Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 6-14-16 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING ITEM #1 TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2016 TOUR OF DEVELOPMENT SITES 5:30 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. DEPART FROM TUSTIN CITY HALL PARKING LOT AT 5:30 P.M. Given TOUR DESTINATIONS: 5:50 p.m. - Greenwood at Tustin Legacy Clubhouse (250 Downs Road); 6:00 p.m. - Victory Park (3300 Park Avenue); 6:10 p.m. — Union Market at The District (2493 Park Avenue); 6:35 p.m. — Edinger Avenue Well (2100 E. Edinger Avenue); 7:OOpm — return to City Hall 7:09 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Smith Commissioners Mason, Kozak, and Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS Brief recess to restore audio. Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —APRIL 26, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the April 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting as provided. 2. FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FINDING OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The Planning Commission is required to review the projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and verify their conformance with the General Plan. The City Council will soon be adopting the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget and appropriate funding for the ensuing year CIP projects. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4314 finding the proposed FY 2016-2017 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 1 of 10 Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Thompson, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Approved 3. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2014-006, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) Reso. No. 2014-13 AND AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT (UP) 79-15 4315, as amended. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Henry L. Botts, Jr. & Gerald Mouzis Grace Harbor Church & School Grace Harbor Church & School 12881 Newport Avenue 12881 Newport Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 12881 Newport Avenue REQUESTS: 1. DR 2014-006 for the design and site layout of a new two-story, 10,015 square-foot classroom building. 2. CUP 2014-13 for joint use parking between the church, preschool and elementary school uses. 3. Amendment to UP 79-15 to increase the maximum number of students allowed from 135 students to 418 students. 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 developments. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4315 approving DR 2014-006 and CUP 2014-13, and amendment to UP 79-15 for the development of a new 10,015 square foot classroom building, the establishment of joint use parking to accommodate church, preschool and elementary school use, and increase the maximum number of students on a property located at 12881 Newport Avenue. Hutter Presentation given. Thompson Thompson's comments/questions generally included: the number of parking spaces - 122 parking spaces required by Tustin City Code which the parking study showed a maximum of 52 parking spaces being needed where 59 parking spaces are being provided, and asked if that was for the entire site; referenced the average number of students (27) per room with the proposed new building having 12 classrooms and the existing building having a few more classrooms and placement of the 400+ students; the hours of operation for the school; and graduations, pageants and how they would fit into the school schedule. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 2 of 10 Hutter Hutter's response generally included: currently the preschool children are in the rear of the sanctuary building (approx. eight (8) classrooms in the existing building) as well as a separate building for first grade students (she referred to the submitted plans within the staff report); and the school is currently using some of the rooms surrounding sanctuary area for classrooms when the church is not being used. 7:24 p.m. The public comments portion of the meeting was opened. Ms. Janice Sheehan, resident, spoke in opposition of the project. Her concerns generally included: her property backs up to the church; therefore, screaming children; balls going over to her yard; noise level from church services; concern with removal of the Italian Cypress trees; concern with property values being affected poorly; and an increase in noise due to more students from school. Mr. Gerald Mouzis, applicant, introduced Doug Andresen, architect, Pastor Fred Snyder (in the audience), as well as Henry Botts, Chairman of the Grace Harbor Church Council, and other staff members from Grace Harbor to the Commission. Mr. Mouzis' comments generally included: Nutter's hard work on the project; the diversity, economic/social diversity, within Grace Harbor; unique architecture; in response to the concerns previously mentioned, notices were sent out by the applicant to the surrounding community to meet the applicant and architect (6/5/16) to hear of any concerns but the community did not show up; Cypress trees will not be removed as a memorial to Mr. Spaulding, founder of the church, and serves as a buffer between the neighbors and playground; there are 59 parking spaces with 13 overflow if any special events were to take place (i.e. Easter, Christmas program, etc.); a nearby commercial property (to the north) allows overflow parking from the church for Christmas/children programs; and traffic flow study ingress/egress taken into account. Denise Baker, resident, concerned with noise and value of her property plummeting. In response to Thompson's question regarding TCC requirement of 122 parking spaces, Mr. Andresen clarified that the church parking requirement is actually 72 spaces and 52 spaces for the school. The church and school do not run concurrently. He also mentioned the increase in students would happen over several years, not overnight. Mr. Andresen added that the second floor would not be completely occupied since there are not enough children to fill up the second floor and it will be built out as needed. The goal is to get the children out of the church building and into the classroom area. Mr. Mouzis responded to Thompson's question regarding the existing building and the location of the classrooms. The pre-school will be towards the front of the building once the school is constructed (K thru 6t" grades). There are 39 students currently (capped out at 90 students) and there is currently a waiting list as well. Thompson Thompson asked for clarification on the hours of operation of the school. He also asked about graduations, pageants and how they would fit into the school schedule. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 3 of 10 Mr. Mouzis referred the Commission to Page 11 of the staff report (Table 3) which listed the hours of the church and school. Presently, the Christmas programs and graduations are held in the church sanctuary, which are typically during the week and evenings. Kozak Kozak's comments/questions generally included: the parking study addressed his concerns with the traffic circulation on the site; referred to the Use Restriction (Reso. No. 4315) student drop-off/pick-up plan; schedule and overflow parking and designating the area along Newport Avenue to the southern part of the property for staff parking and the parking to the northeast corner; and asked if it would be necessary to commit that in writing and how it is being addressed from a Use Restriction standpoint. Willkom Willkom's response to Kozak's concerns generally included: The parking study identified measures to assist with the queing and to prevent back-up onto Newport Avenue; Condition 2.4 requires parking and student drop-off schedule to be submitted to Community Development for staff to review— once submitted, staff will look at the recommendation of the three staggered times which will be made part of the parking management plan. Thompson Thompson asked if the applicant would be okay if staff were to add a condition to the resolution regarding the landscape to ensure the Cypress trees are retained and maintained in a healthy manner. Mr. Mouzis stated that the Cypress trees would be taken care of by the maintenance company the church currently uses and that they would not be removed. He also stated there was no issue with another condition being added to the resolution. 7:47 p.m. The public comments portion of the meeting was closed. Lumbard Lumbard referred to Condition 5.2 of the resolution which relates to plant materials and asked staff if that would encompass maintenance of the Cypress trees as discussed earlier. Binsack Binsack stated that staff would add verbiage to Condition 5.2 to address the concerns previously mentioned. Thompson Thompson mentioned Noise Ordinance 3.1 and asked the applicant to ensure the rear doors be kept closed during church services and school. Mason Mason concurred with the previous comments/concerns her fellow Commissioners addressed and also asked staff with regards to the church keeping a good rapport with the neighboring commercial property and the overflow parking, if this is something that could be formalized or discussed among the Commission in order to negate any future concerns. Binsack Binsack referred to the Demand Analysis provided within the staff report and that the analysis identified, based on the evidence provided to the Commission that they actually provide enough parking spaces given the uses operating at any given time. If they were to provide in a more formalized fashion, tying the sites together with the adjacent commercial use, then they would need to tie the two (2) parcels together by presenting a CUP to the Commission for their Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 4 of 10 consideration, including the special events. The item presented to the Commission at the meeting is what was noticed to the public. Binsack referred to Condition 1.6 in the resolution, which identifies parking-related concerns or possible concerns in the future that would require the applicant to look at other sites, adjusted hours of operation, reduced enrollment, reduced or eliminated activities, or providing additional parking on other sites. Bobak Bobak added to Binsack's statement that if there is a problem with the parking at the neighboring commercial property, then staff could bring back to the Commission. Kozak Kozak's concern with parking and circulation were addressed by staff and the applicant. Favorable comments regarding the site improvements improving the functionality of the site and the building complimenting the existing sanctuary and he thanked the residents who spoke on their concerns. Smith Smith asked staff to explain the noise mitigation and requirements around zoned pre-schools and schools and if the noise is not a regulated concern with schools. Favorable comments to the architect and style of the building. Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's question generally included: if there is "noise" generated from a site, it does not necessarily mean there is a violation of the City's Noise Ordinance or make it illegal; the City's Noise Ordinance is very specific — noise level can be somewhat higher during daytime hours versus the evening hours, which the school does not operate during the evening. If there is a violation of the City's Noise Ordinance, a noise analysis can be performed. Lumbard Lumbard had favorable comments to the residents who voiced their concerns and the willingness of staff and the applicant to work on addressing the concerns addressed. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Mason, to approve Resolution No. 4315, approving DR 2014-006 and CUP 2014-13, and amendment to UP 79-15 for the development of a new 10,015 square foot classroom building and the establishment of joint-use parking to accommodate church, pre-school and elementary school use and increase the maximum number of students on a property located at 12881 Newport Avenue. It was moved by Lumbard, with the addition to Condition 5.2 to Resolution No. 4315, seconded by Mason. Motion carried 5-0. Binsack Binsack informed the audience that the item is appealable within 10 calendar days of the Commission's decision. 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing Closed for Item 3. 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing Opened for Item 4. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 5 of 10 Continued to 4. REVOCATION OF CUP 2015-05 (ON-SITE BEER AND WINE SALES), the July 12, AND DR 2015-005 (OUTDOOR SEATING), ASSOCIATED WITH IVY 2016 Planning LOUNGE RESTAURANT Commission meeting, with stipulations. RESTAURANT OWNER: PROPERTY OWNER: Vahid Adamkhoshbakht Louie Properties Ivy Lounge and Grill 5936 Temple City Boulevard 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A Temple City, CA 91780 LOCATION: 14011 NEWPORT AVENUE, UNIT A RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4313 to- 1. o:1. Find that the continuance of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-05 for on-site beer and wine sales (ABC License Type 41) and Design Review (DR) 2015-005 allowing outdoor seating associated with the Ivy Lounge restaurant located at 14001 Newport Avenue, Unit A, would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City; and, 2. Direct staff to transmit a report of the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation that the City Council revoke CUP 2015-05 and DR 2015-005. Bobak Bobak informed the Commission of a telephone conversation she had on June 67 2016 with Maziar Mafi, attorney representing Mr. Adamkhoshbakht. Per Bobak, Mr. Mafi requested that staff recommend to the Commission that the item be continued. Mr. Mafi requested additional time to prepare a response to the staff report and to the allegations within the staff report. Mr. Adamkhoshbakht and Mr. Mafi were actively marketing the business and are in the process of trying to sell the business. They would rather continue the item and come back to the Commission with a valid CUP versus a revoked CUP. Mr. Mafi also indicated that Mr. Adamkhoshbakht would comply with all of the conditions of approval in the interim. Bobak worked with staff and collectively developed a series of conditions, that in the event Mr. Adamkhoshbakht agrees to those conditions, staff would recommend a continuance of the revocation hearing from meeting to meeting which allows staff not to have to re-notice the hearing. If staff decides to pursue the revocation and if there is a violation of any of the conditions of approval, staff could bring the item back to the Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting and pursue the revocation. On June 87 2016, Bobak forwarded the conditions to Mr. Mafi and she offered to discuss and explain the conditions to Mr. Mafi and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht. Mr. Mafi and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht had an opportunity to review the conditions and consult, which Bobak understood they are in agreement with the conditions. The conditions generally included: Mr. Adamkhoshbakht must appear at the June Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 6 of 10 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and accept the conditions on the record, as part of the record and agree there will be strict compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval within Resolution No. 4281, which would include that the restaurant will be closed and all patrons off of the premises at closing time (weekdays 11:00 p.m. / weekends 12:00 a.m.); the City would conduct periodic/random field inspections to ensure compliance (may be more than one (1) inspection on any given night); if there are violations, staff would bring the item back to the next Planning Commission meeting and ask that the Commission move forward with the revocation hearing; each of the prospective buyers of the property must be notified of the Conditions of Approval, so they know what they are contemplating buying, the enforcement actions the City has taken so the prospective buyer knows the City is serious about enforcing the Conditions of Approval, and about the continued revocation hearing and so that the prospective buyer is aware that the City is pursuing possible revocation of the permits for the business they are contemplating buying; prior to the close of escrow, any new buyer would have to come to the Planning Commission meeting and acknowledge, on the record, that they have seen the Conditions of Approval, understand the Conditions of Approval and that they accept the Conditions of Approval; the new buyer would have to have a notarized acknowledgement and acceptance form of the City's conditions, which any applicant is required to provide and if the business sells, and a new owner comes in and there are continued violations, the notarized acknowledgement would allow the City to start where they left off with the previous owner rather than start over from the beginning since the City would have on the record that the new business owner knew and understood the Conditions of Approval and what the prior problems were; Bobak referred to Conditions 1.5 and 1.8 which requires that Mr. Adamkhoshbakht reimburse the City the costs of enforcement actions; the City has incurred approximately $7,500 in enforcement costs (i.e. police overtime, City attorney time, Community Development staff time) in terms of action taken in order to monitor the conditions; all administrative citations must also be paid, if they have not been paid already; there would have to be a commitment that if there were future violations, and enforcement actions were necessitated because of the violations, while Mr. Adamkhoshbakht owns the business, that he would be responsible for those costs as well; and assuming Mr. Adamkhoshbakht commits to the conditions previously stated, staff is willing to recommend that the Commission continue this item. Kozak Kozak asked Bobak how the Commission would be able to, at a time when the sale of the business is completed, check out the new owner, with respect to acknowledging and committing to the Conditions of Approval and Use Restrictions. He also asked if the hearing could happen before escrow closes. Bobak Per Bobak, the CUP and the DR "runs" with the land so the Commission, generally, would not have the right to conduct a background check or do any analysis on a prospective buyer. However, she stated that the ABC license does not run with the land and that the new business owner would have to apply for a new ABC license from the State which the City would automatically be notified by the State, therefore the City would know if the business had been transferred. This is why staff recommends the prospective buyer attends a Planning Commission meeting in order for the prospective buyer to understand what it is he/she is buying and the Conditions of Approval that are in place. Again, Bobak reiterated that before escrow closes, the new business owner must attend the next Planning Commission meeting. Bobak also mentioned from Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 7 of 10 her email correspondence to Mr. Adamkhoshbakht's attorney, that staff is comfortable recommending the continuance of the item from meeting to meeting, but by the last meeting in July, if the business has not yet sold, then staff would like Mr. Adamkhoshbakht to attend the next Planning Commission meeting, since it will be agendized for a public hearing on the revocation and to update the Commission on the status of any potential sales. Thompson Thompson thanked the applicant for being present to listen to the methods of compliance. He asked that one (1) comment be added to the list of conditions previously stated by Bobak to include any other stipulations on compliance that were identified in previous letters, and that they be included to the list so not only complying with the original conditions, but more specifically, the charcoals placed near the transponder, etc. Bobak Bobak agreed with Thompson's suggestion that staff ask the applicant to commit to strict compliance with not only the Conditions of Approval in the resolution, but the technical provisions within the Municipal Code. 8:12 p.m. The public comments section of this item opened. Mr. Mafi and his client, Mr. Adamkhoshbakht, stood at the podium and Mr. Mafi spoke on behalf of Mr. Adamkhoshbakht. Mr. Mafi's response generally included that he and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht agree, in person, to be in compliance with staff and Bobak's requests provided to them on June 8, 2016; Mr. Mafi notified the Commission that the severity of the situation was understood and there is not going to be any issue with respect to any prior issues nor with anything to do with compliance on any conditions agreed to that Bobak sent via email; Mr. Mafi claims there has only been one (1) citation and that Mr. Adamkhoshbakht paid the citation in December 2015; and that there are no outstanding citations. Kozak Kozak asked if Mr. Adamkhoshbakht had received any offers on the business and if the business is currently up for sale. He also asked if the prospective buyer has previous restaurant experience. Kozak asked if Mr. Mafi or Mr. Adamkhoshbakht have provided information (i.e. the staff report), that was presented that evening to the Commission, to the prospective buyer. He suggested that the staff report be provided to the prospective buyer. Mr. Mafi's response generally included: he stated that the business is up for sale and that there is a prospective buyer; there is a particular buyer who has shown interest and has received documentation on what the business does and does not allow; the prospective buyer is doing their own inspection and there is an ongoing process, the staff report presented to the Commission was not provided to the prospective buyer; however, Mr. Mafi and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht requested a formal proposal and deposit from the prospective buyer before they proceed any further to ensure the prospective buyer is serious before they provide further documentation; they will agree to provide a copy of the staff report, along with obtaining their signature(s) and the notarized acknowledgement previously listed in the Conditions of Approval; and Mr. Mafi assured the Commission that the prospective buyer will attend a Planning Commission meeting prior to the close of escrow. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 8 of 10 Mason Mason's questions generally included: status of the current marketing of the business; Mr. Adamkhoshbakht's commitment to following through the condition in the CUP and the Conditions of Approval outlined with regards to the hours of operation; and if there were any intentions to change the terms for driving traffic to the area at night and how they plan to mitigate that. Mr. Mafi stated that "if for any reason the prospective buyer does not happen, he and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht would return to the Commission with an application with sufficient data and back up. Mr. Mafi stated, "At this point in time, there is a strong possibility we will not have to do any of that." Lumbard Lumbard asked Mr. Mafi and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht if they agree to comply with the list of conditions read by Bobak including compliance with the Municipal Code. Mr. Adamkhoshbakht provided his name to the Commission and agreed/accepted the conditions read by Bobak, including compliance with the Municipal Code. 8:18 p.m. The public comments section of this item closed. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated to the Commission that the recommendation for this item was modified to continue the item from meeting to meeting to allow for the applicant to comply with the conditions read into the record and pursue the sale of a business and if that sale has not occurred by July 26, 2016, the applicant shall reappear at a Planning Commission meeting. In conducting the continuance from meeting to meeting, staff does not have to re-notice the public hearing but re-open the public hearing each meeting. Lumbard asked the Commission if they understood what was being recommended. Bobak Bobak informed the Commission that staff would cancel the second meeting in June therefore the next Planning Commission meeting would be July 12, 20167 which would be a 30-day continuance. She confirmed the public hearing item would need to be re-opened meeting to meeting. If the applicant does not violate any of the Conditions of Approval, the applicant would not have to be present at the July 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. If there are violations to the Conditions of Approval, staff will notify the applicant and his attorney that the City will proceed with the revocation of the public hearing at the next meeting and they would expect Mr. Adamkhoshbakht be present at that time. Smith Smith made favorable comments to staff on the flexibility offered to the applicant with regards to the CUP. Lumbard Lumbard stated that with the evidence shown in the staff report, the applicant has not shown willingness to comply with the City's conditions. He is hesitant to approve the continuance because he does not believe the new conditions will be complied with by the applicant; however, stated it is a good compromise between the City and Mr. Adamkhoshbakht. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Smith, to continue the item to the next scheduled meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 9 of 10 8:22 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack thanked the Commission for participating in the tour. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason thanked staff for the detailed staff reports and for the tour of the City. She also attended the State of the City on June 9, 2016. Kozak Kozak attended the May City Council and congratulated Parks & Recreation on the Grand Re-Opening of Frontier Park's playground and splash pad. He thanked staff for the staff reports and tour. He also attended the Chili Cook-Off (June 5, 2016) and was the "People's Choice Chili Judge". Thompson attended the following: • 5/5: ULI Commercial & Office Initiative Council • 5/12-13: Transportation Forum • 5/20: Orange County Water Summit • 6/2: Building Industry Legal Defense Law & Policy Conference • 6/4: Camp Pendleton Mud Run • 6/9: State of the City • 6/13: OCTA Board — appointed to the Environmental Clean-up Committee • 6/14: American Legion Flag Ceremony Thompson enjoyed the tour. Congratulations to Luke Thompson who graduated and was accepted to Northern Arizona University! Smith Smith had no concerns. Congratulations to the Chili Cook-off success. Lumbard Happy Flag Day everyone! Lumbard informed every one of the Concerts in the Park occurring now through August and the Movies in the Park in July. 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Closed in solidarity with Orlando and our brothers and sisters. Minutes—Planning Commission June 14, 2016—Page 10 of 10