Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 12-12-17 MINUTES ITEM #1 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2017 7.00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 28, 2017 Minutes of the November 28, RECOMMENDATION: 2017 Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the November meeting, as 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. amended. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes of the November 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 2. 305 AND 315 SOUTH "C" STREET Received and At the November 14, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, a filed. representative of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy presented the Commission with a letter regarding the pending sale of the vacant Mary Tustin — Lindsay house located at 305 S. C Street in Old Town. The Conservancy expressed concerns about the future of the property and urged the Commission to take steps to preserve the house. This report provides the Commission with information related to the historic property located at 305 and 315 South "C" Street. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-16 TO ESTABLISH A Resolution No. RESTAURANT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING KARAOKE 4357, as FACILITY FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC amended. BEVERAGES AT 14561 & 14571 RED HILL AVENUE Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 1 of 11 APPLICANT: Dinish Mistry Voko Karaoke & Restaurant 14561 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY Richter Farms Trust OWNER: Interpacific Asset Management Company 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150 Westminster, CA 92683 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1 pertaining to existing facilities. REQUEST: A request to establish a restaurant use in conjunction with an existing karaoke facility and for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4357 approving CUP 2017-16 to establish a restaurant in conjunction with an existing karaoke facility and for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at 14561 & 14571 Red Hill Avenue. Dove Presentation given. Thompson Thompson referred to the staff report where 80 percent of the floor area is reserved for restaurant use and questioned if the 80 percent is being achieved by the rooms being considered as "seating area". He also referred to the Power Point presentation and asked how seating would be accomplished based on the floor plan. Dove In response to Thompson's question, Dove explained that each room has a table and banquet seating around the table for each room to be served by the wait staff. Thompson Thompson also mentioned that presently, the CUPs that have been in place allow food and preparation. He added that the only thing the Commission was considering was the sale of beer and wine. Thompson commented that it is a more sophisticated presentation of food. Dove Dove stated that the applicant could serve the food they are proposing (i.e. finger food and pre-packaged food) but that the City does not consider this type of establishment a bona fide restaurant. She stated that the difference is now the applicant has a full menu and the cooking facility is more in line with the proposed menu. Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 2 of 11 Thompson Thompson's final comments were related to avoiding piece-mealing. He mentioned the applicant's previous CUP applications. Thompson also asked if the proposed CUP had any other changes or applications being considered in the future. Dove Dove stated that staff was not aware of any other additional requests and she deferred the question to the applicant. Lumbard Lumbard requested clarification with the staff report stating "consistent hours with the rest of the tenants within the center" and asked if there were any other tenants currently operating past midnight. Dove Dove stated that other than Lamppost Pizza possibly operating past midnight, she was not aware of any other tenants operating past midnight. She added that the applicant already had approval for the 2:00 a.m. closing time. 7:12 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Mr. Ken Henderson, Tustin Greens resident, spoke in opposition of the item. His concerns generally included: facility too close to residential area; opposition of Condition 2.3 of Resolution No. 4357; referred to Thompson's question regarding the 80 percent seating; and Mr. Henderson called the facility a "club" and not a "restaurant". Mrs. Mistry, wife of the applicant, Dinish Mistry, approached the podium to answer the Commission's questions, on behalf of her husband, the applicant. Thompson Thompson referred to the applicant's already submitted three (3) applications on this facility and asked Mrs. Dinish if there were any other applications being considered. Mrs. Dinish's response to Thompson's question was, no applications are planned. She added that being business owners, she and her husband were not aware as to how much money they would be putting into their businesses. Mrs. Dinish mentioned the background of their karaoke businesses, along with the multiple applications submitted so far. She stated that the premise of the karaoke facility is "for people to stay in the room, have a good time, sing, eat and go". Mrs. Dinish added that she and her husband are hoping that the proposed CUP is approved since they are currently not making any profit. Mason Mason asked if the applicants would be serving a full menu at the establishment. In response to Mason's question, Mrs. Dinish stated that they would be serving finger foods, not entrees. The applicant's plan is to find a professional chef and then introduce entree items to the menu in the future. Kozak Kozak referred to the comments previously made by Mr. Henderson. He asked Mrs. Dinish if she was familiar with the Conditions of Approval, specifically, "doors are to be closed and locked during operating hours", as well as the definition of "closing time" in the proposed resolution stating that "all customers have left the premises". Kozak wanted to ensure that the Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 3 of 11 applicant was prepared to implement the Conditions of Approval as well as monitor the establishment. In response to Kozak's question, Mrs. Dinish stated that she and her husband are prepared to implement the Conditions of Approval as well as monitor the establishment. 7:22 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Smith Smith asked staff to confirm that the applicant is currently not serving food and that the requirement is that they would have to operate a full restaurant with a Conditional Use Permit. He referred to the proposed resolution and asked staff where, within the resolution, does it specifically refer to "food service operation". Dove In response to Smith's question on the food service operation, Dove confirmed that there is a condition that states that the food must exceed alcohol sales. Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to the proposed Resolution No. 4357, specifically Conditions No. 2.1 and 2.2, which identifies that the use has to remain as a bona fide eating establishment and the issuance of a Type 41 Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license is for a bona fide eating establishment. Smith Smith also stated that the applicant would not be issued their ABC license until they have proven that the restaurant operation is in effect and they actually have a chef hired and that the chef is producing food. Binsack In general, Binsack stated that it does not have to do with the chef, but the amount of food sales over alcohol sales (more than 51 percent food, 49 percent alcohol). Kozak Kozak further asked about the delineation of food service revenue and alcohol beverage revenue and if ABC monitored and reported back to staff. Binsack In response to Kozak's question, Binsack stated that the City does not require an audit on an annual basis. There is a condition that identifies that if the City requests audited receipts, that they be provided. Thompson Thompson referred to the Pizza Hut, within the same center, and asked if beer is currently being sold at that establishment. Binsack Binsack was not aware if Pizza Hut sold beer at that establishment. Lumbard Lumbard voiced his concern with the "piece-meal" approach. He stated that if the project was brought to the Commission (as a whole) one year ago, he would not have been in support of an alcohol license, extended hours, and allowing the karaoke business in that location because of the local residents. Lumbard also felt that although the business has been a "good neighbor", the extended hours of operation and liquor license changes the center, which he is not supportive of. Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 4 of 11 Mason Mason commented that after reviewing the Commission meeting minutes from the prior meeting, there seemed to be concern regarding alcohol service and hours of operation from the residents and public. She also made comments on the restaurant industry. Mason also concurred with Lumbard's previous statement on "piece-mealing". She stated that although there have been no reported issues with the establishment, adding beer and wine without an established restaurant causes concern. Mason added that the applicant continues providing audited numbers when the Commission has asked for receipts. She mentioned that the applicant had expressed concern with driving traffic to the area. Mason suggested adding conditions that any reported issues, noise, etc. from the public and the Tustin Police Department be immediately reviewed by staff, along with review of the CUP. Smith In response to Mason's comments, Smith stated that the elements still remain intact (six (6) calls) which remains in place as a threshold for staff to review the CUP. He also mentioned that if the applicant violates any of the conditions within the resolution, then the Director of Community Development can review further and make a decision whether or not to revoke the CUP. Thompson Thompson also had concern with the number of applications the applicant has submitted. He also felt reassured that the applicant would not submit another application. Thompson agreed with Mr. Henderson's concerns that the establishment would become a "night club" and the proximity of the establishment to the residential area. If the Commission approves the application, Thompson was in favor of adding a condition (to Condition 2.12) that requires staff to return to the Commission with any updates or reports on the establishment. Kozak Kozak did not have any further comments. Smith Smith's final comments generally included: he was in favor of the application; he made favorable comments on there being no issues reported on the establishment; and he was in favor of Thompson's suggestion on adding a condition. Lumbard Lumbard's further commented on paying attention to the precedent that the hours of operation and liquor license are set in line with the Red Hill Corridor. Kozak In response to Thompson's previous suggestion, Kozak asked staff to provide a report to the Commission, as done with previous CUP's, in six (6) months rather than amending the proposed resolution. Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to Condition 1.5 which is in regards to an "annual review" and suggested including "that CUP 2017-16 shall be reviewed within six (6) months..." and that if there were any issues, staff would notice the item for revocation. Motion. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4357, as amended. Motion carried 4-1. Lumbard dissented. Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission and public of the ten (10) day appeal period, should anyone oppose the item. Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 5 of 11 4. CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE NOVEMBER 14, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 10, DESIGN REVIEW 2017-011 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2016-03 APPLICANT: Berdj Keuylian Berhour Holdings, LLC 11803 Windhill Way Santa Ana, CA 92705 PROPERTY Berhour Holdings, LLC OWNER: 11803 Windhill Way Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 125 North "A" Street/ 395 West First Street ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the CEQA Sections 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) and 15331, Class 31 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation). REQUEST: A request to remove partial condition of approval "2g" from Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 (UP 76-27) by maintaining the use of the residential structure as a residence, restoring the existing residential structure to its historic appearance and combining two (2) parcels into one (1). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4351, approving CUP 2017-10 to modify UP 76-27 to remove partial condition of approval "2g" from Resolution No. 1574 to authorize the continued use of the residential structure on the subject property subject to a condition requiring that the dwelling remains affordable to low/moderate income renters for 55 years, Design Review 2017-11 to return the residential structure to its historic appearance, and Lot Line Adjustment 2016-03 to combine two (2) lots into one (1) parcel. Dove Presentation given. Mason Mason asked the Assistant City Attorney, Lois Bobak, and staff to provide additional explanation regarding "2G", of the Conditions of Approval, as it pertains to low income housing. She also asked for further explanation on the residential properties in the surrounding area. Bobak In response to Mason's question, Bobak generally spoke on the background of the property and she explained how Condition No. 2g was first imposed, which was in 1976 as part of the condition that the CUP allowed the property to be developed with the gas station. She added that since the property is Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 6 of 11 designated as a commercial use, it conforms to the First Street Specific Plan and the predecessor to the current owner did not comply with that condition. Per Bobak, in 2010, the new owner entered into an agreement allowing the five (5) year extension of the time period for converting the residential use to a commercial use. Willkom In response to Mason's second question regarding the surrounding properties, Willkom provided the following description of the surrounding properties: to the north of the property there is currently a single-family residence; to the east of the property there is a physical therapy business; to the south of the property, there are offices (commercial); and the remaining surrounding properties are an auto service related business, and to the north of that use is a single-family residence as well. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff about the enforceability of the new CUP since there have been problems enforcing in the past. He asked that if the Commission were to approve the CUP, how the City would go about enforcing the obligation to update the residential structure. Binsack Per Binsack, the City is trying to amicably work this out with the property owner. She referred the Commission to Exhibit E of the staff report, which was an agreement the City entered into with the current property owner. Given the fact that the owner failed to comply with that agreement, puts the entire site at risk, including the service station. Binsack stated that the City can enforce the agreement but have determined that the City would attempt some other compromise/solution first and if unable to do so, then the City will enforce the agreement. Thompson Thompson referred to the supplemental item received from the applicant, expressing their dissent with staff's recommendation. He also asked for further clarification regarding Condition No. 2g being put in place because the residence was too close to the service station. Thompson asked what the "genesis" was of removing the residential use on the property. Bobak In response to Thompson's question regarding Condition No. 2g, Bobak referred to the site plan and stated the following in general: the residential use of the property was and is a non-conforming use since the site is zoned commercial and it is occupied primarily by a commercial use; the commercial use extends into the boundaries of the residential property; there are gas station uses that cross over onto the boundary which is why the City required that the property owner treat it as a single property and that is why staff is processing the lot line adjustment; and the reason the residence is supposed to be converted to commercial use is because the residential use is a non- conforming use under the First Street Specific Plan. Thompson Thompson asked Bobak about the "next step" in the process as to the allowance in the proposal and how precedent setting it is. He also asked if it is creating a loophole or if there are reasons stating why the proposal makes sense. Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 7 of 11 Bobak Bobak responded that from staff's perspective, part of the reason the proposal made sense was the fact that it was providing low and moderate income housing. She referred to the scales of "do you want to eliminate non- conforming uses or do you want to maintain historic structures or do you want to provide low-income to moderate income housing?" The historic nature of the structure does not factor into that equation because you can maintain the historic nature of the structure by adaptive reuse. Bobak explained further that in staff's opinion, the elimination of a non-conforming use is important and it furthers all of the goals of the Specific Plan, the General Plan, and City Zoning regulations. Under Condition 2.3, it would continue to ensure that the property provides low and moderate incoming housing for at least 55 years. Thompson Thompson stated that since 1977, the property has continued to be rented and income has been generated to the property owner — 40 years of rent payments is a substantial amount to be generated on a use that should have never occurred, which is a significant benefit to the property owner. He then asked that if the Commission approved the item and the applicant enters into an agreement with the 55 year condition for low and moderate income, then decides to change the type of use five (5) years into the agreement, if the agreement would be canceled in order to make it commercial use, or is it even possible. Bobak In response to Thompson's previous statement, Bobak agreed with Thompson's previous statement. She further explained that the property owner will be able to continue to gather not only rent from the home but the profits from the commercial use on the property. The City could eliminate the commercial use on the property because of the applicant's failure to comply with the terms of the 2011 agreement. Instead, staff is "saying" we agree to maintain the commercial use, allow the property owner to continue to get the economic benefit of the commercial use on the property, as well as continue to get the economic benefit of the home on the property, but at a low and moderate income rate. Bobak Condition 2.3 would only require that the property be rented at moderate income rates as long as it is used for residential property. If the property owner decided that they wanted to adaptively reuse the property for commercial use, they could do that and then Condition No. 2.3 would no longer be valid. At any point, the applicant could adaptively reuse the property for commercial and the requirement for low to moderate income goes away. Condition No. 2.3 only guarantees the property remain low and moderate income for 55 years as long as it is used for residential purposes. Smith Smith asked staff that if the Commission did not approve the item would staff return back to enforcing the violated agreement. Binsack Binsack confirmed Smith's statement. Lumbard Lumbard asked if a 55 year housing agreement is typical for low to moderate income housing agreements in Tustin and if Condition No. 2.3 is converted to commercial use, can it be returned to residential use. He also asked if the housing agreement would become void if the property was converted to a commercial use. Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 8 of 11 Binsack Binsack stated that a 55 year housing agreement is typical for low to moderate income housing agreements in Tustin and if the property is converted to commercial use, it cannot return to residential status. Bobak Bobak added that it is standard to take a non-conforming use and convert it to conforming. She stated that a conforming use cannot be reverted to the non- conforming use and that the housing agreement would also become void if converted to commercial use. 8:05 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Ms. Seda Yaghoubian spoke on behalf of the applicant and her comments/concerns generally included: she asked the Commission to approve the CUP; the applicants major concern is related to Condition No. 2.3 regarding the affordable housing requirement; the applicants believe the condition is "disproportionate" to their request to continue the residential use of the historic house; the applicants requested the Commission approve the CUP without Condition No. 2.3 and to "treat their request with fairness"; Ms. Yaghoubian asked the Commission to "consider the fact that the applicants are not developers but gas station owners"; she provided additional background information on the applicants gas station and it being the main source of income for the family; the owners have lost all income from the residents that have lived at the property in the last 16 months; "a formal affordable housing agreement would create an unnecessary burden by adding a complex and logistical administrative compliance framework that the owners should not have to be subjected to"; the residential property has continually been used as a residence since the 1920's for low and moderate income; and Ms. Yaghoubian added that the applicants have been working with staff to address the many issues (engineering, architectural issues, etc.). Doug Ely, architect, assisted the owner of the property in the preparation of the rehabilitation plans. His comments generally included: if the property was converted to a commercial building (i.e. dentist office) it usually involves relocating windows and doors which leads to other issues in terms of compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards (S.I.S.) for historic preservation; in his opinion, the best use of this property is to keep it as a residence; Mr. Ely agreed with Ms. Yaghoubian with the burden of affordable housing limitations on the property; the S.I.S. really limits what can and cannot be done with the property; the size of the property will limit the actual use; and affordable housing is usually a percentage of a much higher density development. 8:12 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: he agreed with the statement of having 100 percent affordable housing requirement being burdensome if being treated as a development proposal, but this is not a development proposal; this is a mitigation to resolve a situation that has been ongoing for many years; staff has worked hard and insightfully to come up with a way to allow the residential non-conforming use to continue because it should have been removed 40 years ago; it is unfair to the rest of the development community; sees it as a solution, not a burden; and Thompson was in favor of Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 9 of 11 staff's recommendation. Mason Mason commended staff on their thoughtful approach to addressing an issue that has been long-standing and also looking at it from the context in the needs of the community; providing an opportunity to create some historic preservation in the city; commended the applicant for taking the time to keep the property updated and to keep it part of the commercial property; Mason was also in favor of staff's recommendation. Lumbard Per Lumbard, the most important period of time was in 2011 when the applicant entered into an agreement with the City to remove the residential structure within five (5) years and the applicant did not do so by 2016. He reiterated that the conditions stated to take "all necessary steps to make the property commercial or remove the residential structure" which did not occur. Lumbard added that from March 2016 to December 2017 the City has allowed the residential use to continue and the CUP that has been presented to the Commission is a "very productive compromise" protecting City goals of historic structures, low to moderate income housing; the proposed resolution is a "middle ground"; commended staff for working with the applicant; and he is in support of the project. Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: he commended staff and agreed with the comments his fellow Commissioners made; thoughtful approach done by staff to settle a long standing issue; agreed the low and moderate housing is as important as the historic preservation; agreement is necessary for the preservation of the affordable housing, although it is not a requirement that the particular use be maintained; and he is also in favor of staff's recommendation. Motion. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson to adopt Resolution No. 4351, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Binsack Binsack stated, for the record, that it is an appealable item to the City Council with the appeal period being ten (10) days to the City Clerk's Office. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission of an email Dove sent to them requesting information for the CLG report due to the CLG Program. "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!" She looks forward to working with the Commission in 2018. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason thanked the former Mayor Bernstein and Mayor Pro Tem Puckett for their service. She congratulated the newly appointed Mayor Al Murry and Mayor Pro Tem Beckie Gomez and thanked staff for their hard work. "Happy holidays!" Lumbard Lumbard voiced his concern with there being no cross walk near the Tustin Family Youth Center (Sycamore/Newport) where children and residents cross frequently. He asked Binsack to discuss the concern with the Public Works Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 10 of 11 Department to ensure it is safe to cross. Lumbard attended the following events: • 12/5 Mayoral Changeover — Congratulations to Mayor Murray and Mayor Pro Tem Gomez! • 12/8 Tustin's Christmas Tree Lighting • 12/11 Tustin Youth & Family Center's 20th Anniversary Celebration Lumbard thanked staff and the Commission for the last year and he wished everyone "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays". Thompson Thompson echoed favorable comments towards staff and wished everyone a "Merry Christmas". He attended the following events: • 12/1 He completed the ULI mentorship program • 12/5 Mayoral Changeover - Congratulations Mayor Murray and Mayor Pro Tem Gomez! • 12/11 Tustin Youth & Family Center's 20th Anniversary Celebration • 12/12 OCTA Bicycle Pedestrian Workshop Kozak Kozak concurred with Lumbard's concern with regards to the pedestrian cross walk at Sycamore/Newport. He added that at the northwest corner there is already a handicap ramp installed. Kozak congratulated Mayor Murray and Mayor Pro Tem Gomez and thanked our former Mayor Bernstein for his dedication to the community. He also commended staff for their hard work and looks forward to working with staff in the next year. Kozak attended the following events: • 12/5 Mayoral Changover • 12/8 Tustin's Christmas Tree Lighting • 12/11 Tustin Youth & Family Center's 20th Anniversary "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!" Smith Smith was very thankful for staff and for our former Mayor Bernstein's leadership and to Mayor Murray for his future leadership! He was also thankful for the Old Town as a "backdrop for photo art"! "Happy holidays everyone!" 8:31 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January 9, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 11 of 11