Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MIN 03-24-15MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 24, 2015 7:01 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Thompson 1. SEATING OF COMMISSIONERS LUMBARD, KOZAK AND SMITH Mayor Puckett The Mayor swore in Lumbard, Kozak and Smith. None. Approved, as amended. Motion: None Thompson Approved the nomination. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the February 241 2015 meeting as provided. Approved the February 24, 2015 minutes, as amended. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Rearranged the order of the Commission items. Moved the Regular Business items in front of the Public Hearing item. REGULAR BUSINESS: 3. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION — 435 W. SECOND STREET Owners of historic homes or commercial buildings in Tustin are eligible to participate in the City's plaque designation program, called the Tustin Historic Register. The purpose of the voluntary program is to recognize Tustin's historic properties, educate the public, increase public interest in historic properties, and promote community pride. The bronze plaques, purchased through the program, may be mounted on the building or set on metal stakes. The property owner of 435 W. Second Street wishes to participate in the plaque designation program. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 1 of 9 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commis West Second Street to t Designation Program and appropriate historical name construction of the property. Reekstin Presentation given. ;ion approve the nomination of 435 he Tustin Historic Register Plaque select "Ahern House" as the most and "circa 1915" as the date of It was moved by Smith to approve the nomination of 435 West Second Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program and selected "Ahern House" as the most appropriate historical name and "circa 1915" as the date of construction of the property, seconded by Altowaiji. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Reso. 4. DESIGN REVIEW 2015-003 A REQUEST TO SATISFY No. 4278 REQUIREMENT FOR FIVE (5) ON-SITE PARKING STALLS THROUGH THE OLD TOWN PARKING EXCEPTION PROGRAM AT THE JABBERWOCKY LOCATED AT 434 EL CAMINO REAL Request to satisfy requirement for five (5) on-site parking stalls through the Old Town Parking Exception Program at the Jabberwocky located at 434 EI Camino Real. Applicant: William Prescott 18752 E. 17th Street Tustin, CA 92705 Property Owner: Location: ENVIRONMENTAL: Margaret Pottenger P.O. Box 1946 Tustin, CA 92781 434 EI Camino Real This project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, "Existing Facilities". RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4278, approving Design Review (DR) 2015-003 approving a request to satisfy the requirement for five (5) on-site parking stalls through the Old Town Parking exception program at the Jabberwocky located at 434 EI Camino Real. Thompson recused himself from the item since he owns property within 300 feet of the project. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 2 of 9 Stonich Presentation given. The applicant, William Prescott, commended Stonich for the staff report and asked the Commission if they had any questions. The Commission did not have any questions for the applicant. Smith Smith's questions generally included: How the rate of $60 was determined; and he also asked if the agreement was similar to a "lease arrangement" or an "annual fee". Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's questions generally included: The rate does not offset the actual cost of parking; cost of a parking space is approximately 17,000 per space; however, this fee is to address maintenance (sweeping, landscape, repairs) of a space and the rate is prorated. In the future, the City could spread the cost via a parking assessment district for possible additional lots and structures within the area which then the surrounding businesses would be paying into the program as well. Stonich Stonich also added, the agreement would be signed, per the Conditions of Approval, then each year the business would receive a bill to pay for the following year and if the rate were to change, it could be changed by a City Council Resolution. It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4278, approving DR 2015-003 approving a request to satisfy the requirement for five (5) on-site parking stalls through the Old Town Parking exception program at the Jabberwocky located at 434 EI Camino Real. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson abstained. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 5. CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — No. 4277 SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 would provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District, allow new second residential units on any residentially zoned lot in the CR District regardless of lot size, and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. The standards for second residential units in all other areas of the City are not proposed to be amended, and all second residential units in the City would continue to be allowed ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. Code Amendment 2015-001 was properly noticed for a February 24, 2015, public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, staff provided a presentation, and several members of the public provided testimony. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 3 of 9 The Planning Commission deliberated the matter and then continued their consideration of Code Amendment 2015-001 to March 24, 2015, to provide adequate time for staff to provide an analysis based on alternative proposals. 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. 4277, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. Thompson Thompson recused himself from the item since he owns property within the CR District. Altowaiji Altowaiji informed staff and the Commission that he owns property within the vicinity of the CR District and asked Bobak to elaborate on the outcome of the inquiry to the Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC). Bobak Bobak's response to Altowaiji's comment generally included: The formal/informal advice Bobak received from the FPPC, on behalf of Altowaiji, on whether or not there was a conflict of interest since he owns condominium units close to the border of the CR District and his wife is a real estate agent/broker; and the FPPC confirmed there is no conflict of interest. Reekstin Presentation given. Altowaiji Altowaiji's comments generally included: His comments in the staff report he made at the previous Planning Commission meeting; suggested cutting all of his numbers in half; agreed with the original ordinance adding more units and the flexibility of the ordinance; again mentioned not allowing the 12,000 square foot lots to build is not providing flexibility; and he requested the ordinance be modified to allow the 12,000 square foot lots to build under the existing ordinance. 7:44 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Linda Jennings, resident at 350 South B Street, thanked staff for the presentation and sensitivity to the historic Old Town Tustin. Her concerns included: The size of the proposed units and the negative impact they would have on parking; the height of the units with regard to privacy; Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 4 of 9 suggested there be no windows on the side of the second units if they face the neighboring homes; and lot size would probably affect the trees negatively. Melissa Figge, resident at 665 W. Main Street, had concerns with the following: Suggested change would apply to the historic feel and look of Old Town; contradicting the time the City has put into considering ways to make Old Town more vibrant by creating a denser area of insufficient parking which would discourage people from visiting Old Town; Ms. Figge asked if the City is meeting the State requirement of affordable housing availability within the City; contrary to the intended plan to improve the vibrancy and the shopping of Old Town Tustin; and referred to the non - permitted second units and bringing them to the new code and to just simply make the units, from this point forward, meet the height restrictions and setbacks. 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. The Commission's questions generally included: Requested staff address the affordable housing question; asked for feedback on setbacks/coverage; and height restrictions. Reekstin Reekstin's response generally included: He referred to the regional housing needs numbers, and that the City is striving to achieve those numbers through implementation policies; second residential units are one way of achieving the affordable housing goals (new construction) as well as in other areas of the city; the proposed ordinance provides for setbacks and he further explained the setbacks in the front/rear/side and corner yards. There are no restrictions on windows although staff could recommend that owners enhance their landscaping for privacy matters. Altowaiji Altowaiji's questions/suggestions generally included: Reducing the second unit to 700 square feet and asked if that would eliminate the three bedrooms; he asked how many units would qualify to meet the standards -- he asked if that number would be twenty percent -- based on the 194 units; again stated his concern with limiting the size of the units for the smaller and larger units and said there would be no incentive for the owners to build; Altowaiji again disagreed with the flexibility and stated there are more restrictions; he would like the owners of the 12,000 square foot lots to be protected under the existing ordinance and not what staff is proposing; and stated the recommendation is the same as what was proposed at the previous meeting no alternatives were provided, as he desired. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Altowaiji's suggestion generally included: The 800 square feet could accommodate the three bedrooms with standard dimensions; stated the proposed ordinance does in fact give flexibility (i.e. could be smaller, attached to the primary dwelling, could be built above the garage, or second story); and 45 of the units are over 12,000 square feet. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 5 of 9 Lumbard Lumbard's questions/concerns generally included: Requested the definition of the existing standard for lots over 12,000 square feet in the City to level set what is current to what is proposed in the ordinance in order to assist the Commission further with their deliberations; he asked if there was a "not to exceed limit" on the second residential units and if a two -car garage would be required on these units regardless of the square footage; he also asked staff to clarify the proposed ordinance and if it was the same recommendation from the last Commission meeting (i.e. 600 square feet, covered parking area — garage or carport). Reekstin Reekstin's response to the Commission's questions/concerns generally included: The current City Code allows lots over 12,000 square feet to have a second residential unit on the R1 properties; the size of the units could be as large as ten percent of the lot area; and regardless of the square footage, a two -car garage would be required on the lots over 12,000 square feet. Binsack Binsack's comments to the Commission's questions/concerns generally included: Per the last meeting, staff was unclear as to what the Commission was requesting of staff; it appeared there was no consensus; two Commissioners seemed to be in favor of the item; Altowaiji appeared to want to leave the 12,000 square feet alone or allow a "sliding scale"; Smith seemed to be acceptable with the proposed ordinance for lots under 12,000 square feet, but wanted the lots over 12,000 square feet to be left alone; staff then brought back to this meeting what the ramifications of the alternatives would be; and Binsack advised the Commission of the next steps if the proposed ordinance was approved or if they should propose an alternative to be presented to the City Council for their recommendation. Altowaiji Altowaiji stated if staff had called him he would have agreed to a reduction to 700 square feet. Binsack Binsack stated, in general, the following: That staff has to report as to what occurred at the meeting; generally, the decision making process does not take place over the telephone; and that staff attempted to correctly and professionally respond to what the Commission asked of staff at the last Commission meeting. Lumbard Lumbard informed the Commission that if another option was selection by the Commission, then they could deny the proposed ordinance or try to vote on the recommended item and move forward. Smith Smith's comments generally included: Thanked staff for the analysis on what the scenarios would look like as well as the impact with regards to the environmental analysis; and the impact of the proposed ordinance is a balance between the thought of preserving existing owners of the 12,000 square foot lots or going with the smaller option. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked Smith to clarify his proposal since it was unclear to him. He also asked if Smith was preserving the option of 12,000 square feet under the current ordinance or if he was allowing the new ordinance under the proposed ordinance. Altowaiji stated he could agree if it was an either or option. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 6 of 9 Smith Smith's response to Altowaiji's questions generally included: If the property owner wanted to build a 600 square foot unit with a one -car garage on a lot larger than 12,000 square foot lot, he would be acceptable with that; his interpretation of the proposed ordinance was that staff provided an analysis of what he suggested at the last Commission meeting. Binsack The report identifies what the downfall would be if the Commission chose the "sliding scale" option. If the latter is the scenario, and a second owner wanted to add a two -car garage to a 600 square foot unit, they may be precluded from doing so. Lumbard Lumbard deferred his question to Bobak regarding legal issues and if giving certain property owners a choice then which standard would apply to them. Bobak Bobak's response to Lumbard's questions generally included: Her concern is not what choices are being given to the property owners, but the enforcement issues being created in terms of how to determine which standards would apply; if there are no set of standards to follow then giving property owners the option of deciding which standards they want to comply with, could cause issues for subsequent owners; and Altowaiji interjected stating Bobak could include in the ordinance so that staff would understand. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked if a property owner of a four bedroom unit wanted to add two additional bedrooms and they have a two car garage, the City would require a three car garage addition; and he stated there are options for every standard. Bobak Bobak stated it is not a question of which set of standards would be applied. An established set of standards would mean staff would look at that project and make sure the property owner complies with the standards, not, which set of standards should be used. Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: Thanked staff for the report and the community for coming out; again, as he stated at the last Commission meeting, the proposed code amendment is a reasonable compromise approach to a long-standing unresolved issue of second units and guest quarters; the proposed ordinance provides a standard to all properties within the CR District; varying from the proposal would not do justice; the proposed ordinance would add ancillary and incidentals to the main structure; if size is modified, could run into conflict; would like to see the privacy concerns be addressed on second story additions; and he recommended moving forwarded with the recommended action. Smith Smith comments generally included: The options on the 12,000 square foot units and being given certain rights; the dilemma of guest units and them no longer being a guest unit; Smith's interest in considering moving forward with staffs proposal; he urged recommending permit parking or addressing parking situations to the City Council; and that passing the proposed ordinance, the concerns of the community would have to be addressed. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 7 of 9 Lumbard After deliberation by the Commission, Lumbard asked for direction with regard to voting on the item. He also suggested sending a report to the City Council stating those Commissioners that support this item and that the issues previously stated need to be addressed. Binsack Binsack's stated staff could provide a report addressing the permit parking and other issues mentioned to the City Council. She also suggested reaching out to members of the community interested in the report moving forward as well. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated his support of the proposed code amendment, as previously stated at the last Commission meeting. Staffs suggested action is a result of a comprehensive analysis of the CR District as a whole and the impacts of suggested change and the change it would have in the CR District. He also mentioned that the City Council has goals in place related to the Downtown Commercial Core Plan. The proposed item would help reach those goals, but it does not address parking and unpermitted structures. Lumbard also stated that the proposed ordinance properly balances land use and the R1 Zone without overwhelming the historic culture of Old Town while increasing housing opportunities and is a workable solution. He noted his support of the recommendation. Altowaiji Altowaiji was still not in support of the item. He reiterated his comments previously stated. He also had unfavorable comments with regards to the report provided. Altowaiji stated he was willing to support Smith's proposal and was hopeful the other Commissioners would also support Smith's proposal. Lumbard Lumbard renewed his motion, as amended, with the ancillary concerns about parking, privacy issues consideration of code enforcement issues, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 3-1-1. Thompson abstained. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith Smith attended the 5K Leprechaun Leap on March 15, 2015. Lumbard None. Kozak Kozak attended the 5K Leprechaun Leap on March 15, 2015. He informed the Commission of the Parks & Recreation Easter Egg Hunt being held on April 4, 2015. Kozak thanked staff for the agenda items and for working with the Commission on the Second Unit proposal. He also congratulated Smith and Lumbard for their reappointment and to the Mayor for the swearing in. Altowaiji Altowaiji congratulated Kozak, Lumbard and Smith on their reappointment as well as the Mayor for the swearing in. Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 8 of 9 Thompson Thompson also congratulated his fellow Commissioners on their reappointment. He also attended the Building Industry Association Annual Conference on March 20, 2015. 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. J T4bMPSOk` Chairperson "o /. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission March 24, 2015 - Page 9 of 9