Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MIN 01-28-14MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2014 7:12 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lumbard ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Kozak Chair Pro Tem Thompson Commissioners Altowaiji, 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 Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner Ryan Swiontek, Senior Planner Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner Julie Interrante, Finance, Customer Service Supervisor Adrianne DiLeva- Johnson, Senior Management Assistant Vera Tiscareno, Executive Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS Approved CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 14, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the January 14, 2014 meeting as provided. Motion: Approved the January 14, 2014 minutes as amended. It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Smith. Motion carried 5 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Adopted 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013 -07 & DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -09 Resolution No. WIRELESS MONO - EUCALYPTUS 4246 as amended. A request to construct and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a fifty -five (55) foot tall Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 1 of 11 mono - eucalyptus faux tree with twelve (12) panel antennas and associated equipment. APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION ENVIRONMENTAL: LBA Realty Fund II- WBPII, LLC 17981 Skypark 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 (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4246 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2013 -07 and Design Review 2013 -09 to construct and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a fifty -five (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. Public Hearing opened at 7:20 p.m. 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: "graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours following notification ". Verizon would also like clarification as to what the intent is for Condition 2.13. Nguyen stated the facility is designed as a stealth facility and it is within the context of the environment with varying heights of the trees and types of trees. Swiontek's responses to Nguyen's questions generally included: Condition 2.7 — the 48 hours implies following notification and clarification could be included in the resolution; and Condition 2.13 — additional 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 "piggy- back" on the proposed wireless facility and asked which carrier was applying; and he also had favorable comments for Verizon. Swiontek's responses to Peterson's questions generally included: City's preference for co- location; the applicant ( Verizon) has identified potential Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 2 of 11 area for co- location and for additional equipment; and depends on the needs of an additional carrier and compatibility with Verizon's standards. Public Hearing closed at 7:30 p.m. Commission's comments /concerns /questions generally included: Directed staff to add "following notification" to Condition 2.7; standard condition for wireless facilities; if the mono - eucalyptus tree is visible from train station; height restriction; conditions for co- locations; Condition 2.12 should include both the applicant and property owner; favorable comments for Verizon; provisions of landscaping requirements; adequacy of parking and City guidelines; and preferred location - industrial area. Swiontek's response to Commission's questions /concerns generally included: Does not believe there will be a visibility 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 well; property owner is required to sign an agreement adhering to the requirements. Motion: 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 ESTABLISHMENT Resolution No. APPLICATION — TUSTIN DAY SPA 4252 APPELLANT: Lisa Huynh 14892 Stranyan Cir. Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 18121 Irvine 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 Tustin Day Spa (18121 Irvine Blvd., Suites A & B, Tustin, CA). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the denial of the Appellant's massage establishment permit application. Interrante Provided a presentation of this item. Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 3 of 11 Commission's comments /concerns /questions generally included: Clarification on the timeline of events and determination made with the prior owner and new applicant; revocation of Aquatic Oasis's application occurring two months after new applicant applied in September; Tustin Police'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 the application for Tustin Day Spa was the same person who applied for Aquatic Oasis; clarification regarding the arrest occurring one month prior to the proposed new applicant and if there was any disclosure by the prior tenant to Huynh referencing the illicit activity; requested a complete reading of Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 3741; stated that typically an applicant investigates the business prior to purchasing and the permit process; and requested input from the sergeant involved with the investigation of the prior owners to the current owners attempting to run the business in question. Interrante responded to a portion of the Commission's questions /concerns which generally included: The City followed the noticing procedures and standard timeframe; the appeal took approximately 2 months; the same person who applied for Aquatic Oasis and Elegant Spa applied for Tustin Day spa. Public Hearing opened at 7:46 p.m. Sarah Stockwell, representative for the appellant, Lisa Huynh, referred to Municipal Code Section 3741, which she claimed stated the license can be denied if the prior applicant 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, Michael Daudt, stated staff did notify the appellant as of 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 illicit activity. The Finance Director had sufficient 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 place. Public Hearing closed at 8:08 p.m. Sgt. J. Brabeck spoke in favor of the City's recommendation. His responses to the Commission generally included: Background information /expertise with regard to the investigation; no prior knowledge of applicant — cannot state what their intent was. Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 4 of 11 Commission's responses to the public hearing 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 before investigating and doing their due 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 No. 4252 and read the title and action of the resolution being recommended. Motion: Item was moved by Lumbard to uphold the denial of massage establishment application for Tustin Day Spa and to adopt Resolution No. 4252 as read by Bobak, seconded by Thompson. Motion carried 5 -0. Adopted 4. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT Resolution No. APPLICATION — LE PETITE SPA 4253 APPELLANT: Garrett Biggs 26447 Basswood Ave Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 LOCATION: 13762 Newport Ave, Suite C Tustin, CA 92780 Garrett Biggs ( "Appellant ") appeals from and requests reconsideration of the Director of Finance's denial of a massage establishment permit application for Le Petite Spa (13762 Newport Ave, Suite C, Tustin, CA). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the denial of the Appellant's massage establishment permit application. Interrante Provided a presentation of this item. Bobak cautioned the Commission that the public hearing from the prior appeal 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: Requested Sgt. Brabeck provide detail to this appeal; asked what occurs when another similar business opens when the previous business license was revoked; three of the employees in the appellants application were the same employees from the prior business; clarification if appellant was listed as the customer of water service for Aquatic Oasis prior to the arrest; asked Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 5 of 11 if the appellant represented himself at Elegant Spa; and referred to the letter stating Biggs was not affiliated with the prior owner's parties involved in the arrest. 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 name of the establishment is then changed; sometimes when there are relationships between the previous owner with the current owner then same criminal activity continues; and the case is still under review with the District Attorney's Office. Interrante responded to the Commission's questions which generally included: Employment was confirmed for the three employees being employed at prior business and now with current business; stated the appellant was listed as the customer for water service at another location of Aquatic Oasis; she also stated Biggs did in fact represent himself at Elegant Spa after the arrest. Public Hearing opened at 8:21 p.m. Garrett Biggs, appellant, comments generally included: His experience with owning spas and his affiliation with Garden Grove Police Department; and denied employing the same three employees from prior business. Public Hearing closed at 8:38 p.m. Commission's comments to the public hearing generally included: Supportive of small businesses that follow the purpose of the TCC; TCC protects the residents; encourage entrepreneurship; asked if the applicant were to wait 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 "window" 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. Motion: Item was moved by Kozak to uphold the denial of massage establishment application for Le Petite Spa and to adopt Resolution No. 4253 as read by Binsack, seconded by Smith. Motion carried 5 -0. REGULAR BUSINESS: The Director requested that the Commission take Agenda Items #5 and #6 out of order. Adopted 6. MINOR ADJUSTMENT 2013 -006 — ENDERLE GARDENS Resolution No. 4247 A request for a minor adjustment to increase and remodel the existing community entry wall 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 — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 6 of 11 APPLICANT: Vince Feehan Enderle Gardens Property Owner Association 14241 Acacia Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY Robert Clark Donna Hopson OWNERS: 17331 Jacaranda Ave. 17332 Jacaranda Ave. Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 17331 Jacaranda Ave. & 17332 Jacaranda Ave. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 4247, denying Minor Adjustment 2013 -006 to allow block walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback of single family residences located at 17331 & 17332 Jacaranda Avenue. Hutter Provided a presentation of the item. Commission's comments /questions /concerns generally included: Intent of the City allowing 20% increase in wall 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 wrought iron fence would 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 Ann Anderson, resident, stated, in general, the following: There are six (6) fire hydrants in the Enderle 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 Feehan and Anderson for wanting 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 into the public right -of -way. Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 7 of 11 Thompson moved to approve the project subject to the unique circumstances (both lots only entry to the tract); applicant has exercised effort for 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 Fire Dept. and Public Works Dept. requirement. Kozak concurred and seconded the item for discussion. Bobak clarified 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 consider— if not allowed to raise the wall, would the applicant be willing to work with staff to relocate the pilasters outside of the public right -of -way. Willkom 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. Kozak withdrew his motion. Motion: Item was moved by Altowaiji adopting Resolution No. 4247 denying the Minor Adjustment, seconded by Smith. Chairperson Pro Tern Thompson dissented. Motion carried 4 -1. 9:26 p.m. Kozak requested the Commission take a 5 minute recess. 9:31 p.m. Meeting reconvened. Denied. 5. DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -12 —AT &T UTILITY CABINETS A request to install 25 aboveground utility cabinets in, or adjacent to, the public right -of -way in various locations throughout Tustin to house and operate Lightspeed equipment for U -Verse service. APPLICANT: AT &T California 1265 N. Van Buren Street, Room 180 Anaheim, CA 92807 PROPERTY OWNERS: City of Tustin (23 locations) Venturanza Del Verde HOA (one location) Laurelwood HOA (one location) LOCATION: Citywide ENVIRONMENTAL: As conditioned, this project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 8 of 11 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission may take one of the following options: 1. Should the Commission desire to approve all 25 proposed cabinets, as conditioned: • Adopt Resolution No. 4235 approving Design Review 2013 -12 to install and operate 25 utility cabinets (combination of aboveground and flush- mounted underground), located at various locations within or adjacent to the public right -of -way; 2. Should the Commission desire to require that all 25 proposed cabinets be underground and flush- mounted, as conditioned: • Adopt Resolution No. 4235A approving the installation and operation of 25 flush- mounted underground utility cabinets, located at various locations within or adjacent to the public right -of -way; or 3. Should the Commission desire to deny Design Review 2013 -12: • Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial with associated findings for consideration by the Commission at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Reekstin Provided a presentation of this item. 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 &T to cover the entire City; co- location of cabinets; asked which 3 suggested sites were deleted from the application; recommended alternative locations; site distance issue on Ballesteros; undergrounding in Huntington Beach; and lack of willingness to collaborate with Staff on color palettes. Leslie Monty, representative for AT &T, stated she met with Staff since the last meeting however, meeting at a preferred location for cabinets with staff, was rejected; no underground cabinets in East Vale; and no piecemealing. She also stated the build has been "fluent" since 2005 based on funding from State; typically 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 Lane, and Valencia Ave.; and requested guidance from staff on acceptable locations. Monty's response to Commission's questions /concerns generally included: AT &T does not service Huntington Beach; AT &T would only allow beige on the cabinets; and she referred to Resolution No. 01 -95 (height requirements). Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 9 of 11 Reekstin clarified the two (2) locations where AT &T presented two options; underground cabinets would 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 did not propose another location within the community of Ballesteros. Carl Klunder, resident, in favor of the cabinet being removed from the location at Kahlua Lane. Ruby Zamudio, resident behind one proposed location (14662 Yorba St.) stated she has 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 Peterson spoke in favor of the cabinets being proposed. Commission's additional questions /comments /concerns generally included: Undergrounding issue; the City can reserve the right to require undergrounding; AT &T's unwillingness 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; no examples of undergrounding in other cities; undergrounding 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; ability and inability to co- locate with existing SAI's due to technology; public art; the applicant has not demonstrated the level of demand in Tustin for the U -Verse Service; lack of master plan; AT &T's current plan (not piecemealing); asked if the Commission could approve the cabinets that meet the City's requirements and deny the rest; referred to the guidelines and noted " undergrounding" was not included; franchise agreements with regard to public right -of -way; implication of denying application; piecemealing CEQA concern; and aesthetic concern throughout the community. The Director addressed the Commission's concern which generally included: All cabinets being underground is staff's preference; if aboveground, staff would go to each site to check lines of sight areas; issues of cabinets blocking signs /windows /disabled access in years past; preferred height of cabinets would be 3.5 feet tall; and 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. Commissioners Thompson and Smith dissented. A new resolution to be prepared and submitted at the next scheduled meeting for consideration. STAFF CONCERNS: The Director informed the Commission of the following events: • Fire Station Opening - 3/27 • State of the City - 6/5 • Police Department's Open House —tentative 6/14 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Lumbard Nothing to report. Altowaiji Nothing to report. Smith Commended staff for their great work. Thompson Commended staff on their extended effort. • 1/21 O.C. Citizen's Advisory Committee (55 Fwy. widening) • 1/22 Building Industry Association of O.C. Economic Requested Staff, in the future, consider providing feedback from City Council, with regard to setbacks of ordinances and guidelines. Kozak Commended staff on a job well done. • 1/21 California Preservation webinar with City staff (Design Review) • 2/7 Tustin Community Foundation — Mayor's Inaugural Dinner 11:20 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. znol_� ATE ZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission January 28, 2014 — Page 11 of 11