HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 1-28-14MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
`SUS T IN G ILILi,9IjNING CONI OSSIOiNI
JA\�'UARY 28', 2014
7:12 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
Given INVOCP\ 7 i!flNIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIA�NIC` : Commissioner Lumbard
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Kozak
Chair Pro Tam Thompson
Commissioners Altowa,pi, !Lumbard, and Smith
Staff Present Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development
Doug Stack, Director of Public Works
Ken Nishikawa, Deputy Director of Public Works
Dana L. Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development
Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Community Development
Sgt. James Brabeck, Police Department
Lois Bobak, Assistant City Attorney
Scout Reekstin, Principal Planner
Ryan Swiontek, Seri ®r Planner
Edmelynne V. Hotter, Senior Planner
Julie interrante, Finance, Customer Service Supervisor
Adrianne DiLLeva- Johnson, Senior Management Assistant
'sera Tiscareno, Executive Secretary
None PUBLIC CONCERNS
Approved C0NSE,N l CA L F.MDA_R°
ITEM � I
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JAN]UARY 14, 2014 PLANNING
COi M,ISSlON MEETING.
That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the January 14,
2014 meeting as provided.
lw®t6cn.: Approved the January 14, 2014 minutes as emended. It was moved by Alto�,Ajaiji,
seconded by Smith. Motion carried 5 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Adopted Z COND 1ONAlL USE PERMIT 2013 -07 & D[ &GN REVIEW 2013 --09
Resolution No. WIRELESS MONO-EUCALYPTUS
,248 as
amended.
Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 e rage 1 ®, 11
A request to construct and operate an unmanned Wheless
telecommunications faoiNy consisting of a fifty -five (55) foot tall mono -
eucalyptus faux tree with INjelve (12) panel antennas and associated
equipment.
APPL1CAN] i1: Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D
]mine, CA 92618
PROPERTY
0 VV 'N ER:
17981 Sk park Circle, Suite H
Irvine, CA 92614
3002 Dow Avenue
This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CE-QA).
That the G fanning Commission adopt ResoluVon No. 42,46 approving
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2013 -07 and Design Review 2013-09 to
construct and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications
facullty consisting of a fi ly -Fiore (55) foot tall mono-eucalyptus faux tree,
,,twelve (12) panel antennas and associated equipment located within the
parking lot of 3002 Dow Avenue.
Swiontek Provided a presentation of the item.
PubHc h- fearing opened at 7:20 p..
Kim Nguyen, representative For Verizon Wireless, stated that pertaining to
Condition 2.7, Verizon agrees -to remove graffiti but would like to add the term:
'ggTafflti shall be removed within AB hours following notification ". Verizon would
also like clarification as to what the intent is For Condition 2.13. Nguyen stated
,the acill°tvy is designed as a stealth facility and it is 'V\,ji°thin the context of the
environment with varying heights of the trees and types of trees.
Swion�ek's responses to NNguyen's quesVons generally included: Condition
2.7 e the 48 hours implies follmiiring notification and clarification could be
included in the resoNtion; and Condition 2.13 — addiVonal landscaping may be
required for screening purposes of 'the wireless facility subject to field
inspection by Staff prior to final approval.
,Larry Peterson, Tustin resident, inquired if other carriers would be allowed to
91 piggy-back" on the proposed wireless faciHty and asked which carrier was
applying; and he also had favorable comments for Verizon.
Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 -- 'ago 2 of 11
S,v�jiontok's responses to Peterson's questions generally included: City's
preference -for co- location; the applicant (Vorixon) has identified potential area
-for co- location and for additional equipment; and depends on 'the needs of an
additional carrier and compatibility with VVorizon's standards.
Public Tearing closed at 7 :30 p.m.
Commission's corrilrnon ,ts /concorns/quostions generally included: Directed staff
to add "'Following notification" to Condition 2.7; standard condidon for wireless
facilities; if the mono- eucalyptus tree is visible fro m strain station; height
restriction; conditions for co- locaidons; Condition 2.12 should include both the
applicant and property mAinor; favorable comments -for Vorizon; provisions of
landscaping requirements; adequacy of parking and City guidelines; and
preferred location e industrial area.
Swiontolk's response 'to Commission's questions/concerns generally included:
Door not believe there will be a ��isibility issue from 'the train station; and
referred Commission to review Condition 2.6 which shows conditions of co-
location from additional carriers.
The Director's response to Commission's questions /concerns generally
included: There has been success with co- location; technology does change
therefore height limit could also change; Condition 2.12 applies to property
owner as weell; property owner is required to sign an agreement adhering to the
requirements.
mct onu Adopted Resolution No. 4246 as amended. It was moved by ,'Kozak, seconded
by Smith. Motion carried 5 -0.
Adopted 3. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMEi N]-u, APPLICATION
Resolution loo. c '1 USTU l DAY SPA
-4252
APPELLANT: Lisa Huynh
14892 StTanyan Cir.
Westminster, CA 92683
LOCATION: 18121 ln9ino Blvd., Suites A & B
Tustin, CA 92780
Lisa Huynh ("Appellant") appeals from and requests reconsideration of
the Director of Finance's denial of a massage establishment permit
application -for 11 a &Jn :'day Spa (18121 Invine Blvd., Suites A & 8, Justin,
CA),
Based on the `Foregoing, City staff recommends that the Planning
Commission uphold the denial of the Appellant's massage establishment
permit application.
Minutes -- Planning Commission January 28, 2014 —Page 3 of I I
intorranto Provided a presentation of this intern.
Commission's core mere is /concerns /q ,��---s,tions gene -rally included: C arificaudon
on the timeiine of events and determination made with the prior mAinor and new
appNcan°t; revocation of Aquatic Oasis's application occurring tNALio months after
new applicant applied in September; fJ UStin PoNce's investigation; questioned if
the three employees from the prior business, whose license was revoked, are
now proposed to be employed with Tustin Day Spa; asked if the person who
processed he application -for Tustin Day Spa was the same person who
applied for Aquatic Oasis; Clarlfjcatlon regarding the arrest occurring one month
prig to the proposed new applicant and if there was any disclosure by, the
prig tenant to 'r--luuynh referencing the illicit activity; reque -sted a complete
reading of Tustin Cite Cole (TCC.) Section 3741; stated that atypically an
e1ppii :ant investigates the business prior Ito purchasing and tbo permit process;
and requested input from the sergeant involved wKh the investigation of the
prior owners to the current owners attempting to run the business in question.
lnterrante responded to a portion of the Commission's questionsIconcerns
,Aihiob generally included: The City followed the noticing procedures and
standard °timeframe; the appeal took appro,,�irnately 2 months; the carne person
who appNed for Aquatic Oasis and elegant Spa applied for (Tustin :'day spa.
Public Hearing opened at 7A6 p.m.
Sarah Stookwoll, representative 'For 'the appellant, Lisa Huynh, referred to
Municipal Code Section 3741, which she Claimed stated the license can be
denied if the prior appfloant was denied within 12 months and there has not
been an intervening change in Circumstances, A document was also
presented to the Commission.
Deputy City% Attorney I��� hae, —1 Daud'ii stated staff did notify }Ikon, - -Innnnl,�nr l �;s --IF
d �'/ "' '°y S]i�o tStd JW JaU �I II 11 ®d ��, —)0
October 29, 2013, stating cosmetology and other businesses were not
permitted in the zoning for the proposed location. Daudt referred to the TCC
stating it was at the- City's discretion to revoke the license being that illicit
activity Was occurring at the prior business which now causes the current
location to be 'tainted" -for a reputation of illlcit activity. The Finance Director
had su fficient cause to revoke the license. He also provided the reading of
TCC Section 3741.
Doug Davert, attorney representing the landlord /property owner (Miller's),
general comments included: Lease agreement; character of landlord given by
Stockwell was incomplete; Taung & Associates relationship with the
landlord /property owner; no discussion or notice was ever sent to the property
owner regarding the investigation or activity taking placo.
Public Gearing closed at 8:08 p.m.
Minutes — Planning Commission Januwy 28, 2014 e Pogo 4 of 9 I
Sgt. J. BraboCk spoke in favor of the City's recommendation. His responses to
the Commission generally included: Background iniormaVon /expertise with
regard to the investigation; no prior knowledge of applicant cannot state what
their intent was.
Commission's responses to the public 71oaring generally included: Sympathy
for the small .business owner appealing; insufficient separation from prior owner
to Current; surprised that an applicant would invest money into a proposed
business be -tore investigating and doing their die diligence.
Bobak informed the Commission of the draft resolution which would set forth
the history and action upholding the determination of the Finance Director.
She recommended the Commission formally adopt Resolution rf\\,Io. 4252 and
real the title and action of the resolution being recommended.
Motion Item was moved by iL.umbard to uphold the denial of massage establishment
application for Tustin Day Spa and to adopt Resolution No. 4252 as real by
Bobak, seconded by Thompson. Motion carried 5 -0.
Adopted APPEAL OF DENIAL OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION
Resolution No. — LE PETITE SPA
A253
APPELLANT: Garrett Biggs
26A47 Basswood Ave
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
L OCA it ION: 13762 Newport Ave, Suite C
Tustin, CA 92780
Garrett Biggs ( "Appellant ") appeals from and requests reconsideration of
the Director of Finance's Menial of a massage establishment permit
application for Le Petite Spa (13762 liklewport Ave, Suite C. Tustin, Cn)_
REEC0MM EjK1DATi0N:
Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends that the Planning
Commission uphold the denial of the Appellant's massage establishment
permit application.
lnterrante Provided a presentation of this Kern.
Bobak Cautioned the Commission that the public hearing from the prior 2ppeal
was not part of `this item. Explained to the Commission that they make the
information provided the matter of this appeal rather than assume the
information from the previous appeal, A draft resolution was also presented to
the Commission.
Commission's comments /concerns /questions generally included: j"Requested
Sgt. Brabeck provide detail to fibis appeal; asked what occurs when another
similar business opens when the previous business license was revoked; three
Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 5 of 11
of the employees in the appellants application were the same employees from
the prior business; ClEri iCEtjOn if appellant was listed as the customer Of WEtST
service -for Aquatic Oasis prior to the arrest; asked if the appellant represented
himself at E- legant Spa; -and r (erred tC the letter stating Biggs 1ilras not affiliated
with the ,prior owner's parties involved in the arreast.
Sgt. Brabeck provided responses to the Commission which generally included:
UnderCOVer operation was conducted at the location in question; per his
experience, once an establishment is 'known and frequented, the nerve of the
establishment is then changed; sometimes when there are relationships
bet,vveen the previous owner with the current owner then Same Criminal activity
continues; rind the Case is still Linder revs ew y,\jith the District Attorney's Office.
ln°terrante responded to the Commission's ques'dons which generally included:
E mpiloyment was confirmed for the three employees being employed -at prior
business and now with current business; stated the appellant was listed asthes
customer for water service at another location of Aquatic Oasis; she also stated
Biggs did in -fact represent himself at Elegant Spa af�i'er he arrest
Public Hearing opened at 6:21 p.m.
Garrett Biggs, appellant, comments generally included: His experience with
owning spas and his ai'Rliati on with Garden Grove Police Department; and
denied employing the same three employees from prior business.
(Public Hearing Closed as 3:36 p.m.
Commission's comments to the public 'hearing generally included: Supportive of
small businesses that follow the purpose of the `ACC; T CC protects the residents;
encourage entrepreneurship; asked if the appl °cant were to waist the 12 -month
period then reapplies, would the City deny the application; and separation of prior
activities with current business.
Daudt responded to Commission's questions with regard to 'the 12 -month
"NMndow" having expired and that the City no longer has the ability to use the
statute, which is tied to the location and timeframe, not the applicant.
illlotjr nl. Item was moved by Kozak to upheld the denial of massage establishment
applicafion For Le Pedte Spa and to adopt Resolution Mo. 4253 as read by
Binsack, seconded by Smith. De Von carried 6 -6.
REGUL,,L\R BUSPYESS:
The Director requested that the Commission take Agenda iltems ��5 and out of
order.
Adopted 6. MINOR ADJUSTMENT 2013-006 013 -606 — ENDEFFIZLE GARDEi S
Resolution No.
4247 A request 'For a minor adjustment to increase and remodel the mdsting
community entry �,Ajall to a height of forty -three (43) inches, finish with
stucco and pilasters. The existing walls are 36 inches high and located
within the private property front yard setback area.
(Minutes — Running Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 6 of 11
AG PLICAj,\JT: Vince Feehan
,Enderle Gardens Property Owner Association
14241 Acacia Dr.
Tustin, CA 92730
PROPERTY
OW RS:
LOCATION
Robert Clary Doane Hopson
17331 Jacaranda Ave. 17332 Jacaranda Ave.
Tustin, CA 92730 Tustin, CA 22780
13331 Jacareanda Ave. & 17332 Jacaranda Ave.
This ;project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 1 5301, Class 1.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 4243, denying Nflnor
Adjustment 2013 -006 to pillow block walls taller than three (3) feet within
the front yard setback of single family residences located at 13331
13332 Jacaranda Avenue.
Hatter Provided a presentation of the item.
Commission's commentsIquestions /concerns generally included: Intent of the
City allowing 20% increase in �,Alall height; fire hydrant height and line of sight
standards; asked what constitutes "special circumstances "; questioned the
number of lots having entry into this tract; asked if a NAirought iron fence �Ajould be
allowed on top of wall; and visibility effects.
Staff's responses to Commission's questions generally included: Residential
tracts /entrances; setbacks; line of sight standards; special circumstances
(shape, size, topography, elevation); this property does not have special
circumstances; and height measurement is total height (wrought iron and wall
included).
Bobak recommended the Commission refer to the findings reported by Staff.
She also stated the Commission is restricted to the special circumstances
when granting minor adjustment.
Vince Feehan, applicant, Mary Anus Anderson, resident, stated, in general, the
following: There are six (6) fire hydrants in the snderle Gardens; visibility
walls are setback from Yorba; height is not impaired by a driver; encroachment
to public right -of-way; the walls along Yorba; and walls are to improve /enhance
appearance from Yorba.
Commission's additional comments /questions /concerns generally included:
Stated there was a lack of planning (referring to the walls) in prior years; no
special circumstances; asked if there were pavement markers for fire hydrants;
favorable comments to Feeh2n and Anderson for granting to enhance the
entrance to the neighborhood; do not see line of sight issue; recommended
staff and applicant work together on the pilasters so that they do not encroach
Minutes Planning Corr mission January 28, 2014 s Page 7 of 11
Motion
9:26 p.m
9:31 p.m
Denied
into the public right -of -way.
Thompson moved 'to approve the project subject to the unique circurnstances
(both lots only entry to then tract); applicant has exercised offort T consistency
on both sides; that the Applicant would ensure the City 'that marker is put in
place for the fire hydrant; and be consistent with the `=ire Dept. and Public
Works F-08p't. regUirament. Kozak concurred and seconded she item for
discussion.
IBobak clari fied that "special circumstances" have to be related to 'topography,
size and shape similar to the findings to justify the variance.
Kozak asked the applicant to consular— if not allowed to raise the wall, would
the applican :t be willing to �AJOTk W th staff to relocate the pilasters outside of the
public ri,ghteolf -way.
W likom stated if the height of the wall is maintained at 36" the Minor
Adjustment is no longer necessary. The applicant would then be required to
submit plans for a planning permit.
o Al withdrew his motion.
Item was moved by AltO )ArAiji adopting Resolution No. 4247, denying the Minor
Adjustment, seconded by Smith. Moto 0nu carried 4-1.
Kozak reque stead the Commission take a 5 rninutm recess.
Meeting reconvened.
5. DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -12 —AT&T U ILL Y CABINETS
A request 't0 install 25 aboveground utility cabinets in, or adjacent to, the
public right-of-way in VariOUS locations throughout Tus'dn to douse and
operate LLigbtspesed equipment `OT U-Verse service.
APPLICANT: AT&T California
1265 N. Man Buren Street, Room 180
Anaheim, CA 9280
PROPERTY
0WNER1S: City 0f it ustin (23 locations)
` enturanza `del Verde HOA (one location)
Laurs-lwo ®d HOA (one location)
LOCATION: ION: Mt�,vide
Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 -- Page 8 of 11
El\IMRONMEN A, L:
As conditioned, this project is categorically oxampt pursuant to Section
1 6303 (Class 3) of the California Environme ntal Quality Act (C[ QA).
RECO1NINIENDA V lON:
The Plarming Commission may take one of the following options:
1. Should the Commission desire to approve all 25 proposed cabinets,
as conditioned:
a Adopt Resolution No. 4235 approving Design Reviev/ 2013 -12 to
install and operate 25 utility cabinets (combination of
aboveground and flush—mount. —d underground), located at various
locations within or adjacent to the public right -of -way;
2. Should the Commission desire to require that ill 25 proposed
cabinets be underground and Mush- mounted, as conditioned:
Adopt Resolution No. 4,235A approving the instaNation and
operation of 25 flush mounted underground u0ity cabinets,
located at various locations within or adjacent to the public right-
of-way; or
3. ShoWd the Commission desire to deny Design Review 2013 -12:
o Direct staff to prepare a resolution of deni -ed with associated
findings for consideration by the Commission at the next regu, add
scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
R eekstin Provided a pressentation of thlss Rerr
Commission's comments /questions /concerns generally included: The number
of cities AT&T has placed U -Verse in; the plans for cabinets in 'the Tustin
Legacy; intent of AT& II to cover the entire City; co- location of cabinets; oared
which 3 suggested sites were deleted from the application; recommended
alternative locations; site distance issue on Qallesteros; undergrounding in
Huntington Beach; and loch of willingness to collaborate with Staff on color
palettes.
LesHe Monty, representative for AT&T, stated she met with Staff since the last
meeting however, meeting at a preferred location For cabinets with staff, \Alas
rejected; no underground cabinets in East Male; and no piecemealing. She
also stated the b0d has been "6rluent" since 2005 based on funding from State;
N[oicaliv AT&T works with developers in pre - planning phase and find
appropriate areas for cabinets. Unsure of plans for Tustin Legacy; does not
believe there is 100% coverage in any city, based on the criteria; exempted
from CEQA; three (3) deleted sites from the project are: Kensington park
Drive, Kahlua Large, and Valencia Ave.; and requested guidance from staff on
Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 9 of 11
acceptable locations. �lionty's response to Commission's quest ion 9ooraCOrns
generally included: AT&T does not sorlrico Huntington Beach,- AT&T a�,ould
only allow beige on -the cabinets; and she referred to 'Resolution No. 01 -95
(height roquiromonts).
eekstin clarified the two (2) locations �Ajhem AT &T presented two options;
underground cabinets mould be necessary in four (4) locations; rather than
AT&T proposing alternative locations, `they removed them from the proposal
instead of doing an analysis on their own. He also stated AT&T died not
propose another location within the community of Ballostoros.
Carl Klundor, resident, in -Favor of the Cabinet being removed from the location
at Kahlua 'bane.
Ruby `?arruudic, resident behind one proposed location (14662 Y orba St.)
stated she his concern with her children's safety since she has had
trespassers jump the wall into her backyard. She is against proposed location
and concerned with the unlimited number of cabinets in the future. Questioned
if there were any zoning laws and that the cabinets may block view of drivers
'For pedestrians at the cross walk.
Larry j'-'eterSon spouse in avor of the cabinets being proposed.
Commission's additional questions /comments /concerns generally included:
Mndergrounding issue; the City can reserve the right to require
undergrounding; AT&T's unv illingness to cooperate with the City; the
precedent that would be set for other utility providers 'to not place equipment
underground; concerned residents; unwilling to sacrifice the aesthetics of the
City; undergroundiinp of the proposed equipment is technologically `Feasible, but
the applicant is unwilling to underground the equipment in public right -of -way;
costs associated with the undergroUnding of equipment should not be a factor;
Co-'lo� iou a ^��ish ��s �li��in41 S SJ'�� lJ�1JJIUJ7�1.� �I� i � 1 o.�.�..�L 7 demonstrated .
J rt; tV lie apV�'J01ica Ill has nol
the level of demand in Tustin 'For the U- Vorse Service; lack of master plan;
asked if the Commission could approve the cabinets that meet the City's
requirements and deny the rest; referred to the guidelines and noted
"underg round ing" was not included; franchise agreements with regard to public
Tight-of-way; implication of denying application; piecernealing CEQA concern;
aesthetic concern throughout the community.
The [Director addressed the Commission's concern which generally included:
Ali cabinets being underground is steel's preference; if aboveground, staff
would go to each site to check lines of sight areas; issues of cabinets blocking
signs/windmvs /diisabled access in years past; preferred height of cabinets
would be 3.5 feet tall; unless granted another lease from the City, some utility
companies do have franchise agreements.
Bobak stated the Commission has the authority to approve some cabinets and
deny the others. The Commission does not have to accept Staff's
recommendation. The Commission has to act on the application in one way or
another.
Minutes -- Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 10 of 11
Motion. Action denied. 3 -2 vote. A new rnsso uution to be prepared and submitted at
ne,-ct schsdUed meesting °tor consideration.
S TA F, r CONICERi\7S:
The Director informed the Commission of the f0milAn events:
• Fire Station Opening e 3/2
• State of the City e 605
• Police Departmeent's Open douse —tentativa- 611A
CONI /iiSSiON CONICEE RNS:
Lumbard �Nlothing to report.
Aitowaiji Nothing to report.
Smith Commended staff for their great work.
Thompson Commended staff on their mended effort.
192-1 O.C. Citizen's Advisory Committtee (55 Fwy. widening)
o 1/22 Building Industry Association of O.C. Economic
Req
.aested &a-f , in the future, consider providing feedback from City Counci%
with regard to setbacks of ordinances and guideiines.
Kozak Commended staff on a job wail done.
O 1021 Caiiuornizi 'Preseriatt on ,4�ieb:inar A��ith City s�taff (D�--sign Revs e?fti)
o 21 Tustin Community Foundation e Mayor's inaugural Dinner
11:20 p.m. ADJ0URiNMETNT:
The next regular meeting of the Flianning !Commission is schsduled for
Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300
Cen°tenniat '✓llay.
Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 ® Page 11 of 11