Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3695RESOLUTION NO. 3695 ]0 ]4 20 22 24 25 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 1.3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 3534 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-005 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-009 EXTENDING THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL TO JUNE 1, 2000 Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application to amend Condition 1.3 of Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 was filed by Greg Bennett on behalf of the property owners, Howard Fen'and, Ramesh Bajada, and Rekha Bajaria requesting an extension of the expiration date for Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 from December 1, 1999, to December 1, 2001. Bo That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on October 11, 1999, by the Planning Commission. C. That according to Condition 1.3 of Resolution No. 3534, approved by the Planning Commission on November 11, 1997 and upheld by the City Council on December 1, 1997, substantial construction was to be underway by December 1, 1999, or the project approval would be null and void. D, As of the date of this resolution, the applicant has not obtained building permits for construction of the project and substantial construction is not underway. E, That on September 22, 1999, the applicant submitted a request for an extension of the expiration date for Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 from December 1, 1999, to December 1, 2001, pursuant to Condition 1.3 of Resolution No. 3534. Fo That the extension of the project expiration date by twenty-four (24) months to December 1, 2001 would, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: , That granting a two year extension may result in a lengthy period of inactivity on the site. While the Planning Commission originally granted a two year period to commence construction, the applicant has not yet begun construction. Resolution No. 3695 Page 2 ]0 ]4 ]? 20 , o o . If construction did not begin until Fall 2001, the original environmental documentation for the project may be outdated. Typically, environmental documents that approach five years are considered outdated and must be revised to reflect current conditions. Although the applicant cited financial constraints as the justification for a two year extension, development activity is strong throughout the City and the County. Staff has worked with the applicant to minimize the interruption of commercial activities during the demolition and construction of the project to ensure the continuation of a viable revenue stream. The applicant initiated the plancheck process in June 1999 for demolition and construction of the project and removed the existing underground storage tanks in September 1999. During plan check, the applicant requested, expedited plan checks leading staff to believe that construction would begin immediately. While the plans have required corrections, the applicant will be able to obtain a building permit shortly. In addition, building permits are considered "active" for a period of six months. If building activity does not proceed during those six months, the permit is considered inactive and the applicant would be required to renew the permit. Granting a two year extension when the building permit is ready to be issued may create an inconsistency between the life of the building permit and the extension. There are property maintenance violations on the property (i.e.: illegal signage and inadequate building and site maintenance). Since the approval of the discretionary applications, the owner has indicated a desire to rectify the violations through site redevelopment. Even though the City has granted numerous extensions of time, the owner has not corrected the violations. 24 Go That the extension of the project expiration date by six (6) months to June 1, 2000 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: . , o That granting a six month extension would encourage timely construction of the project. That the approved environmental documentation for the project would remain adequate for the project. That granting a six month extension would revitalize the project site. ]0 ]4 20 22 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3695 Page 3 . o That a building permit may be issued shortly and the life of the building permit would be generally consistent with the extension. That granting a six month extension with conditions would ensure that the outstanding code violations would be addressed in a timely manner through the .site redevelopment or property maintenance process. H. This project was addressed in a Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009, certified by the City Council on December 1, 1997. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 to extend the expiration date of said project approval from December 1, 1999, to June 1, 2000, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 11th day of October, 1999. /§1: ENV  . KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 3695 Page 4 STATEOF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CiTY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3695 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of October, 1999. lO ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 20 2~ 29 (1) EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO CUP 97-005 AND DR 97-009 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3695 GENERAL 1.1 Condition 1.3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3534 shall be amended to read: 'q-he subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is unde~ay by June 1,2000." 1.2 With the exception of Condition 1.3 of Resolution No. 3534, all remaining conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3533, 3534, 3535, City Council Resolution Nos. 97-114, 97-115, 97-116, and those contained in the Amendment to Design Review 97-009 approval letter dated February 2, 1999 shall continue to apply to this project. 1.3 The property owner shall rectify all outstanding code violations in accordance with the timeline identified in the letter to Gregory D. Bennett, Power of Attorney, dated September 30, 1999. If all code violations are not rectified in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Community Development in accordance with the letter dated September 30, 1999, this amendment to Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 for a six (6) month extension shall become null and void. 1.4 The property owner shall maintain the property in such a manner as to keep the property free from weeds, trash, refuse, dead vegetation, etc. Further, the property owner shall also maintain the site in such a manner as to prevent further violations of the Tustin City Code regarding, but not limited to, such issues as signage, parking compliance, inappropriate uses, and noise. Finally, the property owner shall maintain the improvements on the site to prevent further occurrences, of cracked pavement, faded parking lot striping, cracked or peeling paint/building finish, broken or dilapidated signage, inoperative parking lot lighting, graffiti, and all other standards contained in the City of Tustin Property Maintenance Ordinance. (1) (2) (3) (4) SOURCE CODES STANDARD CONDITION CEQA MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS .(5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY Exhibit A Resolution No. 3695 October 11, 1999 Page 2 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation and each day the violation exists. 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any further code enforcement action. 1.7 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval for this project. (1) 1.8 Approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 97-005 and Design Review 97-009 is bontingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning, by October 18, 1999, an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development.