Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 9-22-15 MINUTES ITEM #1 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 7:03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Altowaiji ROLL CALL: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 September 8, 2015 Minutes. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the September 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Kozak, to approve the September 8, 2015 Minutes. Lumbard had an excused absence for the September 8, 2015 meeting, therefore he abstained. Motion carried 4-0-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Thompson Thompson requested to switch the order of the Public Hearing items. Adopted Reso. 2. SUBDIVISION 2015-01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17665, No. 4297 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-04, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015- 004 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE (5) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT 1381-1391 SAN JUAN STREET APPLICANT: Farzad and Fariba Shaygan Modena Management LLC 4040 Barranca Parkway, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92603 PROPERTY: Shaygan Family Trust OWNER Modena Management LLC 4040 Barranca Parkway, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92603 LOCATION: 1381-1391 San Juan Street Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 1 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15332, Class 32 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) pertaining to in-fill development. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4297 approving Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17665, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-04, and Design Review (DR) 2015-004, authorizing the subdivision of an approximately 1/3 acre site consisting of one (1) numbered lot and one (1) lettered lot for the development of five (5) single-family detached condominiums. Reekstin Presentation given. Kozak Kozak referred to Page 9 of the agenda report with regards to the "block wall". With the proposed new walls being constructed he asked if the walls remaining would be compatible. Reekstin Reekstin stated the split-faced block wall would be required in some areas; however, there could be block walls that could be retained or if the applicant chooses to do so, they could replace all walls. 7:23 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Scott Couchman, resident, spoke in favor of the item. His concern was the impact the project would have on the street parking within the surrounding neighborhood, as well as garages being used for storage rather than for cars. Mr. Couchman suggested an alternative site plan design. Sergio Sandowsky, project designer, stated that storage would not be allowed in the garages and that the residents will be required to park their car in the garage, per the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). Richard Price, landscape architect for the project, had favorable comments with regards to the open space and the children's play areas at the project site. Thompson Thompson questioned the driveways meeting minimum City standards as far as turning radius ability. He also asked if street parking would be eliminated. Reekstin In response to Thompson's inquiry, Reekstin stated the driveways meet the City's requirements as far as width and turning ability. Binsack Per Binsack, if the project were designed as suggested by Mr. Couchman, the applicant would be required to apply for a variance to meet the on-site guest parking requirements, which was not noticed in the project being considered at this meeting. Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 2 of 7 Donna Karlan, resident, in general, was concerned with the three-story unit facing her duplex, which is one-story and she asked how it would impact her tenants as well as her income and the ability to rent out her properties in the future. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Ms. Karlan's concerns generally included: The height and setbacks of the unit meet the City's requirements; the third floor is smaller (50% footprint) than the first and second floors and is stepped back five (5) feet; Reekstin worked with the applicant to ensure the third floor did not appear to be as massive as the previous submittal of the six (6) units as well as the design of the unit, which was now compatible with the neighborhood while accommodating the desires of the applicant; and it is typical to have a two-story residence next to a one-story residence in the City. Binsack Binsack stated that the highest point of the architecture is three (3) stories, but various portions of the architecture are stepped back and less than 50 percent of the overall mass is stepped back giving the appearance of actually being two (2) stories. Mr. Sandowsky commented further on the rear wall which will be replaced with a new split-faced exterior wall (if visible) adjacent to Ms. Karlan's property and will be coordinated in the next phase of work. 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing closed. The Commission generally had favorable comments of the project and commended staff and the applicant for the changes, compared to what was previously submitted. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaiji to adopt Resolution No. 4297. Motion carried 5-0. 3. CODE AMENDMENT 2015-003, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS If adopted, the proposed amendment and restatement of Part 6 (Massage Establishments) of Chapter 6 of Article 3 of the Tustin City Code will regulate the business of massage through business licensing requirements to the extent authorized by the Massage Therapy Act. The proposed amendments to the City's Land Use Code would: (1) update the references, and definitions applicable to massage establishments; (2) prohibit the location of new massage establishments within the Professional District; and (3) require a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of any new chiropractic office in the Professional District, where massage services are provided as an accessory use by anyone other than a state-licensed chiropractor or other exempted professional, as specified. ENVIRONMENTAL: Proposed Code Amendment 2015-003 (Ordinance No. 1462) is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 3 of 7 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. If approved, the proposed amendment would regulate massage establishments in accordance with State law and would not have a significant or indirect effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 4296, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1462, amending and restating Part 6 of Chapter 6 of Article 3 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) and amending Parts 3, 6, and 9 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the TCC relating to the regulation of massage establishments. Reekstin/ Presentation given. Interrante Altowaiji Altowaiji asked if the proposed ordinance is applicable to the existing massage establishments. He also asked how the ordinance would affect physical therapy establishments. Reekstin Per Reekstin, a physical therapist would be exempt if the physical therapist is doing the massage him/herself. The zoning regulations will be applicable to new establishments only. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff for the location of the Professional District. Reekstin Reekstin referred to a map in the Power Point presentation and stated the majority of the Professional District is along Irvine Blvd. (from the 55 FWY to Prospect Ave. in addition to other locations throughout the city). Thompson Thompson's questions generally included: Current locations of the 41 massage establishments; asked if the regulations are restrictive enough and if staff should be doing more; also asked what other cities are doing as far as massage ordinances; and if staff could bring back more information to the Commission and possibly continue the item. Altowaiji Altowaiji suggested amending the ordinance if need be, in the future, but not continuing the item. Interrante Interrante explained to the Commission that when the staff report was being compiled, staff did look at other surrounding cities and it appears as though their ordinances are similar to the City's. Binsack Binsack's response to the Commission's comments generally included: Indicated a map could be provided with regards to locations of the current massage establishments that are within the commercial zones which are throughout the City; staff has done all that they can to make the proposed ordinance effective in the City for legal uses; by following SB 731, cities were making it difficult for the legitimate establishments to conduct business; and if there is illicit/illegal activity taking place in the massage Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 4 of 7 establishments, then the City will have to deal with it from a leasing standpoint, versus a zoning or business license standpoint. Bobak Bobak also stated that State law does allow reasonable local regulation but cities/counties are preempted from established regulations inconsistent with onerous standards. Thompson Thompson's concerns generally included: Establishments hours of operation; neon display lights; children being approached by clients; and he asked if the City is being thorough enough on how the massage establishments are regulated. Binsack In response to Thompson's questions, Binsack stated that the neon lights can be regulated in a different way if desired by the Commission. If the lights are bothersome to Thompson, then they would be bothersome whether the establishment was a restaurant, tattoo parlor, and/or massage establishment, which should then be regulated consistently with every type of establishment. Bobak Bobak also stated the ordinance does contain limits on the hours of operation (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included: He reiterated the recommendation of the proposed ordinance and that it would prohibit new massage establishments in the Professional District; there would be restrictions on any new massage establishments within the City; the proposed ordinance does not revoke an establishment that obtained a license during 2008-2013 period; the proposed ordinance would not revoke anyone who currently has a license as long as they are not violating the law; and he asked if the new ordinance would then apply to those massage establishments that have to re-establish their license. Bobak In response to Lumbard's questions, Bobak stated if the massage establishments violate the law, then the City could request that their State certifications be revoked and that there are still remedies available if those establishments violate the law. Interrante Interrante further explained that the zoning regulations only apply to new businesses, but all massage regulations in the proposed ordinance would apply to all massage establishments once they renew their license at the first of the year. Binsack Per Binsack, the business provisions would apply, not the zoning provisions, as they will already have established their business as either a conditionally permitted use or through a zoning clearance, and from a business stand point, they will have to renew their permit. Bobak Bobak stated that all massage establishments would be "grandfathered" in with the new ordinance from a "zoning" stand point. If there are massage establishments in the Professional District, they can remain there and they would be required to comply with the non-zoning regulations applicable to the business. Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 5 of 7 8:10 p.m. Public Hearing opened/closed due to no comments/input. Thom pson/Altowaiji collectively requested maps of where the current massage establishments are located and asked which massage establishments are subject to the proposed ordinance and those that are grandfathered in the current ordinance; asked staff to provide general rules on the restrictive uses, when an application is provided; suggested reducing hours of operation from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.; asked what the advantage is of a C1 Zone versus a C2 Zone on the exhibit provided; requested further discussion as to why this item came forward and if there was an issue or a City issue with regards to the history of any problems with massage establishments; do not want to discriminate against positive businesses; suggested staff provide a report to the Commission and City Council in the next six (6) to twelve (12) month period to see how the regulations in place have been working; and asked if the proposed ordinance maximizes the regulatory authority of the City contained in AB 1147. Bobak Bobak explained that the Commission is not treating the legitimate massage establishments differently than other legitimate businesses in the commercial zone. If there is a problem, the City could take administrative action to close the problematic business. Reekstin Reekstin stated there is no dramatic difference among the different commercial classifications other than CG being a somewhat more intensive commercial area. Bobak Bobak further stated, the City spoke to a representative of the Tustin Police Department, who was present in the audience, however, since he is undercover, Bobak requested he not make a public appearance in order to secure his position as an undercover police officer. Her understanding is that the proliferation of the massage establishments has been a state-wide issue since the legislature barred cities and counties from enacting any land use regulations. The concern is not the proliferation of all massage establishments. It is the fact that a group of people who operate massage establishments use their business as a "front" to operate illegal businesses, such as human trafficking and prostitution. Those are the activities that the additional regulations that are included in the City's draft ordinance and the State amended the State regulations to be stricter and allow more control over the illicit aspects of some businesses. This will allow the legitimate businesses to operate and to give the City the tools to address the illegitimate businesses. Binsack Binsack stated that the City currently does not have any tools to address the issues Bobak previously stated. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, then staff will be able to provide further information in the next six (6) to twelve (12) month period to let the Commission know how the proposed ordinance is working. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak to adopt Resolution No. 4296. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 6 of 7 None. REGULAR BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith Favorable comments to staff regarding Item #3. Lumbard Wyatt James Lumbard due to arrive on November 191"l Kozak Kozak had favorable comments for Community Development staff and Finance staff with Item #3. He attended the City's observation of the 9/11 ceremonies at Fire Station #37. Kozak completed three (3) modules of the State Office of Historic Preservation Interpreting and Applying the Secretary of Interior Standards of Historic Properties. Altowaiji No comment. Thompson Thompson attended the following: • 9/14 participated in a ULI tour (overview of Greenwood and the Hangar) that the City conducted • 9/15 OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee (Bicycle Ad Hoc Committee) • 10/7 - Peter's Canyon Workshop • 9/19— The City's Water Expo at Pepper Tree Park • The first week of October Thompson will attend a ULI Conference in San Francisco. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, October 13, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission September 22, 2015—Page 7 of 7