Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 1-26-161 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2016 7:04 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard ROLL CALL: Chair Thompson — late due to traffic Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Lumbard, and Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Lumbard Lumbard requested agenda items #2 and #3 be taken out of order. Approved. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JANUARY 12, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the January 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Thompson, to approve the Minutes of the January 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Smith had an excused absence for the January 12, 2016 meeting, therefore he abstained. Motion carried 4-0-1. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received and 3. CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2015 YEAR IN filed. REVIEW Throughout the year; staff provides the Planning Commission with a status of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or Community Development Director approved; major improvement projects; and other items of interest. The Community Development Department's 2015 Year in Review summarizes the Community Development Department's activity throughout 2015 including discretionary permits processed and approved (i.e. Conditional Use Permits, Design Reviews, Subdivision Maps, etc.), major accomplishments for various functional areas within the Department, Code Enforcement activities, and Building Division activities. Minutes — Planning Commission January 26, 2016 — Page 1 of 7 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. DiLeva-Johnson Presentation given. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued to a 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-26 & DESIGN REVIEW 2015-21 date certain. A REQUEST TO CONVERT AN EXISTING TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDING TO A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. APPLICANT: Jim Marshall St. Cecilia Church 1301 Sycamore Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: St. Cecilia Church 13280 Chapman Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1301 Sycamore Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 ENVIRONMENTAL: 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. 4308 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-26 and Design Review (DR) 2015- 21 authorizing the conversion of an existing temporary modular building to a permanent structure located at St. Cecilia Church at 1301 Sycamore Avenue. Reekstin Presentation given. Smith Smith's questions/comments related to ADA Compliance; improvements to access previously addressed with prior permitting; and the ingress/egress area within the parking lot (curbing or driveway needed improvements) from 10 years ago. Reekstin Reekstin stated that significant building code related improvements would need to be made to classify the temporary building as a permanent building, which has not yet been officially identified, but would be required to be addressed during the plan check process, if approved by the Commission. Binsack Per Smith's questions, Binsack stated that prior conditions, with regards to the curb approach on Sycamore, was repaired. Minutes — Planning Commission January 26, 2016 — Page 2 of 7 1 1 1 Thompson Thompson's questions/clarification generally included: He referred to "precedence" being stated in the staff report (i.e. lack of architectural requirements); number of extensions the applicant requested during a 10 year span and if there were similar situations in the past; Thompson requested elaboration with the "deposition" dated March 2005 between the City and the applicant (Attachment I — page 104 of the staff report), prepared by the applicant; and Father McCarthy's comment on 2012 being the year the temporary building would no longer be viable. Reekstin Reekstin informed the Commission that if they decided to remove some of the conditions or approve the temporary building "as is" with no design improvements, there would need to be findings stating the special treatment/circumstances applicable to the project and why it would not apply to any similar future projects. Binsack Binsack's response to Thompson's question on the extensions generally included: Typically when the City approves extensions it is not related to a temporary structure. It is when an entitlement has been granted and an applicant is requesting an extension to allow more time for a permanent building; with regards to the question regarding the "deposition", it was not a deposition, but a meeting between City staff, the church and their court reporter; it was the church's request to have a court reporter present at that meeting; and Binsack confirmed Father McCarthy stated "2012" was the year the temporary building would no longer be viable and that it was included in the correspondence. Kozak Kozak asked if City staff had received any type of similar requests that the City has acted on, to convert a temporary structure to a permanent building. Binsack Binsack was not aware of any similar requests done previously. Typically, when the request of the use of similar facilities is made, it is in conjunction with an active building permit. When construction is completed, the temporary building is removed from the premises. Altowaiji Altowaiji also asked if the City has permitted any temporary structure in the past and if there is a "life span" allowance (i.e. 10 years). He also mentioned the temporary structure being in place for 23 years. Binsack In general, Binsack stated the following: Temporary buildings are permitted on a temporary basis; life span is normally two (2) years, then they are removed; the temporary building in question was approved longer than that; temporary or manufactured structures have come a long way; the City considers a temporary use to be approximately two (2) years which was the initial approval of the applicant's temporary building; and anything beyond that is then considered a permanent use, which the permanent standards were never applied. 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Minutes — Planning Commission January 26, 2016 — Page 3 of 7 Reverend Bao Tai, St. Cecilia Church, shared background information on previous pastors at St. Cecilia Church, being that he has only been with St. Cecilia Church for seven (7) months. He asked the Commission to consider approving the item in order for the church to renovate the temporary building. Mr. Eric Gless, architect and parishioner at St. Cecilia's, discussed the temporary building as being a "permanent structure" being that it is bolted to a concrete foundation. Overall, he had favorable comments with regards to the many needs the temporary building has provided over the years. The Commission's questions/comments for Mr. Gless generally included: Asked for the purpose of the temporary building; questioned if the manufacturer provided the life span of the temporary building or the architect; depth of the walls and foundation; cost estimate of the scope of the improvements to bring the temporary building to permanent conditions of approval under current building code; how the structure was evaluated since the structural engineer did not have the plans; church's budget; safety concerns with the foundation; and the missing drawings for structural review; excessive extensions for the temporary use of the building and now the request to have it be a permanent building; seismic, fire code upgrades cost may be comparable if they were to build brand new building; and they questioned whether further extensions are requested. Mr. Gless's response to the Commission's questions/comments generally included: The temporary building is being used as a classroom for the school and the church, as well as for various other uses; the temporary building was permitted and complied with the building code at the time it was built; the church received a building permit to build a permanent concrete foundation around the perimeter of the temporary building; a contractor and structural engineer did have a cost estimate for the permanent building (including exiting and accessibility) but Mr. Gless did not have the information with him; and the structural engineer was only asked to bring the temporary building up to code. Mr. Joe Novoa, Director of Constructions for the Diocese of Orange, stated, for the record, that he knows Chair Thompson when they worked for Disney over 15 years ago. He commented, in general, the following: With regards to the foundation, the modulars could either be put on piers (similar to what is found at public schools) which has to be on a "permanent spread footing/stem wall"; the parish has been diligent with the upkeep/maintenance of the temporary building; he described the changes that would be made to the temporary building (i.e. all doors, windows, paneling would be taken out, new ceilings, electrical would be removed and replaced with conduit, etc.); their plan is to stucco the exterior of the temporary building; ADA ramps have to be replaced; after everything is taken care of the temporary building will "almost be a permanent structure"; the applicant is asking that the brick veneer be waived and if they could use stucco instead; as far as the cost estimate, it is "very close to building a new building'; more costs associated with demolition of the building; still feasible if they were to do what the applicant proposed; and parking lot will be re - Minutes — Planning Commission January 26, 2016 — Page 4 of 7 1 1 done with curbs/gutters; they are not requesting further extensions. 8:06 p.m. Public Hearing closed. The Commission deliberated and discussed the following in general: Asked if Condition 2.3 of Resolution No. 4308 intent is to apply bricks to the entire building; if the applicant discussed options under this condition with City staff; Page 24 — Exhibit C — appears to show architectural aspect of the building which appears to be very modular and the overall scope is lacking complete architecture treatment; and asked if City staff is looking to work with the applicant to articulate the flat surfaces so that it is complimentary to the parish hall. Reekstin Per Reekstin, it is not the intent of Condition 2.3 to apply bricks to the entire building. A proposal on how the building will be articulated was not received from the applicant and they did not provide design enhancements so staff did not have architectural plans to provide to the Commission. Staff proposed the concept was to be consistent with the parish hall which is directly adjacent to the temporary building, which is not completely bricked, but has brick accents. Binsack Per Binsack, the City did not have the benefit of reviewing any architectural drawings from the applicant, therefore unable to recommend approval of the design review application. Condition 2.3 addresses such. If the Commission were to approve the item, plans would have to be submitted within 30 days after approval and construction to be completed and occupancy issued within 120 days of permit issuance.. Binsack also stated that City staff is assuming that the temporary building is not being occupied currently. 8:12 p.m. Public Hearing re -opened. Mrs. Tina Blenz interrupted the deliberation portion of the meeting and asked the following: When Code Enforcement is unavailable after hours, who should she call when the Tustin Police Department does not respond to her phone calls; heavy construction occurring after hours and the noise impact; street traffic beyond the capacity; GIS map missing information; and Mrs. Blenz did not have any questions regarding the item being discussed. Thompson Thompson's response to Mrs. Blenz's comments generally included: The City has a Noise Ordinance and if there is a violation of that, the affected neighbors could call Tustin Police Department. - 8:15 p.m. Public Hearing re -closed. The Commission's deliberation continued as follows: Asked for staff to briefly describe the process of building a new structure versus renovating the existing structure and making it a permanent structure; asked if City staff is comfortable with what is being recommended; the precedence and nature of this application and lack of drawings; the Commission discussed continuing the item in order to get the architecture that staff is comfortable Minutes — Planning Commission January 26, 2016 — Page 5 of 7 with or simply denying the item; adding a condition stating "everything will be brought up to code'; since the temporary building is used as a classroom is it then subject to State Architect review; energy efficiency; and if the public hearing item would have to be re -noticed. Reekstin In response to the questions previously made, Reekstin stated the following in general: City staff is looking for consistency with other buildings in the vicinity in terms of materials (i.e. architectural treatments, roof, landscape, etc.); the temporary building should have some architectural components since the other buildings adjacent have architectural components; asking for additional minimal landscaping; asked for screening on mechanical equipment which is a general condition required in the city; and the City requires four (4) sided architecture of all buildings. Binsack Binsack's response generally included: From an architectural standpoint, staff is concerned that the temporary building has not been evaluated for the safety of its occupants and the ability for the disabled to access the temporary building, as if the building were a permanent structure; if the item is approved, the building would have to meet Building and Fire safety standards; from a design standpoint, it would be less than the City's typical standard; staff could work with the applicant with respect to the architecture; the temporary building is not subject to state architect review, only required for public schools; and the Green Building Code would apply to the project as well. Bobak Bobak's response to Thompson's issue with denying or continuing the item included: If denied, the City has a provision in its code that if an application is denied, the applicant cannot submit a similar application for one (1) year, but the applicant could appeal; it would be better to continue the item and ask the applicant to come back with drawings that would satisfy the concerns expressed (architectural); and City staff would not have to re - notice the public hearing item as long as the item is continued to a date specific. Mr. Novoa requested City staff allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to discuss the elements of what is being requested. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to continue the item to the February 23, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission of the Downtown Commercial Core Plan (DCCP) Workshop on January 28, 2016 and the Mayor's Inaugural Dinner on Friday, January 29, 2016. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith Favorable comments on the Year in Review. Lumbard No concerns. Minutes -- Planning Commission January 26, 2016 — Page 6 of 7 Kozak Kozak thanked staff, He will be attending the DCCPV'Txi'=ok%W-p-wxUh Mayor's Inaugural Dinner. Altowaiji Thanked Adrianne for the Year in Review. 1/19: OCTA CAC Meeting: 1/22., South Orange County Water Summit 2/17: Town Hall Meeting by Mimi Walters ("Personal Security in Emergencies") The next regular meeting o!f the Planning Commission is scheduled' for Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. J E# FV N TH &S ON Chairperson ELIZABETH A, BIN SACK Planning Commission Secretary