Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 2-28-17 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION (MEETING LOCATION: CLIFTON C. MILLER COMMUNITY CENTER) FEBRUARY 28, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER. Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Smith ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Smith, Thompson None PUBLIC CONCERNS. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JANUARY 24, 2017 Minutes of the January 24, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: meeting, as amended. That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the January 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the January 24, 2017, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Smith abstaining. Directed staff to 2. 2016 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND ANNUAL forward the MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT FOR FEISIEIR Annual Report to FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN the City Council for consideration. California State Law requires that each city adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development and any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to its planning activities. In essence, the City's General Plan serves as the blueprint for future growth and development. As a blueprint for the future, the General Plan contains policies and programs designed to provide decision makers with a basis for all land use related decisions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review and authorize staff to forward the General Plan Annual Report on the Status of the Tustin General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017--Page 1 of 13 Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to direct staff to forward the General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried 5-0. Directed staff to 3. MASSAGE ORDINANCE No. 1462 UPDATE receive and file the report. A staff report is being transmitted summarizing and reporting to the Commission on the elements of Ordinance No. 1462 related to massage establishments after adoption in September 2015. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to receive and file the report. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 7:05 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #4. Adopted Reso. 4. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-001, AMENDMENTS TO TUSTIN No. 4335. CITY CODE REQUIRED BY PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 64 Code Amendment (CA) 2017-001 would amend the Tustin City Code (TCC) as required- by the passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (the "Act"). CA 2017-001 would amend the TCC so that it does not prohibit activity and/or uses that are expressly permitted pursuant to the Act. CA 2017-001 would expressly prohibit marijuana dispensaries in all zoning districts. ENVIRONMENTAL: Proposed CA 2017-001 (Ordinance No. 1478) is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 4335, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1478, amending TCC Sections 3141, 3152, 9270c and 9297 relating to the regulation of marijuana activity in the City. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017--Page 2 of 13 Jason McEwen, Presentation given. Deputy City Attorney. Thompson Thompson's comments/questions generally included: clarification regarding the City's inability to regulate the purchase of marijuana, but the City can regulate the sale of marijuana; and he questioned the recommended ordinance pertaining to the City regulating the sale of marijuana being implied in the regulation. McEwen McEwen stated Thompson's clarification question is correct. In general, McEwen stated that the City cannot regulate the purchase of but only the sale of marijuana. He also stated that the ordinance would redefine a marijuana dispensary to include sale, distribution, cultivation, etc. Smith Smith's question was regarding the amendments removing components of the Tustin City Code to comply with by State law. McEwen In response to Smith's question, McEwen provided a brief overview of the item and stated in general: the City is not expressly authorizing activity; and the State law decriminalizes the activity. The legislature determines what constitutes criminal acts under the State law. 7:25 p.m. Public Comments OpenedlClosed. The Commission further discussed in general: the passing of Proposition 64 and its effect on cities; the focus of the amendment and the Commission's role; the City Council could consider reasonable regulations; and the municipal code requirements compared to State statute. McEwen McEwen further commented on indoor cultivation of marijuana in a private residence and that the City Council could consider reasonable regulation on that activity. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith, to adopt Resolution No. 4335. Motion carried 5-0. 7:30 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #4. 7:30 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #5. Adopted Reso. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016.06 No. 4334, as amended. A request to amend the Jamboree Plaza Master Sign Plan to update signage design, simplify design criteria, and clarify allowable project and tenant signage within the Jamboree Plaza Center. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 3 of 13 APPLICANT: Cecilia De Heras Action Property Management 2603 Main Street, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: Jamboree Plaza Owners Association c/o Action Property Management 2603 Main Street, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 2887 Edinger Avenue through 3097 Edinger Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4334 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-06 to authorize the amendment of a master sign plan for the Jamboree Plaza Planned Community development, which deviates from the standards contained within the Tustin City Sign Code. Hutter Presentation given. Mason Mason requested that staff provide an overview of the amendments presented at the dais. Hutter Hutter provided an explanation of the amendments with the Conditions of Approval to Resolution No. 4334 that were provided at the dais. Kozak Kozak asked about Condition 2.5 of the resolution with regards to Sign Type A and the height. He also referred to staffs recommendation to lowering the height and if it would increase the actual size of the sign. Hutter In response to Kozak's question, Huffer stated it is not anticipated that the sign configuration, as to the size, would be affected. The pedestal would not be as high. 7:40 p.m. Public Comments Opened. Mr. Bill Henigsman, representing the Jamboree Plaza Owners Association, stated he is in agreement with Resolution No. 4334 and asked to discuss the following: directional signage; the center (and Metrolink) has heavy traffic and passerbies have difficulty looking for business addresses within the center which leads to accidents; the biggest problem is when traffic stops in the entry median; poor visibility due to there being only one (1) entrance; and Mr. Henigsman Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 4 of 13 requested extra height for directional signs. Kozak Kozak asked Mr. Henigsman if there would be a more effective sign to direct people and more of a wayfinding rather than just arrows pointing to addresses on the left and to the right of the property. Mr. Henigsman stated he observed the property numerous ways to see how they could put signage that would be visible to people as they enter the property, but there is no landscaping area or additional area and Metrolink is directly in front of the property. Thompson Thompson asked staff about their recommended signage and if all the signs are interior to the project site or if there was any external exposure to the project site. In response to Thompson's question, Mr. Henigsman stated all signs are interior with there being 30 feet from the time a person drives into the property to look at the current sign and if a person turns in too early, they miss the sign. Smith Smith's questions for Mr. Henigsman generally included: his concern with the "line of sight" for a higher sign and its potential impact of drivers not seeing it; he asked if Mr. Henigsman could foresee the enhanced signage opportunities that would be allowed in the modification on the actual buildings; and if Mr. Henigsman felt the enhanced signage would benefit potential tenants and their occupancy. Mr. Henigsman's response generally included: his proposed sign would be designed so that it was not too massive that it would cause a line of sight problem; if the sign were designed to be slim, he felt it would eliminate the concerns he previously stated; being that there are several addresses and since several tenants are at the rear of the property, a person cannot visually see them; and additional signage would benefit the tenants in the rear of the property and would eliminate tenants being "missed"when people drive by. Mason Mason asked for clarification on the directional signs A and B and asked if Mr. Henigsman agreed with the amendments. She asked about his request with regards to the height of eight (8) feet being a solution to the concerns previously stated. Mason also asked Mr. Henigsman if he was amenable with the directional signs remaining at four (4) feet. Mr. Henigsman believed it to be a "happy medium". He also stated that six (6) or seven (7) feet for Sign A would provide great visibility. It would also benefit prospective tenants coming into the center to the right location. Mr. Henigsman was in agreement with the other directional signs being four (4) feet. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 5 of 13 Ms. Cecilia De Heras, the applicant and property manager, also shared with the Commission, her concerns, which were also previously, stated: by Mr. Heni1gsman, Ms,, De Heras stated she has been contacted by other tenants on the property stating difficulty getting their clients onto the property because they are unable to locate the business. She spoke in favor of the directional signs, needed. Ms. De Heras also mentioned she is working on adding new numbers for the addresses to the buildings, 814 p.m. Public Comments Closed, Lumbard Lumbard asked staff that if the Commission were to approve the Sign Plan, as amended, with the exception of Sign A, would staff be able to handle administratively without the Commission analyzing the sign heights, since the Commission is not a sign expert and in order to, avoid the applicant having to return to the Commission for approvals for one (1) sign. He also stated that the Commission is in agreement with 90% of the signs within the agenda report. Binsack In response to Lumbard's question, Binsack stated that staff could work with the applicant on the modification to the heights with direction from the Commission. Lumbard Lumbard presented an option to the Commission: direct staff to work with the applicant on Sign A and approve the rest, Binsack Binsack stated that Lumbard's option would be acceptable, but staff would have to modify the resolution in order to not identify an absolute height solution for the Commission's consideration, Kozak Kozak presented an option as well: direct staff to modify Section 6 of the Conditions of Approval to allow/direct staff to work with the applicant and the sign engineer to establish an agreed upon maximum height for Signs, A and B. Thompson Thompson's input generally included-. referenced the difficulty finding anything in the industrial center; not a matter of aesthetics since the signs do not have exposure or views from the street; property owners should have leeway on signage;, he was in, favor with the applicant's request to raise the sign height with the Understanding that the Ipylon sign remain at the height staff recommended of 40 feet. Lumbard Lumbardl's final comment was that the Commission should only be addressing what staff has recommended as well as the applicant agreement with staffs amendments, with the exception of Sign A. Smith Smith questioned staff's recommendation to change Sign A from eight (8) feet to four (4) feet in height and if it was motivated by a line of sight concern or other, factors, He asked if Binsack concurred with the narrow sign, making it less of a line of sight competitiveness and less of a concern. Smith also asked if the basis of the four (4) foot height WILItes-- Planning COMIrTlission FF ebrua,ry 28,2017—Page 6 of 13 standard was so that a pedestrian could be seen behind the sign. Binsack In response to Smith's question and Thompson's comments on speed, Binsack's comments generally included: four (4) feet is the line of sight standard for a pedestrian vehicle (slightly higher for a SUV); typically when in a parking lot area, a person is not driving fast; she did not feel the sign needed to be extremely nigh because then it could change the City's standard; six (6) feet is within reason given the unique circumstance; and the four (4) foot standard is based on a person sitting in a car. Mason Mason concurred with Lumbard's previous statements with regards to amending the resolution. Kozak Kozak recommended that Section 2.4 of the Conditions of Approval be amended to change the height from four (4) feet to six (6) feet and staff could work with the applicant on Signs A and B. Binsack Binsack further clarified that six (6) feet in height would be acceptable for both Signs A and B. if the Commission decided to amend Section 2.4, then the findings would need to be amended as well in order to work with the applicant. Two (2) motions were presented: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Thompson to approve Resolution No. 4334, with direction to staff to amend Conditions of Approval Section. 2.4, with a maximum sign height of six (6) feet and modify the Findings to allow staff to work with the applicant. Kozak and Thompson were in favor. Lumbard, Mason, Smith opposed. 2-3. Motion failed. It was moved by Mason, seconded by Lumbard to not change the language and to leave the height up to staff for Sign A, and to work with the applicant to find a safe solution. Motion: The final motion was moved by Mason, seconded by Lumbard, to approve Resolution No. 4334, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 8:14 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #5. 8:14 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #6. Adopted Reso. 6. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-002 (ORDINANCE NO. 1479) -- No. 4337. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Code Amendment 2017-002 proposes to amend Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code, related to accessory dwelling units (formerly referred to as second residential units), in compliance with State law. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017--Page 7 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed code amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.17. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4337, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1479, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code to: 1) Continue to allow new accessory dwelling units of up to 600 square feet in size on any residentially zoned lot in the Cultural Resource (CR) District regardless of lot size; 2) Allow new accessory dwelling units on residential lots of at least 10,000 square feet in size in other residential areas of the City; and, 3) Allow new accessory dwelling units within existing single- family dwellings and existing accessory buildings in all single-family zones, pursuant to State law. Reekstin Presentation given. 8:25 p.m. Opened/Closed Public Comments. Thompson Thompson commended staff on the agenda report. Mason No comments. Kozak Kozak also commended staff on the agenda report. Smith Smith asked if the item were to move forward, units could be added to existing homes without many restrictions. He also mentioned parking issues, as well as accessibility to bus stops. Smith referenced his own Homeowner's Association, along with adding units and the impacts there would be with parking. Reekstin Reekstin confirmed Smith's statement. This project would create an opportunity for many additional housing opportunities. With regards to parking restrictions, certain cases would require parking, but many others would not be able to. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff in general: under State law, if the City could ban accessory dwelling units altogether. He also mentioned that the City had very little authority, per the State's guidelines. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017--Page 8 of 13 Reekstin In response to Lumbard's question, the City would have to allow accessory dwelling units to existing homes and can regulate which areas the City would allow new attached or detached accessory dwelling units. Under the State law, it is the intent to provide additional housing opportunities as possible. Reekstin stated there would be several opportunities for existing buildings. He also discussed examples of different options. Thompson Thompson referred to the Table (Page 336) of the agenda report with regards to the actual number of units outside of the Cultural Resource District. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith, to adopt Resolution No. 4337. Motion carried 5-0. 8:35 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #6. 8:35 p.m. Opened Item #7. Adopted Reso. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 2016-149 No. 4336, as CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-24 amended. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2016-018 APPLICANT: Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc. 2200 S. Ritchey Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 140 South A Street REQUEST: 1. TPM 2016-149 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 7,405 SQUARE FOOT SITE CONSISTING OF ONE (1) NUMBERED LOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS. 2. CUP 2016-27 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOMINIUMS IN THE R3 ZONING DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MAIN BUILDING IN EXCESS OF ONE (1) STORY AND/OR TWENTY (20) FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A R-1 ZONED PROPERTY, PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 9 of 13 3. DR 2016-018 FOR THE DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT OF TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15315 (Class 15) and 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. 4336 approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 2016-149, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-27, and Design Review (DR) 2016- 018, authorizing the subdivision of an existing 7,405 square- foot lot for condominium purposes, consisting of one (1) numbered lot, for the development of two (2) detached single family dwelling units and related site improvements. Beier Presentation given. Smith Smith asked Beier about the easement for the Southern California gas line. Beier Beier referred to the site plan showing the easement being in the public street. 8:47 p.m. Opened the Public Comments. Mr. Ed John, resident at 130 South A Street, spoke in opposition of the item due to the following concerns: inaccurate property line (he stated the fencing had been in place many years) and boundaries; he noted the trees caused damage; he asked if he needs to bring the item back with his facts to the next Commission meeting on March 14, 2017; Mr. John would like to work with City staff to answer his questions; and currently there is a parking issue. Lumbard Lumbard informed Mr. John of the Commission's procedures. Mr. Larry Brose, Vice President of Habitat for Humanity, was in agreement with staff's changes to the Conditions of Approval. With regards to Mr. John's statement on the property line, when the property is conveyed to Habitat for Humanity, they will have a legal description of the entire property. As far as the wall/fence between the two (2) properties, it would be built on the property line and will not encroach onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Brose also thanked staff for their efforts and he asked about the March 14, 2017 date. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 10 of 13 Lumbard With regards to Mr. John mentioning the March 14, 2017 date, Lumbard stated if the item were to be continued, it would be heard at that Commission meeting. Tina Blenz, resident, addressed the Commission, generally regarding discrepancies on the City's mapping and GIS system. Due to a concern that Ms. Blenz was disrupting the meeting, the Commission took a recess. 8:59 p.m. Closed the Public Comments. Meeting recessed. 9:05 p.m. Reconvened meeting. Lumbard Lumbard wanted to address Mr. John's concerns and asked staff what the options are for this item (i.e. 1. Continue item in order to gather additional information, 2. Deny project, 3. Approve project). He asked that staff contact Mr. John at a later date to explain what his options are. Binsack In response to some of the concerns mentioned by Mr. John, Binsack's comments generally included: the Commission could continue, approve, or deny the item; staff will reach out to Mr. John and the applicant to discuss the issues; the property will need to be surveyed; the City will not approve any development that is on anyone else's property other than the project's property; and when the City conveys the property, it will be conveyed to the project property with clear title. Lumbard Lumbard also informed Mr. John of the appeal process. Thompson Thompson mentioned the City's process further as far as property lines are concerned as well as it being stated within the agenda report; landscape provisions (Section 9 of the Conditions of Approval); verification on whether or not the trees shown on the exhibit are the current trees or new trees; and suggested staff provide more clarity to Mr. John with regards to the wall by adding a condition (Section 7 of the Conditions of Approval) which addresses a temporary wall, as well as a new wall to be constructed per the site plan. Willkom Willkom referred to the Tentative Parcel Map (Attachment C) within the agenda report and clarified the trees to remain at the property. Smith Smith asked Thompson to clarify the Commission's position that the existing fence must be removed and a temporary fence be installed. Mr. John interjected and stated his issue is not with the current temporary fence, but with the proposed wall as well as the damage the current trees have caused. Minutes—Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 11 of 13 Binsack Binsack suggested staff modify Section 9.5 of the Conditions of Approval and add language that would state the applicant shall coordinate and/or consult with the adjacent neighbors with respect to permanent fencing where they may share in the cost of permanent fencing without the Commission making that determination in order to address Thompson's question. Lumbard Lumbard also added that staff speak with the neighbors about past or existing financial impacts to their property. 9:21 p.m. Public Comments Closed. Mason/Kozak Both Mason and Kozak thanked Mr. John for his comments and concerns. They also thanked Habitat for Humanity for working with the City on this project. Smith Smith further asked about setbacks and possible impact of lot lines. Binsack In response to Smith's question on the possible lot line issue, staff will ensure the property is surveyed and it meets the plan the Commission approves. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution No. 4336, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 9:23 p.m. Closed Item #7. None. REGULAR BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack No comments. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason No comments. Kozak Thanked staff for all agenda items. Kozak attended the following: 1/27: Mayor's Dinner • 2/1: FAA Workshop on Southern California Metroplex • 2/11: Tustin Exchange Club Bingo • 2/21: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop • 2/25: Tustin Community Foundation's "Sip, Stroll & Swirl" Minutes--Planning Commission February 28,2017—Page 12 of 13 Thompson Commented on the RHNA Goals and the tremendous progress and the accomplishments for the City. Thompson attended the folillowing: • 1/27; Mayor's Dinner 2/16-1 Civil Engineer's, Awards Dinner 2/28, ADHOC Committee Thompson shared an article from CNBC with regards to the "California Infrastructure" and referenced drought regulations. Smith Smith attended the Tustin Community Foundation's "Sip, Stroll & Swirl" event on 2/25 with favorable comments on the community and local merchants. LUmbard Lumbard attended the following events: 0 2/2: ACC-OC Leadership Reception * 2/8: Tustin Chamber Breakfast 0 2/16: Interviewed for the Tustin Senior Center Needs Assessment 0 2121; City Council/Planning Commission Workshop * 2/22: Citizen Participation Committee CDBG Block Grant Program 6 2/25: Tustin Community Foundation's "Sip, Stroll & Swirl" Thursday, March 2, 2017 — Old Town Parking Forum in the Clifton C. Miller Community Center. 9:29 p,m, ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 2017, at 7:�00 p.m, in the Clifton C. Miller Community Center at 300 Centennial Way. AUSTINLUM-6ARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 13 of 13 RESOLUTION NO. 4338 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 2016-020 TO ESTABLISH A NEW OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AND ADD SEATING TO AN EXISTING OUTDOOR SEATING AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING WINE TASTING AND MICROBREWERY BUSINESS AT 140 E. MAIN STREET, AND TO SATISFY REQUIRED ON- SITE PARKING THROUGH THE OLD TOWN PARKING EXCEPTION PROGRAM. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. A proper application was filed by Enrico Pozzuoli of Pozzuoli Winery, Inc., requesting to add a new outdoor seating area, add seating to an existing outdoor seating area, and satisfy required on-site parking through the Old Town Parking Exception Program a parking requirement of three (3) parking spaces for the property located at 140 E. Main Street. B. The project site is located within the Central Commercial (C2) Zoning District, the Cultural Resource (CR) Overlay District, and the Combining Parking (P) District and has a General Plan land use designation of Old Town Commercial which provides for a variety of retail and service commercial uses including restaurant uses. Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 935213.(d)(3)d, the proposed project requires approval from the Planning Commission in order to satisfy all or a portion of required on- site parking spaces through an Old Town parking exception. Pursuant to Sections 9272 and 9277 of the TCC, Design Review (DR) approval is required for outdoor seating areas. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin's (the City) General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. C. The proposed outdoor seating use is located in association with a commercial building, along commercial corridor where a variety of retail and restaurant uses are located. The characteristics of the proposed use and hours of operation would be similar to other businesses and restaurants in the vicinity. D. That the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole of the City in that: 1. The design for the outdoor restaurant area is compatible with the overall design of the building. Resolution No. 4338 Page 2 2. The outdoor seating area is included in the parking analysis for the use, which can be accommodated by a Parking Exception Program agreement. 3. The outdoor seating area in conjunction with a wine tasting room, as proposed, is compatible and consistent with development within the commercial areas of Old Town Tustin. There are commercial buildings providing similar type of outdoor seating use as proposed within the immediate vicinity of the project site. 4. The proposed development meets the findings required within Section 9352j3.(d)(3)d of the TCC to allow for the granting of a parking exception. 5. The City previously prepared the Old Town Parking Study that concluded that there is a significant amount of available parking in the area. 6. The parking exception for this project is consistent with the City's goal of introducing customer-attracting commercial uses, generating jobs, increasing the number of persons shopping and working in Old Town Tustin, and fostering economic development of the surrounding areas. 7. The City's Police Department has reviewed the application and has no concerns. E. The proposed project been found to be consistent with TCC Section 9352j3.(d)(3)d which allows all or a portion of a project's required on-site parking spaces to be met through the payment of an annual fee intended to compensate the City for the proportional use and maintenance of public parking based upon the Planning Commission's determination that the project meets the following findings: 1. The proposed project is an infill project located within the commercial district of Old Town. The proposed outdoor seating use would be located in conjunction with an existing wine tasting and microbrewery business, which was an infill project that replaced a retail store in the Old Town area. The Parking Exception Program agreement, which the applicant is requesting, would expand the business's capacity but would not involve additional building square footage. 2. The proposed promect is considered to be relatively small. The project consists of adding a 100 square feet outdoor seating area within the public right-of-way and adding seating in an existing rear outdoor seating area. This size is deemed to be relatively small in that the space is associated with an approximately 1,000 square-foot tenant space, which is considered a small commercial space. Resolution No. 4338 Page 3 3. The proposed voiect has incorporated building or site desi n enhancements that make it an outstanding addition to Old Town Tustin. The existing building on the property is a unique contributor to the commercial building portfolio in Old Town Tustin as it is a historical building constructed in 1925 and is one of the early commercial structures within the City of Tustin. The proposed outdoor seating area furnishings and railings are compatible with the existing building, and the proposed outdoor restaurant seating complements Old Town Tustin's design and character, and enhances the pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed project provides some onsite Parking, but is aesthetically superior to one that provided all required parking on site. The property currently provides five (5) on-site parking spaces for the tenant space. To accommodate the outdoor seating use, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Parking Exception Agreement. A total of three (3) parking spaces are required for the intended use of an outdoor seating area. 5. The_proj-ect applicant is conditioned to pay an annual fee for each public space not provided on site. The applicant is aware of the required annual fee of $60.00 per parking space established by the City Council. In addition, the applicant is also aware that the fee is subject to change as determined by the City Council. The conditions of approval require payment of the annual fee. F. The Old Town Parking Exception Fee was established at sixty dollars ($60.00) per space through City Council Resolution No. 12-27 and the applicant has requested parking exception and agreed to pay an annual fee for of$180.00 for three (3) spaces not provided on-site. G. As part of its Capital Improvement Program, the City is in the process of establishing locations and consistent design standards for parklets that will be installed within the public right-of-way to accommodate outdoor seating areas along Main Street and EI Camino Real in Old Town Tustin. There may be a potential location for a parklet on Main Street in front of Cox Market Plaza. The Community Development Director is authorized to approve amendments to the Revocable License Agreement and the Parking Exception Agreement, if applicable, to accommodate additional outdoor restaurant seating within a future parklet adjacent to the site. H. This project. is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). 2. The Planning Commission hereby approves DR 2016-020 authorizing a new outdoor seating area, adding outdoor seating and a parking exception of three (3) parking spaces for the property located at 140 E. Main Street, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, attached hereto. Resolution No, 4338 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 14th day of March, 2017. 77/ AUSTIN LUAA Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BfNSACK Planningi Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am, the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4338, was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin, Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of March, 2017. PLANNING C ) 11'w AYES: Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith (4) PLANNING COMMISSIONER WE& PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED- Thompson. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4338 DESIGN REVIEW 2016-020 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped March 14, 2017, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Community Development Director in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code or other applicable regulations. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Approval of Design Review (DR) 2016-020 is associated with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-02, which was approved under Zoning Administrator Action 14-001. Conditions of Approval for DR 2016-020 in this Exhibit shall supersede Condition of Approval 3.6 of Zoning Administrator Action 14-001 regarding outdoor seating areas. All other conditions of approval for CUP 2014-02 remain valid and in effect. (1) 1.4 Approval of DR 2016-020 shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request and associated fee are received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.5 Approval of DR 2016-020 is contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 4338 DR 2016-020 Page 2 (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 1162(a). (1) 1.7 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney's fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.8 As a condition of approval of DR 2016-020, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicants of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.9 DR 2016-020 may be reviewed on an annual basis, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with DR 2016-020, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke DR 2016-020. OUTDOOR SEATING DESIGN & USE (1) 2.1 The sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor seating area shall be restricted by and subject to any required State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) or other applicable license or permit governing the business establishment. Any outdoor seating area where alcoholic beverages are sold or consumed shall be enclosed by a physical barrier and shall be supervised at all times by an employee of the restaurant. No alcoholic beverages may be removed from the outdoor seating area, except to the interior of the restaurant. The portion of the barrier within the public right-of-way shall be removable. (1) 2.2 The 397 square-foot outdoor seating area includes 100 square feet at the front of the tenant space and 297 square feet at the rear of the tenant space. The outdoor seating area must comply with the approved plans and regulations and requirements set forth in TCC Section 9277. Any Exhibit A Resolution No. 4338 DR 2016-020 Page 3 significant modifications to the outdoor seating area must be approved by the Community Development Director. *** 2.3 The business establishment shall have a maximum of thirty-two (32) seats outdoors, which includes eight (8) seats in the front seating area and twenty-four (24) seats in the rear seating area. Any increase in the number of seats is subject to written approval from the Community Development Director. All outdoor furniture and fixtures must be of durable and sturdy construction and suitable for outdoor use. Furniture shall be in good condition without any visible dents, tears, rust, corrosion, or chipped or peeling paint and that it be in a clean condition at all times. *** 2.4 The outdoor seating area shall be available for use only during business hours for the wine tasting and microbrewery establishment as specified under Zoning Administrator Action 14-001 regarding CUP 2014-02. (1) 2.5 The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws and regulations concerning accessibility and nondiscrimination in the provision of services, and operation of the outdoor seating area shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. (1) 2.6 No outdoor keeping or storage of food or beverages to be served shall be permitted. No open keeping or storage of used dishes, utensils or food scraps shall be permitted. Self-closing outside trash containers shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. All outdoor seating areas shall be cleaned on a continual daily basis. (1) 2.7 All litter shall be removed from the exterior areas around the premises including public sidewalk areas and parking areas, no less frequently than once each day that the business is open. (1) 2.8 An outdoor seating area may have a menu board that does not exceed six (6) square feet in area. (1) 2.9 Doors from the main restaurant to the outdoor seating area shall be self- closing. (1) 2.10 The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct any fire exit, fire escape, or other required ingress or egress to any structure or property. (1) 2.11 All outdoor seating use shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. (1) 2.12 Adequate lighting shall be provided to illuminate the outdoor seating area, subject to Community Development Department review and approval. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4338 DR 2016-020 Page 4 *** 2.13 Permanent outdoor fencing and furniture shall not be permitted in the public right-of-way. The applicant shall remove all furnishings and obstructions to accommodate special events or maintenance of the public right-of-way upon request by the City. *** 2.14 Outdoor furnishings, umbrellas, etc. shall not encroach into the City's right-of-way unless a license is obtained from the Public Works Department. (1) 2.15 All on-site signs, including permanent and temporary signs/banners, shall comply with the City's Sign Code. *** 2.16 Prior to issuance of a building or encroachment permit, the applicant shall enter into the Old Town Parking Exception Program requiring the payment of an annual fee per space not provided on site that would compensate the City for the project's proportional use of public street and lot parking spaces. The cost is $60.00 per space per year calculated at 1 space per 100 square feet. Three (3) parking spaces are required for the outdoor seating area of 248 square feet. The Community Development Director is authorized to approve amendments to the Parking Exception Agreement, if applicable, to accommodate additional outdoor restaurant seating within a future parklet adjacent to the site. *** 2.17 Exterior materials and colors shall be subject to final field inspection by the Planning Division. (1) 2.18 If in the future the City determines that a parking problem exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the proposed project, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to prepare a parking demand analysis and bear all associated costs. If the study indicates that there is inadequate parking, the applicant shall be required to provide immediate interim and permanent mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. *** 2.19 In the event that the City implements programs and regulations to create a parking assessment district(s), the property owner and all successors in interest shall participate in a fair share contribution (for all public parking space allocation) in the implementation of such programs and regulations. PLANCHECK SUBMITTAL (1) 3.1 At the time of building or encroachment permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes, City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Exhibit A Resolution No. 4338 DR 2016-020 Page 5 Tustin. *** 3.2 Prior to any permit issuance, the applicant shall enter into an Outdoor Restaurant Seating Area Revocable License Agreement with the City's Public Works Department. (1) 3.3 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 3.4 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at sidewalks adjacent to the site. A minimum of four (4) feet of clearance shall be provided. The final wood railing and bench locations within the public right-of-way shall be determined by the Public Works Inspector in the field. (1) 3.5 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). a. The applicant/contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least sixty-five (65) percent of the project waste material or the amount required by the California Green Building Standards Code b. The applicant will be required to submit a $50.00 application fee and a cash security deposit. Based on the review of the submitted Waste Management Plan, the cash security deposit in the amount of five (5) percent of the project's valuation as determined by the Building Official, rounded to the nearest thousand, or $2,500, whichever is greater. In no event shall a deposit exceed $25,000. c. Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin". (1) 3.6 Any damage done to existing public right-of-way improvements and/or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final permit inspection. (1) 3.7 The applicant is responsible for all costs related to the installation, upgrade, alteration, relocation or abandonment of all existing City of Tustin public water facilities affected by the proposed project. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4338 DR 2016-020 Page 6 (1) 3.8 The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, for review and approval, construction details for the proposed outdoor fencing and furniture within the public right-of-way. Permanent fencing and furniture are not permitted in the public right-of-way. *** 3.9 Photographs and/or manufacturers' brochures depicting the proposed outdoor tables, chairs, umbrellas, trash receptacles and other proposed furnishings shall be submitted at plan check for review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 3.10 A Certificate of Appropriateness, issued by the Director of Community Development, shall be required at the time of building permit issuance. (1) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide written approval from the East Orange County Water District (EOCWD) for sewer connections for the additional seating. (1) 3.12 Prior to issuance of building permit, Orange County Environmental Health and Orange County Fire Authority approvals may be required. FEES (1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including, but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a) Building and Public Works permit fees. b) Applicable parking fees as required by Ordinance No 1416. (1) 4.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.