Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 8-23-16 MINUTES ITEM #1 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2016 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Thompson ABSENT: Commissioner Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— JULY 12, 2016 July 12, 2016 Minutes, as RECOMMENDATION: amended. That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the July 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the July 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 7:04 p.m. Opened Public Hearing for Item #2. Lumbard recused himself due to a conflict of interest with this project. Due to the absence of Chair Pro Tem, it was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason, to elect Commissioner Thompson to chair the item. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-12 & DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2016-15 APPLICANT: Didar Singh Tustin Field Gas & Food 3017 Edinger Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. Harvinder Sahota, MD N.E. Enterprises 9810 Park Street Bellflower, CA 90706 Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 1 of 8 LOCATION: 3017 Edinger Avenue REQUEST: A CUP to authorize joint-use parking to accommodate service station, carwash and retail store uses and a DR to authorize the installation of vacuum units. 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. 4317 approving CUP 2016-12 authorizing joint-use parking to accommodate service station, carwash and retail store uses, and approving DR 2016-15 authorizing the installation of three (3) vacuum units on a property located at 3017 Edinger Avenue. Hutter Presentation given. Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the supplemental item presented at the dais for Resolution No. 4317, which resulted from questions discussed with a Commissioner prior to the Planning Commission meeting. She stated that staff is recommending additional revised language to Condition 1.8 related to the payment of fees. Binsack also stated that this approval would require a positive vote by all three (3) members of the Commission. Thompson Thompson mentioned the supplemental items presented at the dais for Condition 2.5, new addition of Condition 2.7, as well as a revision to Condition 3.1. He also noted a minor correction to one (1) word within Condition 2.5. 7:08 p.m. Public Comments Opened. Ms. Cecilia de Heras, Action Property Management, representing Jamboree Plaza Owners Association, voiced her concerns which generally included: current parking issue in Jamboree Plaza; the car wash business currently has four (4) spaces allotted within the common parking area, which is part of their CC&R's; and that the property management will be conducting a parking survey soon to see about creating more parking spaces. Mr. Peter Buffa, representing the applicant, Danny Singh, responded to Ms. De Heras concerns and stated that the current parking is not accurate. He also mentioned the parking spaces where the vacuums are located are not just for vacuums and that anyone can park in those spaces. Mr. Buffa discussed the parking study completed by Michael Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 2 of 8 Baker Company and stated there are no parking issues and that since the project opened in 2012, there have been no complaints of using other businesses parking spaces. He then shared a video with the Commission showing the parking and circulation, as well as spaces at the gas pumps being used as parking spaces. Mr. Buffa stated that the vacuums were in place for three (3) years before receiving a violation. Mr. Buffa then asked that Condition 3.1 (a) related to suspending the use of vacuum stations until permit and final inspection are obtained, be eliminated. Kozak For clarification, Kozak asked Mr. Buffa if a building permit was ever obtained for the existing vacuum cleaning stations. Per Mr. Buffa, there was no discretion for a building permit when the vacuum stations were installed three (3) years earlier therefore; the existing vacuum cleaning stations do not have a building permit. Mason Mason asked Mr. Buffa if he was aware that the vacuum stations were not part of the original CUP submittal in 2015. She also asked if a CUP was provided at the time of purchase in 2012 as well as what was perm itted and what was not. Per Mr. Buffa, there was a CUP for the car wash and the schematics showed where the vacuum stations would be. He also mentioned that the applicant did not understand that there could not be dedicated parking spaces just for the vacuum stations; however, there was no documentation to confirm that statement. Mason Mason asked for further clarification on the four (4) additional parking spaces being part of the CC&R's previously mentioned. Mr. Buffa did not know if the four (4) additional parking spaces were part of the CC&R's. He stated that the 2009 CUP application had discretion of using four(4) parking spaces in the common parking area. Thompson In response to Mason's statements, Thompson clarified that there is no change to the parking inventory, per the staff report. He further explained that the current property has eleven (11) on-site parking spaces and four (4) off-site parking spaces that are part of the association, which would not be changing. 7:31 p.m. Public Comments Closed. Mason Mason requested that, for the record, staff state what the revisions/changes to the Conditions of Approval were. Binsack In response to Mason's request, Binsack stated the following recommendations, in general: amendments to Condition 1.8, 2.57 3.1 and addition of Condition 2.7; staff could suggest that the building permit timeframe be modified; however, this is an appealable item (10 days) to the City Council which would make it difficult to modify if the applicant Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 3 of 8 was issued a building permit and the City Council took another action; and the original DR and CUP did not include the vacuum stations that were installed, therefore no building permit as well as the current vacuum stations at the carwash; and staff's concern of the vacuum stations being improperly installed with respect to their use. Thompson Thompson referred to Condition 3.1 and if the item were appealed, would fifteen (15) days be reasonable for the applicant to obtain a building permit. He also asked if staff would be able to modify and report differently to the City Council. Thompson asked if the condition could be modified with regards to the immediate suspension of the vacuum use and what staff would find reasonable as far as timeframe. Binsack Per Binsack, staff could receive plans, along with a letter of risk, during the appeal period and issue a permit on the eleventh (11th) day, as long as there is no appeal. She was not sure if staff could say a non-permitted electrical improvement is acceptable to use without staff inspecting the vacuum stations. Kozak Kozak commended Binsack for clarifying the matter sufficiently. He inquired on the original vacuum units ever receiving a review and approval of a building permit. Kozak stated Condition 3.1 is important for public safety and was concerned that the vacuum stations were installed without review and approval from the City in order to meet City standards. Mason Mason inquired on the signage placed on the vacuums (FREE VACUUM). She asked if the intent was to alleviate parking. Thompson In response to Mason's statement, Thompson stated that staff needs to review the signage and it is not within the Commission's purview to regulate signage. Bobak Bobak asked the Commission if she could read the revised Condition 1.8, as amended, into the record since it was not typed up for the Commission and to ensure the language is clear and that there were no questions, in the event there is an issue. Motion: It was moved by Thompson to adopt Resolution No. 4317, as amended, seconded by Kozak. Lumbard abstained from the vote. Motion carried 3- 0-2. 3. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2016-011 APPLICANT: Zahra Khalafi Bublyz Cafe 2505 EI Camino Real Tustin, CA 92782 Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 4 of 8 PROPERTY OWNER: FGHK Ltd. 750 Old Hickory Blvd. Two Brentwood Commons, 150 Brentwood, TN 37027 LOCATION: 2505 EI Camino Real REQUEST: To authorize the establishment of a 7,231 square foot outdoor restaurant seating area in conjunction with an existing restaurant located at 2505 EI Camino Real. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4318 approving DR 2016-011 to authorize the establishment of a 7,231 square foot outdoor restaurant seating area in conjunction with an existing restaurant located at 2505 EI Camino Real. Reekstin Presentation given. Binsack Binsack stated that staff made recommendations to Condition 1.6 and Condition 2.10 to be amended further and she read the amendments into the record. 7:55 p.m. Opened Public Hearing for Item #3. The public that spoke in favor of the item generally made the following favorable comments: desirable outdoor seating; family dining; international food; and that it is a good use for the neighborhood. The public that spoke not in favor of the item generally stated the following concerns: noise pollution; hours of operation; loud music; allowance of smoking and alcohol; and the impact it would have in the neighborhood. Reekstin Reekstin's response to comments previously made generally included: alcohol will not be served on the patio; conditions in the resolution with regards to alcohol for future business owners who want to serve alcohol which is an outright permitted use and no CUP is required in conjunction with a bonafide restaurant; a condition with regards to no amplified music or live entertainment and compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance; and smoking is allowed by California Law within an outdoor seating area unless the restaurant owner prohibits smoking. Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 5 of 8 Mr. Matt Ahmad, a representative for the applicant, made favorable comments for Reekstin and he also stated the following in general: any noise coming from the outdoor seating would be muffled by the walls; requested Condition 2.2 related to removal of the existing masonry wall be removed; Bublyz will abide by the City's Noise Ordinance; there will not be amplified music; the applicant would never request to serve alcohol; requested that the applicant not be required to remove the walls or make large openings to the walls; match occupancy inside/outside; and he presented a list of signatures from the local residents, in favor of the project. Ms. Zahra Khalafi, applicant, in general, stated the following: removing the wall would diminish the property value; the wall is a noise buffer; occupancy inside/outside; patio; alcohol not being served; low music; no live music; and she provided a short video of a resident that could not be in attendance but who was in favor of the project. 8:27 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Thompson Thompson stated the following in general: wall does not fit the architectural design appropriate; suggested modifying the existing wall; Condition 2.2 "substantially remove" with reference to the wrought iron; reuse of the block wall; asked staff to clarify appropriate interpretation of that term; and sound attenuation. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff to address Condition 3.7 with instruction on interpreting the language. He wanted to avoid approving something that is untenable. Lumbard informed the Commission that they need to either approve or continue the item in order to direct staff to continue working with the applicant on alternative methods. Binsack Binsack stated that staff's desire to modify Condition 3.7 was to allow flexibility to give staff the opportunity to work with the applicant to look at what could be considered and in the event an agreement could not be made, then the item would be brought back to the Commission for consideration. Bobak Bobak said staff intended Condition 3.7 would supersede Condition 2.2 which has to be consistent with the revised Condition 3.7 otherwise there would be conflicting conditions in the resolution. She suggested the Commission consider removing Condition 2.2. Mason Mason asked for clarification with regards to "substantially un-enclosed". Bobak Bobak's response to Mason's question generally included: the Commission may provide staff direction on what the Commission thinks substantially un-enclosed means because staff may have a different understanding of that term than the Commission (i.e. does the masonry wall come down orjust the wrought iron?). Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 6 of 8 Lumbard Lumbard's concern is that the wall has not stopped the noise from bothering the neighbors. Mason Mason was in support of Thompson's statement previously made. The intent should be to create an environment that is amenable to both the commercial and residential areas. Kozak Kozak voiced his concern with Condition 3.7. He did not want to read "substantially unenclosed" because to him that means, "no covering". Kozak suggested adding "shall not be covered". He also suggested revising Condition 2.17 which would remove the ability of obtaining a "live entertainment permit". Kozak stated that If revising Condition 3.7 causes a legal issue, then he would withdraw his suggestion. Bobak Bobak suggested that if it is the consensus of the Commission, simply state, "no live entertainment is permitted". Binsack Binsack stated some forms of live entertainment are exempt and that anything over and above an individual or a duo are non-exempt. Kozak Kozak stated he is now satisfied with addressing the noise issue. Lumbard The Commission is willing to support a slight modification to the wall to address noise and the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Mason Mason reminded that there may be limitations based on the landlord. Lumbard Lumbard further stated that the Commission wants an amenable solution that can actually happen. As per the applicant's request on the increase of occupancy on the patio (Condition 2.1), Lumbard is of the opinion to start with the recommendation first, then if successful, the applicant could request to modify the approved DR (per Bobak). Reekstin Reekstin noted that Condition 2.1 does allow the applicant to request an increase in the number of seats subject to the Community Development Director's approval. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated that the Commission is proposing Condition 2.2 be removed. Motion: It was recommended by Lumbard to approve Resolution No. 4318, as amended, seconded by Mason. Motion carried 4-0-1. None REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the upcoming Planning Officials Forum in September. Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 7 of 8 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Nothing to report. Thompson Thompson attended the following: 7/13: USC Commercial Real Estate Program 7/15: Ethics Training 7/18: Neighborhood Meeting —420 W. 6t" Street 8/2: Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting 8/2: Opening of the La Pada Avenue in South Orange County 8/18: Urban Land Institute Thompson thanked staff for the notes on the Red Hill Corridor Study Workshop. He congratulated Kozak for being nominated to the Successor Agency. Kozak requested he be excused for October 11 and October 25 since he will be out of town for training. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for their hard work on the agenda items and as well as the Red Hill Corridor Study Workshop comments. Kozak attended the final concerts in the Park and commended Parks & Recreation. He attended OCTA Citizens Advisory Board Committee Meeting on August 2, 2016. Lumbard Lumbard attended the following: 7/21: Red Hill Corridor Workshop 7/28: Veterans Housing Ribbon Cutting 7/29: OC Animal Shelter Groundbreaking 8/10: Concerts in the Park 8/14: Marconi Auto Museum Open House 8/19: Broadway in the Park— "Beauty & the Beast" Lumbard congratulated Luke Thompson, who will be attending Northern Arizona State University to play football. He also congratulated Rusty Kozak for attending Chapman University Law School to obtain his graduate degree. 8:56 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, September 13, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission August 23, 2016—Page 8 of 8