arrive at a project that everyone could be proud of and would be a financial and living success for the residents; additional concessions have been made tonight based on the needs of the neighbors; while it is not possible to meet all their concerns, the applicant has tried to do; he is sympathetic to the residents who live in these units; there are State standards regarding relocating tenants; the applicant exceeds those State and local standards and goes beyond any of the competitors regarding such concessions; he appreciates all the time and effort everyone has put in and urges the Planning Commission take everything into consideration and allow the project to move forward. 9:40 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Kozak Thanked everyone for their participation. Stated he reviewed all the materials carefully; visited the site on multiple occasions; read all the letters that were received from the residents, the developer's materials, the staff reports, etc. and evaluated everything and considered the options that he sees. This is a highly constrained site and a very challenging project for everyone. The key points are as follows: Zoning -There seems to be a logic to having this property zoned R-4 as it has been, adjacent to R-1 properties; he does not see the need for a zone change; the economic feasibility argument presented shows no planning basis for a zone change; it is important to determine whether or not a project is detrimental; he is hard-pressed to find that this project is not detrimental to the general welfare of persons currently living in the neighborhood and detrimental to the adjacent residential properties as the project has been proposed and submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. Harmonious Development - He noted the requirement for a finding and conclusion that there is harmonious development. In looking at the proposed project in relation to adjacent properties, it is his opinion that the height, size, and scale are too large for this small site. In terms of physical relationships of the proposed structures to existing structures, the setbacks are lacking. The density on the Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 18 site is high. The project has a number of beneficial aspects, i.e. architecture. He generally encourages the reuse, revitalization, and rejuvenation of projects; however, in this case, the project as proposed is too high, too close, and too dense; he is unable to support the, project as proposed. The project is not a good fit for this site in this community. It may work in another location, but it is his judgment that this looks like five pounds trying to be pressed into atwo-pound box. Murray Indicated this has been very tough; he reviewed everything, drove by the site numerous. times, even at night, to make sure he could see it from the perspective of the residents; complimented staff and the developer for their effort in trying to accommodate the community. Change is never easy but sometimes compromise is necessary. He has strong concerns regarding the aesthetics and how they fit into that community; the setbacks have been his concern since the beginning which stems from his background in public safety. While measures and accommodations have been made,. the primary concern is the relocation plan. Those things are important. In a situation like this and after hearing some of the testimony from the people who live in the neighborhood, it is evident that there is a special kind of character and those things are hard to find. He cannot support the project as presented. Puckett Offered his congratulations to all the people in the audience for the organization involved in their presentation of their concerns; indicated there is an opening for a Planning Commissioner; it is not an easy job; he liked this project from the beginning and thinks it would be good for that area; this is a good developer; a similar project was approved on Walnut and Red Hill that was perfect for that location; he likes the architecture; the developer has expressed a willingness to work with the neighbors and with staff more than any developer he has seen during his years on the Planning Commission and City Council; he commends the developer for his willingness to work with the residents; he supports the project. Nielsen Thanked staff for their diligent, hard work in putting together all the information that it takes for this type of hearing; staff spent countless hours going over the public input; he appreciates everyone coming out and letting the Commission know his/her feelings at both hearings; this sort of participation is what makes a fair hearing fair; he looks at this project in a number of different ways; he lost sleep and thought about the project until his head ached; he read every letter and e-mail that was sent. Suggested that this could be aprecedent-setting development; the positives of the project include a developer that has put a lot of effort and money trying to put together a project that he feels would Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 19 fit the location and the neighborhood; he met numerous times with neighbors and has made some concessions to which no one in the audience responded; the developer is trying to come to a compromise in this situation; the architecture is fine and if the project were correctly done it could be a major benefit to the neighborhood. Indicated the negatives of the project in his opinion are: • The setback issue, particularly in the western property line, has been an issue with the neighborhood and with him since the beginning. • The height examples, as shown in staff's well-researched documentation, being close to a major R-1 development would not affect an entire neighborhood the way this project would. • Given the traffic situation around Nelson School, it is his opinion the Traffic Study was too optimistic; he drives Browning two to three times daily, and there are more cars going from Browning toward Walnut; while he may be accused of being over-cautious in trying to keep the children safe, he is fine with that; with any project that goes in that spot, there must be some sort of traffic mitigation; there is not a Plan B, only the Traffic Study indicating there will be a non-significant amount of traffic; anything that makes a bad situation worse is a problem. • While the above might be worked out, the one thing he could not get past was the zone change which could allow at some time up to 100 units on that property; if that were allowed to happen, it would destroy the neighborhood. The developer is to be complimented for working hard on this project; however, the project is too dense, needs larger setbacks, and traffic mitigation near Nelson School; all would need to be addressed for him to take another look at the project. While the developer's heart may be in the right place, he is in the business to make a profit. Transitioning rental property into ownership property in Tustin is a good thing, but he cannot support this project as submitted. Cautioned the residents in the audience that a project will be built on that property at some future time; the residents should be as accommodating as possible to a developer that is trying to work with them, because it would be much easier than an owner that will not work with them. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 20 Nielsen continued Asked staff how a motion should be presented. Director Answered that there should be a motion to deny and direction to staff to bring back resolutions for the Planning Commission's consideration with Findings in support of a denial. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Kozak, to deny. Motion carried 3-1; Puckett dissented. Director Noted that this is an appealable item; the appeal period would not commence until the Planning Commission has taken action on the resolutions supporting its actions that the Commission directed staff to bring to the next meeting. None REGULAR BUSINESS 5. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2007, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Director reported The City Council approved the plans and specifications to advertise the bids for the Tustin Library. Reminded the Commission that the Old Town commercial tour is planned at 5:30 p.m. before the September 25, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Noted that the Planning Officials Forum flyer was e-mailed to the Commissioners; the Forum is scheduled for October 18; there should be some interesting presentations, one of which will be Prospect Village; the Commissioners are encouraged to attend. COMMISSION CONCERNS Murray Stated that this has been a great example of City government at work. Commended the citizens for coming out to share their feelings and concerns and staff for all their research and hard work. Suggested the Red Hill Lutheran expansion and the Strike Bowling facility are welcome additions to the City. Complimented The Sully Group for their efforts and concessions. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 21 Murry continued Applauded his peers on the Planning Commission for their opinions and careful research and thoughts. Asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of 9-11-01, just as the meeting began. Kozak Agreed with Commissioner Murray's adjournment suggestion. Offered his thanks to staff for their work, particularly on Agenda Item No. 4, a challenging item for everyone involved. Noted that he attended with Chair Nielsen the Saturday evening Tustin Conservancy barbecue; and, thanked Linda and Steve Jennings for sponsoring that event. Referred to the vacant Arco site on Red Hill; and, asked that staff arrange for the lot to be cleared of weeds. Puckett Stated that tonight was a tremendous example of government in action with all the people involved and committed to their cause. Noted the Red Hill school project looks wonderful; the fact that they are progressing and able to expand is impressive. Indicated that he will be returning to Kansas next week fora 75~' anniversary of the home church where he grew up, founded on September 23, 1932. Asked if there has been any progress regarding Katherine Spur. Director Indicated the studies related to the Spur are dormant at this time; studies have been done looking at various alternatives; staff is now waiting for some cost estimates of those alternatives; the last estimate was in the early 1990s and those estimates are out of date. Puckett Questioned whether or not there is a concern with the pipeline. Director Answered that the pipeline has been abandoned, but easements still exist. Puckett Indicated that his Peppertree neighbors continue to ask what can be done to get something started there; and, asked that staff keep him apprised regarding any developments. Director Stated that the analysis performed by staff could be provided to anyone who might be interested. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 22 Puckett Noted that closing in honor of the victims of that dark day in history, 9-11-01, would be appropriate. Nielsen Stated that the Commission took the Heritage Village project very seriously; it was difficult, but important, to choose the right decision; it was also important that the community came out to express their opinions; the developer was trying to be accommodating in order to get his project approved, and it would be good to see something more accommodating back from him that the Commission could work with. Thanked staff for all the work on that project. Noted his enjoyment of the Tustin Conservancy barbecue; every time he attends a Conservancy event, he learns something new: this time he learned which houses had cellars. Agreed with the suggestion of adjourning in honor of the 9/11 victims. 10:11 p.m. ADJOURNMENT In Memory of the Victims of 9-11-01 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes -Planning Commission 9-11-07 -Page 23