Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 8-25-15Given None. Motion: Adopted Reso. Nos. 4285 through 4293, as amended. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 2015 INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Smith ROLL CALL: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM #1 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JOINT PUBLIC WORKSHOP OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 6, 2015 fflmmxxmwm�, That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the July 6, 2015 Joint Public Workshop as provided. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith, to approve the July 6, 2015 Minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson recused himself and abstained from the vote. 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — JULY 281 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the July 28, 2015 Special Meeting as provided. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the July 28, 2015 Minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1. Altowaiji recused himself and abstained from the vote. 19910.11 3. THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-02, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2015-001, SUBDIVISION 2015- 03/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2015-127, CONCEPT PLAN 2015- 003, DESIGN REVIEW 2015-014, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-11 THROUGH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-17, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-23 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER WITH MULTIPLE USES INCLUDING GROCERY, DAYCARE, RESTAURANTS, Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 1 of 10 RETAIL, MEDICAL OFFICE AND ACUTE CARE/REHABILITATION FACILITY WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF NEIGHBORHOOD B, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT.- 1 C Tustin Legacy, LLC (Regency Centers) Attn: John Mehigan 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin LOCATION: Bounded by Edinger Avenue to the northeast, Tustin Ranch Road to the southeast, Valencia Avenue to the southwest, and Kensington Park Drive to the northwest within Planning Area 7 of neighborhood B, MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan. APNs: 430-391-181 430-391-39 and 430-391-41 ENVIRONMENTAL: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environ mental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 2 of 10 1 That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4285 recommending that the City Council take the following actions for the development of a new commercial center located at 15000 through 15190 Kensington Park Drive: a. Determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximately 22.7 acre site within Planning Area 7, Neighborhood B of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of a neighborhood commercial center with multiple uses is in conformance with the approved general plan. b. Adopt Ordinance No. 1460 approving Specific Plan Amendment 2015-02, an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to allow acute care/rehabilitation and skill nursing uses as conditionally permitted within Planning Area 7 and increase the allowable building height to fifty-five (55) feet for medical centers and sixty (60) feet for acute care/rehabilitation facilities. c. Adopt Ordinance No. 1461 approving Development Agreement 2015-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 22.7 -acre site within the boundaries of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Development Agreement was intended to further the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, and FEIS/FEIR and will, ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and development. The Development Agreement includes a schedule of performance and obligations that ensure adequate local infrastructure programs are in place to support the proposed development. d. Approve Concept Plan 2015-003 to develop a 248,292 square - foot neighborhood commercial center with multiple uses and ensure necessary linkages are provided between the development project, the integrity of the specific plan and purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and applicable city requirements are identified and satisfied. e. Approve Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127 to subdivide an approximately 22.7 -acre site into 13 numbered lots and 4 lettered lots for the development of a 248,292 square -foot neighborhood commercial center with multiple uses. f. Design Review 2015-014 for the design and site layout of a 248,292 square -foot neighborhood commercial center with multiple uses. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4286, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-11 for the establishment of an acute care/rehabilitation facility on Building M (Parcel 10, 15120 Kensington Park Drive). Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 3 of 10 3. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4287, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-12 for the establishment of a drive-thru pharmacy use on Building D (Parcel 1, 15180 Kensington Park Drive). 4. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4288, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-13 for the establishment of a restaurant drive-thru use on Building E (Parcel 3, 15190 Kensington Park Drive). 5. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4289, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-14 for the establishment of a bank drive-thru use on Building H (Parcel 6, 15060 Kensington Park Drive). 6. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4290, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-15 for the establishment of a restaurant drive-thru use on Building I (Parcel 7, 15040 Kensington Park Drive). 7. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4291, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-16 for the establishment of a master sign plan for the subject development. 8. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4292, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-17 for the establishment of a preschool/childcare use on Building A (Parcel 9, 15140 Kensington Park Drive). 9. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4293, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-23 for the establishment of joint use parking for the Medical Plaza involving the medical office, acute care/rehabilitation facility, and the adjacent medical office/retail buildings (Parcels 10, 11, 12 and 13; 15000, 15020, 15100 and 15120 Kensington Park Drive). Thompson Thompson disclosed to the Commission that his son works for Kimley-Horn and Associates (engineering firm), but his son is not affiliated with the project. Also, Thompson stated he does not have any income derived from this consultant. Lumbard Lumbard also disclosed to the Commission that he owns property in Columbus Square, and that he has family members who own property in Mirabella; however, both properties are beyond the 500 foot guideline limit. He also checked whether or not the homeowner's association property that Lumbard has financial interest with would qualify. Per the City Attorney's guidance, Lumbard does not have a conflict of interest with this project. Hutter Presentation given. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 4 of 10 Binsack Binsack recognized the following City staff and members and commended them for their great efforts on the project: John Buchanan (City Manager's Office), Ken Nishikawa (Public Works), Justina Willkom and Edmelynne Hutter (Community Development), as well as John Mehigan and Luis Gomez (Regency Center), Sandy Smith and George Okita (Hoag Hospital). Willkom Willkom let the Commission know that revised resolutions were provided to the dais and to the applicant as well. The Commission's questions/concerns generally included: Traffic concern on Kensington Park Drive and the location of the entrances; the City's goals to create a walking community within the Legacy area; asked how traffic demands would be mitigated; questioned the main entrance to Kensington Park Drive and where Georgia Street's entrance would be and how the homes would be affected on Kensington Park Drive; what steps will be taken to mitigate the lights impacting Columbus Square and surrounding neighborhoods, deceleration lane and acceleration lane along Edinger Avenue; visibility turning left onto traffic; mapping or GIS accuracy (how buildings are being laid out on the site and the roadways); and the definition of acute care. John Mehigan, applicant, stated there are five (5) points of entry into the community (main entrance on Georgia Street and Kensington Park Drive), as well as access from Valencia Drive and Edinger Avenue. He also stated there would be traffic calming signals. Richard E. Barretto, P.E. — Principal Traffic Engineer, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (traffic consultant) response to the comments concerns as follows: Access/exit points are planned throughout the center (including the medical and retail center); his firm worked with staff to make sure there was no issue of traffic congestion; confirmed that the project will have lesser traffic impacts than anticipated by the Specific Plan; their lighting consultant will use LED lighting in all of their shopping centers due to Cal Green Codes and that lights have shielding with top covers; deceleration lane is actually an extension of the bus pass and did not suggest an acceleration lane coming out of the driveway (onto Edinger Ave.) due to the speed; and he did not see an issue with visibility while the buses are going out. Willkom Willkom stated that the Tustin City Code (TCC) requires that all lights do not "bleed" onto adjacent properties and she stated that plan check plans will be reviewed for compliance with the TCC. Nishikawa In response to Thompson's inquiry, Nishikawa stated he was not aware of any GIS problems since a conveyance map was already done and recorded on the property as well as the underlying tentative parcel map. The City and the County will confirm this for accuracy when it is time to go through the process. Willkom Willkom referred the Commission to the revised conditions in Reso. No. 4286 (Condition No. 2.1), which included an expanded definition of acute care. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 5 of 10 George Okita (representative for Hoag Hospital) further explained acute care is designed for post -acute care after hospital discharge, prior to being sent home (a 24-hour stay, as opposed to an outpatient stay). A typical patient would be someone who had an orthopedic procedure (i.e. hip/knee replacement). The Commission questioned/commented further as follows: "Building heights" and the variance being requested from 45 to 60 feet; explanation on how the context is working with the site and surrounding areas and to which buildings; and, how is the landscaping and terrain/roadways helping break it up; asked if the building height request would apply to all medical buildings (or future buildings); parking code restrictions on a vehicle being parked for 24 hours; question on whether or not people could park for 20 days for acute care treatment; with the anticipated parking plan in place would there be an allocation of parking spots for the acute care facility; concern with ambulance noise at the acute care facility; alternate plan for the main entrance for Building I and the potential for a drive-thru; would the building and lot be designed to mitigate the impacts of the noise level of the drive- thru and the surrounding communities; specific plan requirements for the hours of operation. Willkom Willkom's response to the questions generally included: She referred the Commission to site plan (Building K — medical center building); the Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) includes the request of the increase in height from 45 feet to 54 feet; plenty of setback area with landscaping and across that area is the fire station and Coventry Court with the highest building elevation is 38 feet; Building M — acute care facility - an increase in height is being requested at the rear of the building and is near a sloped area and adjacent to elevated Tustin Ranch Road with part of the building being visible. Binsack Binsack clarified for Thompson that staff is not requesting a variance, but a Specific Plan Amendment, which is a code change and altering would be made to the MCAS SPA that would establish a new building height for the project planning area; height change would only be for the two (2) buildings: K and M. Hutter Per Hutter, the length of stay of the vehicles would generally be up to the enforcement of the property owner. Mr. Okita, stated a car would generally be parked at the acute care facility up to 8 hours, although the facility is open 24 hours, it is on three (3) shifts and the patients within the facility generally cannot drive since they are there to recover or rehabilitate. Therefore he stated the employees cars would be there for eight (8) hours maximum. Binsack Binsack stated that the acute care facility is not a trauma center or emergency service facility; therefore there would not be an ambulance noise issue. Mr. Mehigan stated that Building I has the potential for a restaurant with a drive-thru as part of their services and if there is an ability to split the building in half to have the drive-thru, there are conditions that would restrict noise and require shielding to the drive-thru menu. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 6 of 10 Willkom Willkorn informed the Commission that the MCAS SPA does not limit the hours of operation, but as with any proposed restaurants or businesses, the Community Development Director would need to review and approve the proposed hours of operation. The Commission's comments/concerns with regards to the "super graphics" generally included: Location; impacts/rules with the Sign Plan on lighting and density; would signs be painted or LED; clarification regarding orientation of the two (2) super graphics signs; would like confirmation that the lights being emitted from the signs would not exceed from the property. Hutter Hutter provided an explanation of the super graphics which is to provide a venue for special presentations, announcements at the center and would not be for any specific tenant, but would be directed to things happening at the center as a whole. Binsack Binsack further explained and mentioned the Tustin Market Place, as an example to the Commission. The graphics are not to advertise one particular store, but what is occurring at the center. The super graphics is not to advertise a business, but is performing a function. Mr. Mehigan's response to the Commission's comments/concerns generally included: The super graphics are considered a "branding" of a particular store's image; and that the signs would be painted, not LED, but they would be [it at night. Hutter One of the signs would be facing Kensington Park Drive and the other would be facing the entrance drive. As far as lighting, the Sign Plan does specify that it will only be externally illuminated which might be achieved by a gooseneck lighting fixture. Smith Smith requested clarity on the signage and what the design intent was between the Hoag sign (industrial look) vs. the other signage (has stone look). In response to Smith's question, Mr. Mehigan generally stated: Two (2) different uses (retail has stone, whereas Hoag's signage is modern). Two different things happening (restaurant vs. doctor's office) therefore the architecture is different. Thompson Thompson asked about parking and the term joint -use being in the resolution and maintaining a minimum number of parking spaces in the medical plaza. Hutter Hutter's response was that the joint -use parking was specifically for the medical side of the development. The minimum parking identified in the Conditions of Approval is to lock in what the proposed parking is. Smith Smith asked if CVS, Stater Bros., and Hoag would be tenants since they were mentioned throughout the proposed plans. Per Mr. Mehigan, CVS, Stater Bros. and Hoag are signed leases. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 7 of 10 Omar Hussein, Director of Leasing for Orange County, provided status of leasing and his background in leasing; currently have 12 Letters of Intent under negotiations for the center. Kozak Kensington Park Drive properties facing the proposed center wanted clarification on the landscape plan being considered adequate as a "screening/buffer" for the residences facing the proposed development. Jim Baldwin, landscape architect for Conceptual Design and Planning Company, stated that each street has its own design theme that's based on the Specific Plan. There will be screening which is necessary along the edge of Kensington Park Drive and Edinger Avenue. 8:28 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Ms. Vicki Keltner, resident, opposed the project and stated she had the following issues: No value in retail space; parking and lighting issues; noise concern; traffic; entrance into the neighborhood; preferred the space be allocated to a dog park and housing for seniors or those with a fixed income. Mr. Fred Moore, resident, also opposed the proposed project. His concerns generally included: Architectural styles (medical plaza); uses; landscaping; and traffic. In response to the public's comments: Mr. Mehigan stated the following: Goal is to be the neighborhood solution; pedestrian/retail environment; designed the center to get people in and out of the center quickly; Hoag's architecture is a brand of what is happening inside the building, which may not come across the elevations and they cannot start construction on the property until the construction drawings are complete; the intent for the developer and staff would be to build a first class office building and retail center. Thompson Thompson asked how the flow of traffic circulation differs from The District. He also asked about lighting and noise and what the generators are and how they are being attenuated. Thompson asked how the lighting code is interpreted in the proposed center. In response to Thompson's question, Mr. Mehigan indicated that The District has one way in off of Barranca, which causes a "bottle neck" effect; the proposed project has multiple entry points; Regency submitted a lighting plan abiding by the Tustin City Code (TCC); The goal for the noise activity points are internal which is where the restaurants would be (no live music) which makes a very, quiet center; the medical side of the center is also quiet; and he does not anticipate noise being an issue. Binsack Binsack's response generally included: Parking lot lighting is typically 20 feet in height; before permits are issued for the parking lot, the City requires a photometric study that identifies the "spillover" and per the TCC spillover is not allowed to go off-site into the right-of-way; with respect to the noise issue, one of the uses identified in the application that may generate noise would be from the drive-thru's menu board, which typically provides noise generators (the orientation, the read -back menu boards) have been Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 8 of 10 conditioned to be included in each of the conditions associated with the drive-thrus and in addition, the City has a noise ordinance and cannot exceed and create a nuisance condition for the adjacent uses. 8:41 p.m. . Public Hearing Closed. The Commission's deliberation/consideration generally included the following: Screen ing/buffering of the residential units along Kensington; Favorable comments regarding the project; complimented the landscape plan and asked that staff work with the developer further; Altowaiji's main concern was the change in height but it was addressed properly within the report; Smith was concerned with the architecture's contrast between the retail and medical; requested clarification on the vacant space across Valencia Avenue and if it was to be used for Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and asked if TUSD had a chance to comment on the proposed project; asked if the Police Department had any public safety concerns with this development; concern with the ingress/egress on Edinger Avenue and with the medical (height) amendment to the Specific Plan; and Hoag is beneficial to the center. Willkorn Per the question on TUSD, Willkom stated that it was to be used for various TUSD campuses. The City did provide TUSD a copy of the development plan and they had no comments. Hutter In response to Smith's question, the Police Department did not have any particular concerns. Binsack Binsack's response to the following generally included: Architecture — provided language in Resolution No. 4285 and then modified the language; staff did meet with the architect last week to discuss modifications but was unable to provide modified elevations for the Commission's consideration; would like to allow the architect the opportunity to take a look at what the modifications could be (Buildings K and M - colors, materials to be more compatible with the retail center) The Commission's final comments generally included: Requested a list be provided to the City Council to communicate concerns to Council and to give them specific guidance as to what the Commission's concerns were; thanked the applicant and shareholders of the project as well as the community; and reiterated the concern of screening along Kensington Park Drive. Binsack Staff will continue to work with the applicant and the plans will be reviewed by staff once they are submitted to Plan Check. Bobak Bobak provided clarification to the Commission on the voting process. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, per staff's recommendation, as amended in the modifications presented to the Commission, and seconded by Altowaiji to adopt the items listed under the Recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 9 of 10 REGULAR BUSINESS: Received & Filed. 4. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS The report provides a summary of projects and activities since the prior Summary of Projects report was presented at the April 28, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status 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. 1:4XV1618181001107WAN "S That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. Thompson Due to the time, Thompson asked the Commission to receive and file the item rather than have a presentation. He also asked if the Commission had any questions regarding the Summary of Projects. None. STAFF CONCERNS: COMMISSION CONCERNS: Kozak Thanked staff for all the hard work that went into the Regency Center project; commended DiLeva-Johnson on the Summary of Projects report; favorable comments for Parks & Recreation (Concerts in the Park); 8/1 Attended the Murder Mystery Dinner at Wilcox Manor; 8/17 Attended the Enderle Center Car Show; and 8/25 Attended the Victory Park Grand Opening. Altowaiji Commended staff for the Regency report; favorable comments for the project; thanked DiLeva-Johnson Smith None. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated his favorable comments previously mentioned, along with the events that took place that day. Thompson 8/5 Urban Land Institute (ULI) Collaboration with the City; 8/20 Public Forum on Transportation; 8/25 Attended the Victory Park Grand Opening; Hawaiian attire next meeting! 9:16 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes — Planning Commission August 25, 2015 — Page 10 of 10