Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 05-08-18 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2018 7:09 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak All present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Ms. Linda Jennings comments/concerns generally included: The Hewes house, the first and only home in Tustin, will be placed on the National Register of Historic Places; she provided background information, establishment and duties regarding the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee (aka: Historic Resource Committee) (CRAC); the Tustin City Council dissolved the State mandated Committee and assigned the duties to the Planning Commission; the State Historic Preservation Office, has changed its position and does not authorize cities to combine Historic Resource Committees with their Planning Commission; the City of Tustin is one (1) of only two (2) cities in the state with this set up; and she requested that the City Council reinstate the Historic Resource Committee as required in the designation of the Cultural Resource Overlay District mandated by the State Office of Historic Preservation. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—APRIL 24, 2018 Minutes of the April 24, 2098 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the April 24, meeting. 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason to approve the Minutes of the April 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.08 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Section. 2. DESIGN REVIEW 2018-00007 Adopted Reso. APPLICANT/ No. 4364. PROPERTY OWNER: Christine Coursen P.O. Box 4087 Tustin, CA 92781 Minutes—Planning Commission May 8, 2018—Page 1 of 8 LOCATION: 1461 Garland Avenue REQUEST: A request to store a recreational vehicle on the existing residential driveway in front of the attached garage and install a vinyl gate across the driveway to screen the recreational vehicle from public view. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4364 denying Design Review (DR) 2018-00007 to authorize storage of a recreational vehicle (RV) within the required backup area for an existing two-car garage and installation of a vinyl gate across the existing driveway to screen a recreational vehicle stored in front of the garage from public view, on a property located at 1461 Garland Avenue. Hutter Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked staff if there is currently any other home in the applicant's neighborhood that has successfully screened a RV whether by permit from the City or a variance. Hutter Huffer was not aware of an RV that was explicitly approved for storage in the applicant's neighborhood. 7.15p.m. Opened the Public Comment Section. Coursen Ms. Christine Coursen, applicant, spoke in opposition of the recommendation and provided her comments (in writing) to the Commission. Her comments/concerns generally included the following: initially, Code Enforcement cited the applicant stating the fence was not acceptable; she spoke to a City supervisor and paid for her permit to have a temporary fence; she stated the City told her she needed to apply for a variance which was $3,000 therefore she did not apply for one; the possibility of parking the RV parallel in front of her property; she clarified that she did not request that her item be continued to this meeting versus the April 24, 2018 meeting — she simply agreed to have the item be continued being that the DCCSP item was being presented at that meeting; and she felt the TCC was not specific as to whether or not the fence had to be permanent or temporary. Minutes--Planning Commission May 8,2018—Page 2 of 8 Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: he asked if there was a discussion with City staff regarding the temporary fence and if it would satisfy the TCC; he asked if the City has information on an approved type of fence; referred to the neighbor's (Ms. Hudler) driveway and if her fence is acceptable or permitted; and Ms. Hudler has a corner lot therefore no issue with limiting access to the garage and is not encroaching in the required setbacks that was explained earlier in the Power Point presentation. Coursen After discussion with City staff, Ms. Coursen stated that Staff indicated the temporary fence is not sufficient because there was concern the fence would blow over. It was her understanding she could have a temporary fence because the TCC states a permit is not required for a temporary fence. Hudler Ruby Hudler, resident of 13071 Red Hill Avenue, spoke in favor of the applicant's request. She provided information with regard to her side yard (located on Garland Avenue) which includes a long driveway for RV access and her main driveway access being from Red Hill Avenue. Ms. Hudler stated that when she purchased her home, the fence was made of wood, so she paid approximately $37.00 for an Administrative Permit in order to install a vinyl gate. She felt the applicant's temporary fence looked similar to her fence. Mason Mason asked that if the fence was installed and there was no RV, would the applicant be required to file for a variance. VWIlkom Willkom stated that most of the homes on Garland Avenue do not have six (6) foot high fences in the front yard. Fences are typically installed along the side yard with side gates. With regards to Ms. Hudleris fencing on her corner lot property, the side gates were installed and permits obtained because they fit the requirement of her property, which is different from what is being proposed by the applicant. The fencing the applicant is proposing would be covering the majority of the front of the property, not just the side yard. Ms. Willkom also added that the proposed fencing is not typical and appropriate for the home, particularly in that neighborhood. Kozak Kozak referred to Ms. Coursen's April 20, 2018 letter included in the staff report with reference to the purchase of a new Sprinter to replace the RV and asked how it fits into the application. Coursen Ms. Coursen stated that after speaking with Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer, as long as she used the Sprinter as her primary vehicle that the City would make an exception to it being in her driveway. She added that at least four (4) other properties in the neighborhood are similar to her property. Thompson Thompson also asked if the Sprinter would fit inside her garage. Minutes—Planning Commission May 8,2018—Page 3 of 8 Coursen Per Ms. Coursen, the van is nine (9) feet tall and would not fit inside her garage since she uses the garage for storage. During discussion between the applicant and Commission, staff provided aerial views of the applicant and neighbor's property via Google Maps in order for the Commission and audience to gain a better understanding of the property and fencing. Smith Smith asked for clarification with regards to the Sprinter and the parallel parking location from the garage to the street. Coursen Ms. Coursen referred to the photos on the back of the April 20, 2018 letter which shows the Sprinter would be in front of the house, which is approximately nine (9) feet from the garage door up against the house. She stated she prefers to not have to park it in front of the garage door due to the difficulty of maneuvering it, but that it is possible. Thompson Thompson asked what the front yard setback requirements were as well as the side yard area. He also asked about the garage setback, which faces Garland Avenue. Coursen Ms. Coursen stated that the front yard setback requirements are twenty (20) feet and that the setback for the proposed fence is also twenty (20) feet. As for the garage setback, Ms. Coursen stated it was twenty-two (22) feet and the door opens up into the driveway not towards the street. Nutter Per Huffer, typically the garages that do face the street there will be approximately twenty (20) feet between the garage and the property line. Thompson Thompson asked if there would then be an opportunity to park the RV screening in front of the street side of the garage because the setback is supposed to be there. Nutter Huffer confirmed Thompson's previous statement. Coursen Ms. Coursen stated she would be willing, if preferred by the Commission, to change the location of the garage door by moving from the side to the front of the house, but that the setback would look exactly the same. She also offered to move her driveway. Kozak Kozak asked staff about access for emergency services personnel and how that would factor into the fence being considered. lillkom Per Willkom, if there is an emergency, it would be another hurdle for emergency personnel would have to go through if there is a fence along the front of the house. 7:36 p.m. Public Comment Section Closed. Minutes—Planning Commission May 8,2018—Page 4 of 8 Lumbard Lumbard asked staff the setbacks previously discussed, pertaining to the Tustin City Code. He asked if the fence would have to completely block the RV from the street. Bobak The fence does not have to be as high as the recreational vehicle. The City has historically not interpreted that code requirement to mean that the fence has to be at least as high as the RV but at least at the required minimum of six (6) feet. Lumbard Lumbard asked if the design review envision a six (6) foot high fence. He clarified to his fellow Commissioners that they were to address the aesthetics and setbacks. Willkom Per Willkom, there are two (2) main issues: 1) the storage location is blocking the access to the garage, 2) aesthetics — a fence or gate across the property line blocking the view of the home is not consistent with the design and style of the home in the neighborhood, and it is not compatible and appropriate. Bobak Bobak's final comment was that Commission was to consider the aesthetics and the intrusion into the setback areas. She also stated that staff could provide a Google Map view of the surrounding properties, if the Commission was so inclined. Mason Mason's final clarification question was that the Commission is deciding on the intrusion into the set back if a six (6) foot gate is allowed and it is properly placed. She did not see any reason to approve the variance given the level of detail. Lumbard Lumbard defined the item that the Commission is to consider based on the setbacks listed on Pages 32-34 of the agenda packet. He also asked staff to confirm that the applicant did not request a variance and that this was for a DR only. Nutter Per Huffer, in response to Lumbard's question, the applicant did not request a variance and that the Commission is to consider the DR only. Binsack Per Binsack, as a point of clarification, based on what has been presented to the Commission, a variance is needed but one was not requested. The purpose of bringing this item before the Commission was that Staff included findings for denial of the variance for the Commission's consideration Thompson Thompson voiced his econcern with the site limitations and setbacks. It appears the neighbor, Ms. Hudler, does not have the same situation. He referred to the TCC and that the proposed item violates the TCC. Encouraged the applicant to look at a different configuration. Minutes—Planning Commission May 8, 2018—Page 5 of 8 Kozak Kozak's final comments were that he was sympathetic to the applicant's request, but the City has rules, setbacks and other requirements. Kozak supported the recommended action. He suggested that if the applicant is going to purchase the Sprinter, work with staff on a temporary solution. Smith Smith asked staff what the recourse is for the applicant to make a formal determination about whether or not a new van conversion qualifies as an RV or not. Binsack Binsack stated she could follow up with the applicant, or the Code Enforcement Supervisor could, being that the applicant has already met with Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer, to review the specifications of the Sprinter or RV. Lumbard Lumbard's final comments included the following in general: trying to treat the applicant fairly; echoed comments his fellow Commissioners stated; and he encouraged the applicant to work with staff to find a solution. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4364. Motion carried 5-0. W111kom Willkom stated that there is a ten (10) day appeal period should the applicant want to appeal the item via the City Council. 7:49 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing Item. REGULAR BUSINESS: 3. WORKSHOP — HISTORIC PRESERVATION Received and The purpose of this workshop is to highlight the City's programs to filed the item. protect and revitalize historic structures, sites, and features within Tustin and to provide the Commission with an update on the status of the City's historic preservation programs and the Commission's efforts to date. Many of these programs were implemented in conjunction with the City's recognition as a Certified Local Government in Historic Preservation. Reekstin Presentation given. Thompson Thompson had favorable comments for Reekstin for a great presentation. Kozak Kozak echoed Thompson's comments along with the presentation being a refresher course. Mason Mason stated the presentation was a great overview and she asked why more people were not taking advantage of the Mills Act Program. She asked staff if the City would consider any other publication soliciting the Mills Act Program (i.e. Facebook or Next Door). Minutes—Planning Commission May 8,2018--Page 6 of 8 Reekstin Per Reekstin, he thought some people were very private, and maybe did not want inspectors inspecting their property and going through the process, but there are also residents who hear about it via word of mouth and therefore take action. Smith No comments. Lumbard Favorable comments for Reekstin The item was received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the following: • Kudos to Staff since the Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines were prepared in-house. Received an American Planning Association Awards for both documents. • City Staff will be receiving an award for updating the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. • May 9, 2018 -Wally Karp Memorial at City Hall at 5:30pm. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason made favorable comments to staff for the many historic education programs provided. Good job Reekstin! Smith No concems. Thompson Thompson congratulated the Jennings Hewes House. He asked that the Cultural Resources District be added to a future consent item along with the Commission's role in the Cultural Resources District. He attended the following: • 4111 The Flight Tour • 4112 Tour with OCTA - Environmental Cleanup Allocation Committee meeting • 4116 Gentlemen's Haberdashery Heart of Jesus Retreat Center in Santa Ana • 4117 OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting • 4119 OC Real Estate Luncheon in Support of Veterans 4120 Cal State Long Beach Mock Interviews for the Next Generation of Engineering Leaders • 4120 TCA Plein Air Outdoor Event Week of April 30th - ULI Conference in Detroit • April Conference—"Affordable Housing" Binsack Per Thompson's comment on the Commission's role in the Cultural Resources District, Binsack stated that the City Council is going to add the item to the agenda for the City Council's consideration. Minutes—Planning Commission May 8,2018—Page 7 of 8 Kozak Kozak thanked Reeksti!n: for the presentation, and congratulations to Steve and Linda Jennings on the National Register Recognition and to City Staff on the upcoming awards for the Tustin Legacy Community Specific Plan, Kozak attended the following events* # 4/28 Disaster Preparedness Event (City Sponsored) 0 5/'5 "Dollars for Scholars" fundraiser for the Tustin High and Foothill High Seniors. Lumbard Lumbard attending the following events: 0 5/2 Lum,bard participated in a BII A OC Next Gen Panel 0 4/28 OC Brewers Guild in Newport Beach Happy Cin:co De Mayo everyone! 815 ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 7:0,0 p,m, in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way, Closed in Honor of the Hewes, House. wm AUSTIN LUIVtSARD Chairperson jvrEtIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission May 8, 2018—PagB of 8