Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Minutes 04-08-02ITEM #1 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 8, 2002 7:00 p.m. Given All present Staff present Approved Adopted Resolution No. 3827, as amended, denying Use Determination 02-001 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS- None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Jennings, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS o USE DETERMINATION 02-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-001 A REQUEST TO DETERMINE THAT INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN THE IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX PLANNED COMMUNITY AND TO ESTABLISH A 4,047 SQUARE FOOT TUTORIAL FACILITY. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 2680 WALNUT AVENUE, UNIT AB, WITHIN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-IND) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3827 denying Use Determination 02-001 and Conditional Use Permit 02-001. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 7:03 p.m. Ashabi Director The Public Headng opened. Presented the staff report. Added that staff brought the Use Determination and the Conditional Use Permit forward together at the applicant's request, not because staff believed that was the most logical means by which the Commission might consider the Use Determination; stated that conditional use permits are required in zones where instructional facilities and educational uses are permitted; stated the broader policy issue is whether or not to allow educational or instructional facilities or other sensitive uses within industrial districts; and, noted that a balanced community is the goal. Responded to the applicant's rebuttal to staff's reasons for denial (provided in a document delivered to staff and the Planning Commission by the applicant immediately before the meeting was called to order and incorporated herein by reference) as follows: This application is not for a "Minor Use Determination," but a Use Determination to determine whether or not these types of uses are permitted in the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community. Stated that staff believes this use would have a negative impact on the community, because it would create an imbalance of land uses within the City's industrial districts and would establish a precedent of allowing these uses in the future. Indicated that the safety concerns identified in the staff report are not negligible as noted in the applicant's letter; for example, there are no pick-up and drop-off areas similar to those found at most educational facilities; the sidewalks are inadequate; large delivery trucks and other large industrial and commercial vehicles would share the same drive accessway as parents and teachers. Noted it is not the City's obligation to allow every use at every location convenient for all purposes throughout the community; pointed out on the map the area of the proposed facility and the other areas in the City where an educational facility could locate, specifying there is an area near Jamboree Plaza which is in close proximity to the applicant's proposed facility. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 2 Dave~ Holland Davert Holland Kelly Chu, applicant 7:19 p.m. Indicated that the instructional sites referred to by the applicant that exist at the proposed site, West Coast Taekwondo and the Tustin Dance Center, did not receive planning approval and might not legally exist at those locations but added that those are considered indoor recreational uses which are conditionally permitted uses within the district; and, noted staff would look at those on a case-by-case basis. Stated that staff agrees with the statement on the second page of applicant's document indicating the facility provides an important function for the City of Tustin; and, added that other areas which would accommodate such uses were presented in the staff report. Asked if the Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit should be considered separately. Answered that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider the Use Determination timt; if the Commission denies approval of the Use Determination, there would be no reason to consider the Conditional Use Permit; and, stated staff would proceed at the convenience of the Planning Commission. Asked if counsel had reviewed the application with an eye toward the property fights issue vemus whether or not adequate alternatives are available. Replied that counsel felt the staff recommendation was a legally satisfactory and justifiable recommendation; stated the City has the ability to protect its zoning districts; and, concluded the preservation of the industrial zoning district is a sound basis for denial of this requested use determination. Stated that she had intended to read her remarks; but, since the Director had addressed those already, reiterated that her students would be no different from the other children being dropped off at the other facilities in the area; stated she does not understand the difference between children in the building to learn dance versus art, English, or math; noted that parking is not a problem because a portion of her facility is used for publishing and a portion for tutodng and 98 pement of her students are dropped off, thereby creating no parking problem; and, stated she has a facility in Costa Mesa that functions without incident in a similar district. The Public Hearing closed. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 3 Jennings Davert Director Davert Dire~or Denny Ms. Chu Denny Ms. Chu Denny Ms, Chu Davert Stated she visited the site eadier today and saw many trucks and over-sized vehicles, ne sidewalks leading to this area, and no parking available; stated that the addition of 30 people would require more parking or children would exit cars in unsafe locations and runto the site; stated her concern for the safety of these children; suggested the zoning is inappropriate; referred to the recent deaths of the children in Anaheim at a school with a designated drop-off area; indicated she believes the applicant's proposed site presents the potential for much worse accidents; noted there are better areas in Tustin for this facility, referring specifically to the SCORE location in Tustin Heights which has wide sidewalks, ample parking, and a drop-off area. Asked staff if the publishing operation was included in the report. Responded the publishing operation was not identified as part of the application and was not included in the floor plans. Asked if staff felt the parking and the differentiation between this use and the other recreational uses had been addressed. Answered those two issues' had been adequately covered; and, added that, if the Commissior~ chose to consider the Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit independently, the resolution could be modified accordingly. Stated that he appreciated the applicant's desire to bdng such a business to Tustin; and, asked the applicant if she was currently operating out of this location. Answered in the negative. Asked about the times and locations indicated on the applicant's flyer. Answered the flyer was intended as a suggested schedule if the project was approVed. Asked what business would be operating in the subleased porUon. Responded a business that Produces calling cards, with one employee at this location. Noted that this business was not reflected in the staff report. Minutes - Planning Commission April 5, 2002 - Page 4 Director Denny Holland Davert Director Davert Director Davert Director Holland Davert Indicated the calling card business was not identified in the applicatJon. Stated he visited the site about 6:00 p.m. this evening, and, as he drove by the dance academy, a small gid ran through the cars, forcing him to brake suddenly; suggested this incident confirms that safety is an issue; noted the carpet cleaning facility behind this location has a number of large vans that will enter near this site, making it inappropriate for such a use due to its proximity to the entrance; suggested the applicant made a logical point regarding Ordinance No. 1076; and, asked staff to address the possibility of no future approvals of such recreational uses in an industrial area. Stated planning commissions in other jurisdictions make recommendations to the City Council if changes to the Code are justified, and it would be appropriate for the Tustin Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council that these kinds of recreational 'uses no longer be allowed within industrial zones. Suggested, separate from the pending action, the Commission can direct staff to provide feedback to the Commission on this issue. Stated staff will provide an analysis of the ramifications of these types of uses in industrial areas. Asked if the businesses presently operating in this area are illegal. Stated the businesses possibly have not obtained the appropriate permits. Expressed his understanding that no precedent has been set regarding the existing uses that would impact this application. Stated no precedent has been set. Added that the Industrial/Commercial zoning for this planning area was amended in 1991 requiring that indoor recreational uses such as batting cages, dance studios, gymnastics studios, and martial arts studios are permitted subject to a conditional use permit. Suggested that grandfathedng issues may be involved with older businesses that may be under a'different set of rules, Minutes - Ptanning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 5 Holland Denny Hamilton Davert Hamilton Kozak Davert Responded in the affirmative. Stated that the Council and the staff have done a good job of zoning the City to allow for all types of uses; and, emphasized there is space for everyone in the City. Asked for confirmation that the businesses discussed are pdvate, indoor, recreational uses and tonight's application is instructional. Replied in the affirmative. Thanked the applicant for wanting to bring this sort of business to the City of Tustin; emphasized that there is nothing wrong with the business, but this is not the proper location; stated his major concem is the hazardous materials in that area harming children; stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation; and, pointed out the multiple locations available within the City for this use. Indicated his support for the program; stated that SCORE in Tustin Heights and Kumon near Columbus Tustin School are excellent examples of the successful operation of similar businesses in the City and pointed out the staff exhibit showing the available locations; noted that he visited the site this evening and saw 12-15 large carpet cleaning trucks parked adjacent to the proposed site; stated the lack of pedestrian facilities for the children is a concern; suggested that the proposed schedule of classes would indicate that traffic and parking would present major problems; suggested some shops in the area would be using various chemicals and heavy metals that children should not be exposed to; noted that there is a shop close by that serves alcoholic beverages; and, offered his support of staff's recommendation. Stated prohibiting the use of a property is difficult, but the integrity of the City's Zoning Code, City Ordinances, and General Plan require denial in this instance; indicated that the volume of signatures on the applicant's petition speaks well for the need for such a program, but this is the wrong place for that use; and, stated his concern regarding the possible existence of incompatible uses. Asked staff if it would be appropriate to bifurcate the Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 6 Holland Director Received and made suggestions for staff to share with the City Council Reekstin Hamilton Reekstin Hamilton Director Stated bifurcation would be appropriate; and, provided language amending Resolution No. 3827, denying Use Determination 02-001. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Jennings, to adopt Resolution No. 3827, as amended. Motion carded 5-0. Stated that this item is appealable to the City Council; any appeal must be received by Monday, April 15, 2002. REGULAR BUSINESS BUSINESS REGULATIONS AND LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD ORDINANCE. ARTICLE 3 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE CONTAINS THE CITY'S BUSINESS REGULATIONS. THESE REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED INDIVIDUALLY BY SUBJECT BEGINNING IN 1928 AND NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY UPDATED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission provide input as appropriate. Presented the staff report. Asked how this ordinance relates to businesses such as doctors' offices and restaurants. Responded that these are special regulations for businesses with unique characteristics that require special permits beyond a business license and are designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Asked why gas stations and other automobile repair shops are not included. Pointed out the primary role of the Planning Commission is to be the reviewers of land use and design issues; these regulations do not relate to land uses; sometimes such businesses ovedap; however, there are other kinds of issues that staff would consider, i.e., normally, the Planning Commission would not look at the backgrounds of individuals; this ordinance would allow the Director to review those as well as the License and Permit Board and any decision would be appealable to the Planning Commission; this gives an individual the opportunity for due process in the event that the Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 7 Daver[ Jennings Reekstin Holland Jennings Holland Jennings Reekstin Jennings Reekstin Jennings Reekstin Director or the License and Permit Board were to deny a business license. Clarified that some of the uses Commissioner Hamilton questioned are regulated by other agencies; the regulations before the Commission are specific uses that the City has or will now identify as requiring special oversight in addition to a regular business license. Asked, regarding large outdoor gatherings, for an interpretation of why the number 25 is used in relation to parades, mamhes, or organized gatherings. Answered that number was provided by the City Attorney and asked him to elaborate; Asked that the Commissioners take note that this refers to "City streets or sidewalks" which are traditional places for people to exercise their First Amendment dghts. Indicated her understanding of that aspect but still doesn't understand why the number 25 was selected. Suggested that the number was established as a minimum threshold for a size high enough to deal with the regulatory aspects of having traffic interfered with by 25 people collectively engaged in some form of public conduct. Asked if under Section 3234(2) a list of "at least ten entertainers" refers to those working in the facility. Responded in the affirmative; and, added this is meant to include anyone who has worked for the owner of the establishment. Asked if these ten people are considered references. Indicated they could be thought of as references, but this section is intended to provide information regarding the type of entertainment that would be provided at the facility. Stated that some nonprofit organizations do not have established memberships; suggested the established membership requirement be stricken; and, asked if the section on home occupations means residents cannot sell guns from their homes. Replied in the affirmative. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 8 Denny Director Denny Reekstin Director Denny Reekstin Denny Reekstin Davert Stated for the record that the City Council should be fully aware that the intention (of establishing the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals) is not to usurp the Council's authority and give it to the Planning Commission. Answered that the Planning Commission serves as the Board of Appeals under the Uniform Building Code which is different from the role of Planning Commissioner; in that capacity the Planning Commission is the final hearing body; in the event the Planning Commission were to uphold a staff position, an individual could not appeal that decision to the City Council but would go directly to court; these regulations are intended to expedite the prrocadure and provide one less obligation for the Council; in the future, if the Council sees the appeals and does not like the Planning Commission actions, the Council would have the authority to take back the role; the ordinance also takes a certain amount of authority away from the License and Pem3it Board and gives it to the Director of Community Development; staff's reason for proposing the ordinance is to be more business-friendly and move things forward as quickly as possible; if there are no significant concerns, staff can administratively move things along; if staff has concerns, requests could be deferred to the License and Permit Board. Asked which other events would be regulated since those co- sponsored by the City would be exempted. Provided the example of balloon festivals and larger activities of that nature. Suggested another example would be an auto show that was planning to use City streets for a private parade. Asked whether the requirements for mobile auto services apply to existing carwashes. Answered in the affirmative; and, added those requirements would be consistent with current NPDES requirements for the management of waste water. Asked if the restriction on mobile auto services apply to someone coming to his residence to perform the services in his driveway. Answered in the affirmative. Suggested the motivation behind this restriction relates to the mn-off issues, Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 9 Reekstin Davert Reekstin Denny Director Dave~ Kozak Director Kozak Reekstin Kozak Reekstin Hamilton Answered that is one issue; the other is compatibility and appropriateness in a residential zone. Stated the ordinance does not include mobile auto repair which should perhaps be included. Stated those activities are prohibited in residential zones. Asked for clarification whether he would be allowed to wash his own car in his driveway. Stated washing one's car in his own driveway would be permitted; the regulation is designed to avoid the situation of someone trying to accommodate 10 cars in a residential district, which would create a commercialized use; the goal is not to over-regulate, but to ensure the worst case scenario is avoided. Suggested that regulating something and then allowing the occasional incidental occurrence to take place does not seem practical; perhaps this section needs more work. Asked for clarification regarding the regulation of mobile ice cream vendors. Stated mobile ice cream vendors create a safety issue related to vendors sometimes selling more than ice cream and targeting children. Asked about regulating services such as mobile pet grooming. Answered that NPDES issue would involve disposal of waste water which is generally associated with mobile auto detailing, carpet cleaning, etc.; if mobile pet grooming involved waste water, the water would have to be disposed of in a proper manner. Asked if mobile disk jockeys playing loud music in residential neighborhoods are handled through the Police Department. Indicated that would be handled by the Police Department through the Noise Ordinance. Asked about home-based businesses, other than guns, in terms of dangerous items. Minutes - Planning Commission ,~odl 8, 2002 - Page 10 Reeksfin Davert Director Hamilton Director Hamilton Director Hamilton Holland Hamilton Holland Hamilton Holland Stated it is staff's intention to present more comprehensive regulations for home-based businesses within the Zoning Code amendments rather than as part of the business license regulations. Suggested it is important not to duplicate regulations already in place through State, County, and Federel authorities, Stated there is a Zoning Code prevision related to home occupations; this is a business-regulation issue. Questioned whether this ordinance would apply to a business selling stereo components and generating a high volume of traffic. Indicated such a business would be prohibited; a home-based business cannot look like a business; there can be no placard that advertises; only members of the family can work in the business; no large amounts of stock in trade are allowed; the garage may not be used as a showroom or a storage facility; specific regulations do not allow commercial uses in residential zones. Asked about Avon, Tupperware~ and similar businesses. Answered those are home occupations which are allowed because the individuals typically go to other locations; professions such as attorneys or accountants are similar in that they often need only a fax machine, computer, telephone, etc. and go elsewhere to visit clients. Asked, regarding amusement activity, if the proposed plan for providing food and beverage would require evidence of any applicable required permits; and, asked if the felony conviction of the owner "and all the employees" should be added. Indicated Section 3531 addresses this issue. Asked for further clarification. Stated one cannot engage in a business without a permit. Asked if each employee would need a permit. Responded in the negative, stating the individual could not hire an employee as part of the business because he would not be able to obtain a permit to operate the business. Minutes - Planning Commission Apdl 8, 2002 - Page 11 Hamilton Reekstin Kozak Director Kozak Director Davert Kozak Reekstin Director Davert Director Stated he was referring to the person owning the business having nO felony convictions but hiring people who do have criminal records. Stated any employee with felony convictions would be limited to keeping bOOks or doing other administrative activity; and, added that staff may need to look at this section more carefully. Asked how the regulations would apply to pdvate home swimming pool cleaning by individuals conducting the business and using chemicals. Stated pool cleaning is regulated under the Home Occupation permit; if such a business is operating out of a home, no storage of stock in trade would be allowed at that location. Asked if a business liCense would be required. Responded that no license woUld be required if the business is performed elsewhere and the home garage is not used for storage of stock in trade; Suggested this ordinance is designed to address particular uses or businesses that need special attention; referred to automobile leasing brokers for possible inclusion; thanked staff for their work on this document; and, indicated the ordinance should make the City more business-friendly and allow people to do business more easily. Asked whether the updating of 75 years of the Code will be articulated to the business community through public outreach, the TuStin Chamber, etc. indicated that several avenues have been explored. Added that staff will address the businesses that will now come under this regulation; stated that individuals will be given notice and opportunity when business license renewals are sent out; and, noted that if anyone is somehow missed, that does not mean he/she will be grandfathered in for another year. Referred to the outreach staff performed regarding the utility cabinet ordinance allowing them to comment; and, asked if the Chamber will look at this ordinance before it goes to Council. Answered the Chamber's input will not be necessary unless the Planning Commission chooses to deregulate areas such as tattoo parlors, fortunetelling, weapons, etc. that are already Minutes - Planning Commission Ap~l 8, 2002 - Page 12 Reekstin Davert Director Director Hamilton Jennings Peterson Jennings regulated; and, stated the Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council. Noted that many of the regulations are based upon higher laws that the City cannot deviate from as a general law city. Asked staff if a motion was required. Answered that staff will provide the Commission's suggestions to the Council, STAFF CONCERNS Report of Actions taken at the April 1, 2002, City Council meeting. Indicated there were no Planning Commission items on the April 1, 2002, City Council agenda; and, noted the following items are planned for the Apdl 15, 2002, City Council meeting: · Old Town Fee Waiver; · Business License Ordinance; · Final Parcel Map for Elizabeth Way; and, · CDBG Action Plan. Noted that Justina Willkom will be showcased as Employee of the Quarter at the Apdl 15~ meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thanked staff for their thorough work preparing tonightts packet. Stated the Philly Cheesesteak sign has been removed from the monument and placed on a pickup truck parked near the Wells Fargo Bank building in Larwin Square. Asked why there has been a blue tarp on the roof of the First Bank building (HoltJlrvine) for so long. Stated the center at Newport Avenue and the I-5 freeway has a number of signs advertising the antique store(s). Asked if the signs are temporary or permanent. Answered there are three permanent signs, two banners outside, and one banner inside covedng the entire window. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 13 Jennings Denny Denny DaveK Jennings Director Denny Director Denny Denny Davert Hamilton Davert Echoed Commissioner Hamiffon's remarks regarding tonight's agenda items. Thanked staff for the thorough work preparing tonight's agenda items. Stated his concem regarding Ordinance No. 1076 which conditionally permits recreational uses in the Irvine Industrial Complex; and, asked staff to follow up and bring information back to the Planning Commission. Added Ordinance No. 1076 is also a concern for him. Stated that she would like to know why one use may be recreational and another is assembly or instructional. Indicated that staff may need to provide a workshop to discuss the ramifications and alternatives available; and, stated staff will take the Commission's direction and prepare an analysis of uses allowed in the industrial district. Asked if graffiti on a Caltrans sign is referred to Caitrans. Responded that staff sometimes calls Caltrans; but, if the graffiti is a safety issue such as a Yield sign, staff would initiate the cleanup. Pointed out there is graffiti on the Caltrans sign on the Redhill/ I-5 over-crossing. Stated he has received questions from neighbors regarding the Albertsons site at Newport and First, asking if then is a development plan for that center. Reported that the Planning Commission recently approved a major remodel; Albertsons will expand and continue at the site, adding a drive-through pharmacy. Stated he asked Albertsons recently about the progress and was told the teardown will begin in October. Congratulated the Parks and Recreation Commission for the successful Egg Hunt, which he attended with his daughter, and estimated there were between 2,000-3,000 children involved. Indicated his appreciation for the progress at the car wash across the street from City Hall. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 14 Davert Kozak 8:24 p.m. Noted it is good to see that the widening at the I-5 and Redhill moving forward. Asked if there are regulations against the banner signs hanging on the fence near the Baptist Church on Walnut east of Tustin Ranch Road. Stated there is also graffiti on the southbound I-5 just before Newport Avenue on a green and white Caltrans sign, Stated there is trash and debds along the sound wall at the southbound offrarnp to Tustin Ranch Road. Thanked staff for the informational memorandum from Council regarding the Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act, the development plan booklet for Pioneer Road Park, and the work on the Business Regulations and tutodal center. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes - Planning Commission April 8, 2002 - Page 15