Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-27-01 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2001 A PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR AN OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WAS PRESENTED BY TIM SERLET, CITY ENGINEER, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM BEHIND THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. 7:02 p.m. Given All present Staff present Approved Adopted Resolution No. 3792, as amended 7:04 p.m. Ashabi Kozak CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Transportation Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS -- None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of August 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Revised Minutes of July 23, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Jennings, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-035 AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-041 A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A MAJOR WIRELESS FACILITY DESIGNED AS A FIFTY-EIGHT (58) FOOT TALL DATE PALM TREE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AN EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 14861 FRANKLIN AVENUE IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-IND) ZONING DISTRICT. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3792 approving Conditional Use Permit 00- 035 and Design Review 00-041. The Public Hearing reopened. Presented the staff report. Suggested that initial noticing to tenants and property owners should be included to be consistent with other approved wireless applications. Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 1 Peterson Kozak Pontious Director Pontious Hamilton Director Ashabi Hamilton Ashabi Davert Director Davert Responded noticing was not included because the applicant had proposed methods to eliminate interference and the noticing did not seem necessary, but a condition could be added; and, read the following into the record: "If deemed necessary upon change of ownership or frequency, mailed notices to property owners and/or tenants within a 1000 foot radius of the site informing them that the project was approved and providing information as to how to contact the Federal Communications Commission for complaints regarding radio frequency interference shall be done. The applicant and/or property owner shall provide written notification to the City sixty (60) days in advance of a change of ownership or frequency. The cost of said notification shall be borne by the applicant and/or owner." Noted this language is in Condition 3.7. Noted that "or frequency" was not in Condition 3.7. Stated the previous resolution approved at the last meeting refers only to change of ownership. Stated that including "or frequency" would be appropriate. Noted that he works for a telecommunications company which does not offer wireless service; therefore, he has no conflict of interest; asked staff if there is a general master plan for this telecommunications provider; stated his understanding that there is a Nextel site at Tustin Ranch Road and the I-5 freeway which is not a stealth project; and, asked staff to address this. Answered that Nextel has a facility on the Auto Center's property which was approved in 1996; that project created the impetus to establish a more restrictive major wireless communications ordinance; staff included a five-year review date; the City can request that the provider make adjustments based on new technology; however, that is a separate issue from the one the Commission is considering this evening. Indicated that a master plan was distributed at the last meeting which identified three future locations for Nextel; that plan was about a year old; a new master plan was provided in Attachment C in this staff report and provides a better view of existing and potential sites. Asked if Site CA6649 is the only additional location in the Nextel master plan. Responded that there is one site at the I-5 at Red Hill and one at Phase I of Tustin Ranch Estates. Stated that co-location should be considered more frequently; referred to the height of this project; asked if it has become the policy for providers to build higher towers to have an advantage over competitors; and, suggested 100 foot towers may be in the future. Noted the City ordinance does not allow for 100 foot towers. Asked if date palms are taking the place of fan palms, requiring five live trees be planted in the area; and, asked Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 2 Pontious Director Jennings Pontious Steve Divney, Nextel representative Davert Pontious Davert Hamilton Director Peterson Kozak Pontious Director Hamilton whether a monopine might provide better co-location possibilities. Noted that a monopine would require more height. Indicated there is also a distance requirement when co- location occurs on the same facility. Asked how high the monopine has to be. Invited the applicant to answer that question. Answered that the height depends upon the number of servers and the critical factor is the vertical separation; the rule of thumb in the industry is a 10-foot tip-to-tip separation between providers which requires the additional height. Stated the revised resolution does not meet the intent of the Commission's direction; stated he understands the legal reasons involved; and, noted he hopes the Commission can work toward limiting the proliferation of these types of cell sites. Suggested a review of the regulations in three to six months. Stated his appreciation for Nexters response to the Commission's concerns. Stated that the last two sites approved were almost 100 percent stealth; having more stealth locations is more aesthetically acceptable; the 58-foot tree will have a negative visual impact from the anticipated Base housing; two or three stealth locations would be better than this project. Commented that several providers are designing stealth locations, including Nextel; the Ordinance is written so that only the major facilities come before the Planning Commission; other sites are approved on the staff level. Added that, based on concerns stated by Commissioner Hamilton, the additional five trees were proposed by staff to camouflage the structure. Referring to Commissioner Hamilton's comments, asked if a review period could be integrated as that section of the Base property is developed. Suggested that area of the Base is not projected to be early in the development time line; by the time development is scheduled, technology might be entirely different. Stated Condition 1.6 could be changed to indicate "Design Review approval shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development on or after August 27 and/or upon residential development at the Base." Asked if it would be more advantageous for an applicant to build a site that may need modification to provide service now, or build two smaller stealth sites which would require no modification. Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 3 Divney Answered that the task before the Commission is the balancing--the difference being a big tower with no proliferation or proliferation but kept stealthy; other sites in the City provide the opportunity for co-location; for example, Site CA6648 on the master plan is to be co- located with PacBell at their central office. Pontious Asked Mr. Divney if he had other comments. Divney Stated that Condition 3.2 should read "date" palm rather than "fan" palm; asked, regarding Condition 3.4, if the 48- hour time frame could be amended since replacing these trees this quickly is sometimes difficult. Pontious Agreed that the 48-hour time line should be amended. Davert Suggested "within a reasonable time as determined by the Community Development Director" would be appropriate language. Divney Stated that Nextel's request to strike Condition 1.8 and l(d) in the Resolution in a letter dated August 24, 2001, was based on the fact those items would require a Code amendment which would be contrary to existing California law; the Code already treats the carriers one way; if there is to be an amendment, it should be through the proper noticing and hearing channels. Davert Asked if Mr. Divney had seen the revised resolution and whether or not he agrees with the contents. Divney Answered that this resolution creates a burden for Nextel which has nothing to do with this specific property; Nextel should not be more restricted than the Code requires; the Resolution creates a duty that could be unknowingly breached in the future. Davert Asked the City Attorney how Conditions 1.8 and 1.9 will run with the land. Holland Responded that the idea behind the conditions is land use related in terms of looking at other alternatives for future applications that are consistent with what the Code requires; the Ordinance is designed to encourage wireless sites other than poles. Davert Asked if speculating on possible future applications is appropriate for approval of this project. Holland Clarified that subsequent owners would be bound by these conditions. Divney Stated that it is Nextel's position that the conditions have nothing to do with this application and are contrary to case law in California. Davert Asked Mr. Divney if this creates a serious problem for Nextel since it will not effect what is being built for this project. Divney Responded that precedent is the primary concern; and, suggested there is a waiver argument to be made; Nextel is being restricted without any benefit of the public process that takes place when the Code is applied. Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 4 Holland Davert Director Kozak Hamilton Director Hamilton Divney Holland Hamilton Director Davert Holland Divney Director Jennings Peterson Indicated that staff asked the City Attorney to approve the language of Condition 1.8 even before seeing Nextel's letter; the Code has certain rules and regulations based on land use issues but does not provide for all the conceivable conditions that might be warranted. Asked if it is anticipated that this condition will be included for future applicants. Stated that on numerous occasions these types of conditions have been required on applications; most monopalm applications are rejected by applicants before reaching the Planning Commission due to lack of staff support. Staff is recommending the conditions remain as they are, or, if eliminated, staff would recommend denial of the project. Stated that after listening to the comments of the City Attorney and staff, he could approve the application as recommended by staff. Asked what sort of weight the five-year review might carry. Answered there is no way to predict that since no review has been initiated at this point. Emphasized that the Commission is not singling out Nextel in any way; the Commission's concerns are the aesthetic views of the City. Stated that it is not Nexters intention to put up ugly sites; and, asked for clarification regarding the master plan referred to in Condition 1.8. Replied that, read in context, this condition refers to future applications. Asked the reason for limiting to the area south of the I-5 and east of SR-55. Answered that those are the only down areas involved. Stated his concern regarding limiting future applications. Noted this is not conditioning a future application, but indicates this is a major facility within this area; the geographic area is the hinge for requiring evidence of having looked at alternatives. Asked why it is necessary to make it a condition of approval in this application. Indicated that staff is only recommending approval of this project to avoid proliferation of the major facilities in the future; quite possibly no monopalm would be necessary if there were other stealth facilities throughout the City; Nextel is reaping the benefit of this high facility; staff's intention is to limit additional monopalms. Asked if language should be added clarifying the time frame regarding the master plan. Provided the following language beginning with the last sentence: "At the time another application for a major facility is submitted... ". Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 5 Jennings Holland 7:52 p.m. Adopted Resolution No. 3798 and Resolution No. 3799, as modified 7:54 p.m. Peterson Jennings Peterson Davert Peterson Kozak Peterson Kozak Peterson Commented that Condition 3.4 should specify removal of dead trees within a reasonable time frame. Referred to earlier language covering that requirement. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Davert to adopt Resolution 3792 as modified, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 01-019 A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME, CARING FOR UP TO FOURTEEN (14) CHILDREN. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1431 SAN JUAN STREET IN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3 2700) ZONING DISTRICT. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3798 approving the Final Negative Declaration for the project. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3799 approving Large Family Day Care 01-019. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Asked if the pad for the additional employee will require removal of the fence. Answered affirmatively; and, added that the applicant intends to repair and replace the fence. Asked if Condition 3.9 of the second resolution would assure that frivolous complaints not require a parking survey or traffic study. Answered affirmatively; and, stated that City staff would have to determine whether or not there was an impact that needed to be mitigated which would require an objective study to demonstrate there are impacts. Stated he understands and supports the need for quality day care; and, expressed concern regarding the numbers being allowed in the space available. Responded that staff had similar concerns regarding the size of the house and the yard; staff contacted the Community Care Licensing which is the State division that licenses these types of homes; there are no size restrictions. Asked about the condition of the property and structure; stated his lack of understanding of the different permits; and, asked if the Orange County Fire Authority has inspected the property. Replied that the applicant has a current license from the State to operate a small family day care; the property was inspected by the Building Division for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 6 Director Kozak Peterson Davert Director Hamilton Director Davert Peterson Hamilton Holland Pontious Lissette Abundis, applicant Jennings Ms. Abundis Added there are concerns regarding property maintenance identified in the staff report and resolution; the yard must be cleaned prior to final approval. Referred to concerns observed on a site visit such as the windows being high hung, the landscaping overgrown, safety exits blocked, the fencing material and height not uniform around the property, etc. Responded that the State has no yard or fence height requirements; there are conditions in the resolution that address smoke alarms, fire alarms, fire extinguishers, exits, all of which will be looked at carefully during final inspection. Asked if the Commission is pre-empted by State law from further conditioning these applications. Responded that the application is before the Commission because it was appealed; the State has encouraged local jurisdictions to approve such uses at the administrative level, unless appealed; staff also wants to assure that the applicant operates appropriately within the neighborhood; Condition 1.7 was included to allow staff to review the site on an annual basis. Asked if there are areas other than safety which can be conditioned. Answered that concerns are primarily noise, traffic, parking, overconcentration of uses, and compliance with the Uniform Building Code established at the time of the original approval. Suggested that, aside from the environmental impacts, the Commission cannot regulate this use anymore than any other single family residence in the City. Responded affirmatively. Asked that Finding No. 8 indicates no swimming pool and should include "jacuzzi/spa or other water body;" and, inquired whether sprinklers for vegetation could be included under Condition 3.6. Answered that sprinklers are not something that can be imposed on a single family home. Invited speakers to come forward. Stated the numbers and ages of children she is allowed; she is caring for eight children at this time; traffic and noise have never been a problem; neighbors are not aware she has a day care; the dead tree in the backyard will be removed; the children have no access to the separate part of the backyard; she stays abreast of proper day care through continuing education; her goal is to improve the lives of young children. Asked applicant what she anticipates as the ages of the fourteen children will be. Answered a maximum of three infants from birth to two years, two children six or older, and nine toddlers ages two to five; or, two school-aged children and twelve Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 7 toddlers; when the ninth child comes into day care, the applicant is required to have one employee. Donna Kaden, a property owner at 13692-13694 Green Valley Thanked staff for addressing her concerns regarding various issues; and, stated for the record that she owns the property on Green Valley but does not reside there nor does she have a business there. 8:17 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Davert to adopt Resolution No. 3798 and Resolution No. 3799 as modified, seconded by Jennings. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS Adopted Resolution No. 3800 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY REVIEW TO DETERMINE THAT THE LOCATION, PURPOSE, AND EXTENT OF A PROPOSED EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES AT PETERS CANYON ROAD AND SILVERADO TERRACE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3800 determining that the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed easement for street and highway purposes is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Hamilton, to adopt Resolution No. 3800. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS Report on Actions taken at the August 20, 2001, City Council meeting. Director reported The City Council vote on the coin-operated carwash appeal was two to two; therefore, the Planning Commission decision was upheld; the applicant is working with the appellant to modify the architecture. The Planning Officials Forum is scheduled for the second Thursday in October. COMMISSION CONCERNS Hamilton Stated that utility boxes in the area of Park Center, Bryan, and Tustin Ranch Road are rusty and need attention. Kozak Thanked staff for their work on the Nextel application. Stated that last Saturday the green light at Yorba and Irvine heading into Tustin was not working. Jennings Stated there is a lot of trash on Tustin Ranch Road between Rawlings and Pioneer. Davert Thanked Public Works for the informative Workshop. Stated that signs for the free car show last weekend were inappropriate; and, noted the need to remove illegal commercial signs quickly. Pontious Thanked Public Works for the Workshop. Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 8 Kozak 8:26 p.m. Stated for the record that he was sorry he missed the Workshop. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, September 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Eli-zabeth A. Binsa~:k Planning Commission Secretary Ponti~u'~ ' Chairperson Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 2001 - Page 9