Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 4-28-15 MINUTES ITEM #1 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 2015 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — APRIL 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the April 14, 2015 meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Altowaiji, to approve the April 14, 2015 Minutes. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Adopted Reso. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2015-05 & DESIGN No. 4281. REVIEW (DR) 2015-005 To authorize on-site beer and wine sales (ABC License Type 41) in conjunction with a restaurant and outdoor seating area located at 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A. APPLICANT: Vahid Adamkhoshbakht Ivy Lounge and Grill 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: Louie Properties 5936 Temple City Boulevard Temple City, CA 91780 LOCATION: 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A Minutes—Planning Commission April 28, 2015—Page 1 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4281 approving CUP 2015-05 and DR 2015-005 to authorize on-site beer and wine sales (ABC License Type 41) in conjunction with a restaurant and outdoor seating area located at 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A. Beier Presentation given. Thompson Thompson's questions/concerns generally included: Distance of the restaurant from the different types of uses in the area (including residential); he asked if the nearby motel was considered "residential"; the safety of the outdoor seating area being located near a high traffic area; mounting of the glass along the wall; parking impact; and he requested guidance with regard to the email correspondence provided to the Commission that evening on awnings/umbrellas and if it needs to be considered. Beier Beier's response to Thompson's questions/concerns generally included: The motel is considered to be a commercial use and it is not intended for residents to stay there long-term; the nearby neighborhood (Ambrose Lane) is 200 feet from the project site; the wall along EI Camino Real with a pre-existing cap on the wall and maintains appropriate setbacks; the mounting of the glass along the wall would be by way of a building permit; and there are a surplus of seven (7) spaces which can accommodate the additional required parking spaces for the outdoor seating area. Kozak Kozak's questions/concerns generally included: The section of the wall facing EI Camino Real not being covered with stucco or a cap and if that part of the wall was part of the unpermitted construction; and if the wall would be modified to be consistent with the new cap and stucco. Beier In response to Kozak's concerns, Beier stated the Conditions of Approval requires consistency along all of the walls and would be included and addressed in the building permit process. Binsack Binsack's response generally included: The awnings that were already in place on the building were architecturally aesthetic and consistent; what the applicant proposed, staff did not feel was acceptable; and any proposed awnings would have to be addressed and noticed at a future Planning Commission meeting. Smith Smith asked if the request from the applicant was his desire to remove the umbrellas and replace with a retractable awning. Binsack Per Binsack, the original desire was to provide an awning versus the umbrellas. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Minutes—Planning Commission April 28, 2015—Page 2 of 6 Mr. Vahid Adamkhoshbakht, the applicant, voiced his concerns with his broken umbrellas from the recent winds, as well as the trees and spiders falling from the trees, near the outdoor seating area; the engineering fees for the awnings he had proposed originally; and he asked why he could not have awnings for the outdoor seating area. Thompson Thompson explained to the applicant that the project presented was for the ABC Licensing and outdoor seating at the restaurant. The applicant's concerns were not part of the application and asked if prior approval was given on the awnings. Thompson also asked if the Commission should deliberate on the applicant's concerns being that they were not part of the application. Binsack In response to the previous questions/concerns, Binsack stated that after the work was done without permits, the applicant came forward to then request the building permits and asked about structural integrity of what would be necessary for an awning but did not address the aesthetic issue. Lumbard Lumbard further reiterated to the applicant that the application presented again does not include the awnings and was not noticed; only the ABC License and the outdoor seating are to be considered. The action taken by the Commission could not consider an awning. Lumbard also wanted to clarify that the applicant was not foreclosed from pursuing an approval for future awnings based on the Commission's action. Thompson Thompson addressed the Commission with two choices: 1) Move forward with the application presented to the Commission and the applicant could come back with another proposal to include an awning or 2) the applicant could withdraw the application to add the awning and the Commission could re-do the public hearing. Willkom Willkom's comments generally included: Background information on the original application submitted by the applicant which provided a design with the awning, but was too large in size and appeared to make the outdoor seating area enclosed; staff advised the applicant, at that time, to be consistent with the guidelines and suggested the applicant take a look at other awnings in order to be consistent with the building or remove it from the application; and the applicant chose to remove the awnings from the application. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked the applicant how he was going to install such a long awning along Newport Ave. He also asked if it was the applicant's intent to cover the entire frontage or part of the building. Thompson Thompson again reminded the Commission that they should not engage in the topic of the awning since it is not part of the Commission's consideration. The applicant mentioned the one (1) year limit on re-applying for the awning. Willkom Willkom's explanation generally included: The applicant was referring to (Tustin City Code) relating to Conditional Use Permits; and the awning is related more to the Design Review for outdoor seating so the one (1) year time limit would not be applicable. Minutes—Planning Commission April 28, 2015—Page 3 of 6 Bobak Bobak's explanation generally included: The code provision is the one (1) year time limit on a project that is denied; the awning was not a part of the application and there is no denial; and therefore the one (1) year preclusion would not apply if the Conditional Use Permit was amended. 7:36 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Altowaiji Altowaiji voiced his concern with the wall around the outdoor seating area (close to the traffic) and asked staff if the wall could withstand any impact from a car. He suggested a design for reinforcement as a preventative. Kozak Kozak requested clarification on the supplemental of the email and if the Commission should be discussing it further. Bobak Bobak's response generally included: The email was provided to the Commission as way of information and for the Commission to be aware of the conversation staff had with the applicant; staff is not allowed to accept any gifts from applicants in exchange for recommendations of approval on projects; and if gifts were provided, it would be a violation of both the TCC and the Conflict of Interest provisions of the State Law. Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included: Favorable comments on the outdoor seating which would bring people out into the community; supportive of staffs recommendation on hours of operation; and Lumbard asked what the plans would be for new businesses and whether or not there would be a uniform standard for businesses requesting outdoor seating as well as hours of operation. Thompson Thompson had favorable comments and was supportive of the item and stated that the wall was permitted and part of the original structure. Binsack Binsack's response to Altowaiji's concern generally included: The curbs and wall should provide a barrier for safety in the event a car should jump the curb, but there still could be an impact; as long as people use their vehicles in a safe manner, these types of accidents should not occur; and Binsack said she would have Plan Check look into Altowaiji's suggestion previously mentioned. Smith Smith asked for clarification regarding ABC Licensing requiring an enclosure on gates facing the sidewalk and open area along the wall and the building being a part of the Conditional Use Permit. Binsack Binsack responded that there needs to be an ABC barrier pursuant to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak to adopt Resolution No. 4281, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received & 3. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS Filed. The report provides a summary of projects and activities since the Year in Review report was presented on January 27, 2015 at the Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status Minutes—Planning Commission April 28, 2015—Page 4 of 6 of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. DiLeva-Johnson Presentation given. Smith Smith asked staff about the Peters Canyon widening and the length of the bike trail. He also asked about the Tustin Grille (formerly Quinn's) outdoor seating and awnings. DiLeva-Johnson DiLeva-Johnson to obtain information for the Commission regarding Peters Canyon widening from the Public Works Department. Binsack Per Binsack, the Tustin Grille is proposing awnings. Lumbard Lumbard asked about the graffiti map. There appears to be an increase in graffiti on Browning and Mitchell Avenues. DiLeva-Johnson DiLeva-Johnson to verify with Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer and will provide an update at the next Commission meeting. Motion: Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack's updates to the Commission generally included: The water issue Thompson mentioned at the previous Commission meeting - on April 1, 2015 Governor Brown directed the Water Resources Board to impose restrictions State-wide and Conservation Regulations was adopted that water suppliers need to adhere to; the City Council to conduct a water conservation workshop on May 5, 2015 (5:30-7:00 p.m.); and water conservation updates will be provided to the Commission as staff is made aware of. Bobak Bobak informed the Commission they could attend the water conservation workshop, but not participate since it is not being noticed as a Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith Nothing to report. Lumbard Nothing to report. Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: Thanked staff for their hard work on the agenda items and Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer, for going above and beyond on the hoarding issue provided in the Summary of Minutes—Planning Commission April 28, 2015—Page 5 of 6 Projects report; referenced the OC Register's Sunday paper regarding the "lack of affordable housing" in Orange County; and attended the April 21, 2015, Council meeting when Council adopted the Second Residential Units Ordinance and provided more direction to staff. Altowaiji Nothing to report. Thompson Thompson attended the Urban Land Institute Workshop on April 16, 2015. He will also be attending the ULI convention on May 12, 2015 and will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission April 28, 2015—Page 6 of 6