Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MIN 01-13-15MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2015 7:01 p.m. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS Approved as CONSENT CALENDAR: amended. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 9, 2014, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the December 9, 2014 meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lumbard, to approve the December 9, 2014 Minutes, as amended. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2014 -22 TO ESTABLISH A No. 4276, as 77111 SQ. FT. INDOOR RECREATIONAL USE (DANCE amended. STUDIO) AT 14711 BENTLEY CIRCLE, UNIT A WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OFFICE TENANT SPACE A request to establish a 7,111 sq. ft. indoor recreational use (dance studio), at 14711 Bentley Circle, Unit A, within an existing industrial office tenant space. APPLICANT: VICTORIA SERRA SOUTH COAST PERFORMING ARTS 1218 IRVINE BLVD. TUSTI N, CA 92780 PROPERTY ANDY FRIEDMAN OWNER: INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES 7106 W. OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Minutes — Planning Commission — January 13, 2015 — Page 1 of 5 LOCATION: 14711 BENTLEY CIRCLE, UNIT A 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. 4276, approving CUP 2014 -22 for the establishment of a 7,111 sq. ft. indoor recreational use (dance studio) at 14711 Bentley Circle, Unit A within an existing tenant space of a light industrial office building. Stonich Presentation given. Nishikawa Nishikawa provided background information with regard to the sidewalk issue which generally included: The City's past requirements within the industrial /retail use areas; 1987 determination — sidewalks at that time were established and approved with a uniform policy; 1982 — several requests for waivers in terms of constructing the sidewalks; 1992 — Council's determination to request the investigation of the possibility of an assessment district was determined that the property owners would be allowed to execute an agreement to construct sidewalks; in lieu of the immediate construction of sidewalks, the City would include construction along with tenant improvements; the agreement to construct sidewalks was put into place — 77 signed agreements in the City's archives (1992 - 1998) referencing the industrial areas for various properties; however, there is no agreement on the subject property; in 1992, an agreement was implemented wherein the construction of a sidewalk could be requested at any time; would apply to this project since the requested use did not affect the entire building nor were there any site improvements required for this use; seeking direction from the City Council in order to clarify this policy if the intent is to add this agreement from this point forward; adoption of this agreement would allow the City the opportunity to request construction of a sidewalk at any time, per the City Council's request. Smith Smith's questions generally included: Explanation of the 8 foot vs. 5 foot change to the width of the sidewalk as it relates to retail use; typically industrial areas do not have retail uses so the assumption is that 5 feet would be sufficient for industrial since there would be minimal foot traffic for an industrial use. Nishikawa Nishikawa's response to Smith's question generally included: The basis was the use with the retail use; 1987 - concerns of wider sidewalks in an industrial area which lead to the request being approved to taper down to 5 feet; and a sidewalk should be clear of any utility conflicts during a sales event in the industrial area where an 8 foot side walk would still be Minutes — Planning Commission — January 13, 2015 — Page 2 of 5 required. Kozak Kozak referenced the staff report and on- street parking being prohibited. He also visited the project site and stated there appeared to be sufficient parking for the use so he asked Nishikawa for clarification because cars were parked throughout the cul -de -sac (on the street). Nishikawa In response to Kozak's question, Nishikawa stated it was an enforcement issue with the Police Department. He further explained the prohibition of parking in the industrial areas where semi - trucks park which impact "site distances" as well as driveway entrances. Therefore, a policy was made to not allow parking in certain industrial areas. Altowaiji Altowaiji's comments /concerns generally included: 5 foot width is minimum requirement for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); the subject property has a lot of landscape and slopes which could be costly when increasing width to 8 feet; In the past, Public Works installed sidewalks in industrial areas; concern with the waiver and asked if there was a follow up policy and a report to the City Council requesting 120 days to clarify or to make a decision since the agreements presented were not specifically for the subject property; liability between the owner /City; and the current ADA requirements. Nishikawa Nishikawa's response to Altowaiji's questions /concerns generally included: Staff found no subsequent action in the archive files; the signed agreements ranged from 1992 -1998 and it was assumed the agreements "carried on"; and the desire to get further Council direction on whether or not they choose to waive the requirement moving forward. Lumbard Lumbard clarified comments previously made by stating that the City is not waiving the sidewalk requirement but deferring it. Thompson Thompson asked when the sidewalk was constructed across the street from the subject property near the mosque area. He also asked if Units A & B were owned by the same property owner and if the agreement would apply to only Unit A as far as use is concerned. Nishikawa In response to Thompson's question, the sidewalk across the street from the subject property was required by the City due to the property relocating the driveway and the improvements that were made to the site. Lumbard Lumbard asked about separate air ventilation between both units since both units are in the same building and each unit has a different use within the building. Stonich Stonich added that there is a firewall between the two units so no ventilation is shared between the two. 7:23 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Minutes — Planning Commission — January 13, 2015 — Page 3 of 5 Andy Friedman, property owner for 20 years, clarified the ventilation issue between the two units. There are separate air conditioning units for each unit (two in Unit B and three in Unit A) and a demising wall between the two units. Kozak Kozak asked Mr. Friedman if he would be the signatory of the proposed agreement. Mr. Friedman stated he was aware of being the signatory of the proposed agreement and that there are pros and cons to adding a sidewalk. Smith Smith asked the applicant if the classes typically terminate on the hour or at the same time. Victoria Serra, applicant, stated some classes start on the hour and some on the half hour. 7:27 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Further discussion among the Commission generally included: Parking being a "challenge" in that general area dropping /picking children from a class and the traffic flow; concern with a sidewalk not being provided and there being restrictions for people with disabilities being dropped off; asked if the City Attorney reviewed the proposed agreement to construct sidewalks; normal procedure of sidewalk construction; seeking guidance from City Council moving forward with sidewalks; class attendance well understood in the report; and if sidewalks are put in, more parking could be allowed on the street. Bobak Bobak's response to the Commission's questions /concerns generally included: The City will work on the specific language for the proposed agreement; conceptually, the proposed agreement is fine; noted the appropriate body to review that policy is the City Council; it is staffs intention to apprise the City Council of the issues (parking, ADA) then the City Council can provide direction to staff in order to move forward; if City Council believes sidewalks are important, they can implement the construction of sidewalks then the City can inform the applicant of their obligation to build a sidewalk; and currently, the City has 50 agreements in relation to sidewalks in the industrial areas. Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4276, to include the amended documents provided to the Commission. Motion carried 5 -0. REGULAR BUSINESS: None. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Welcome back Commission! An exciting year ahead of us! Minutes — Planning Commission — January 13, 2015 — Page 4 of 5 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Kozak Kozak thanked staff for all their hard work in 2014 and he looks forward to the upcoming year. He attended the following events: • 12/1/14 - Tustin Pioneer Recognition Program • 12/16/14 - City Council recognized the Tustin Community Foundation — "2014 Top Rated Non - Profit Organization" and approved an action for Community Development staff to submit a grant application to the NEA for the Tustin Pioneers Program. • 12/7/14 - Tustin Police Department's Wally Karp Memorial Happy New Year everyone! Altowaiji Happy New Year! Smith Smith mentioned the Oregon Ducks loss to Ohio State Buckeyes. Lumbard Lumbard congratulated Binsack on her Ohio Buckeyes win to the Oregon Ducks! Looking forward to 2015! Thompson Great year ahead of us! Thompson attended the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee Bicycle Ad hoc committee (12/16/14). He was nominated for ULI's Commercial Retail Council. "Happy Anniversary to my Wife of 29 Years." ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Closed the meeting to commemorate the Thompson's 29th Wedding Anniversary. JEFF HOMPSON Chairperson GAL ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission — January 13, 2015 — Page 5 of 5