HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW 2018-000007Agenda Item 12
AGENDA REPORT Reviewedger
City Man a
Finance Director
MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 2018
TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
DESIGN REVIEW 2018-00007, A REQUEST TO STORE A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IN FRONT OF THE ATTACHED GARAGE
AND INSTALL A VINYL GATE ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY TO SCREEN
THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FROM PUBLIC VIEW.
APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER:
Christine Coursen
P.O. Box 4087
Tustin, CA 92781
SUMMARY:
LOCATION:
1461 Garland Avenue
On May 8, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4364, denying
Design Review (DR) 2018-00007 to authorize the 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
home from public view.
On May 11, 2018, the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision. (Attachment F)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 18-47 (Attachment G) upholding the
Planning Commission's decision to deny authorization 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 on the property located at 1461 Garland Avenue.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the applicable Design Review application and associated appeal
fees.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 2
CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN:
The denial of the project furthers the objectives of the following Strategic Plan goals:
• Goal A: Economic and Neighborhood Development — Maintain the vibrancy and
quality of life in the community.
• Goal B: Public Safety and Protection of Assets — Maintain that Tustin is an
attractive, safe and well maintained community in which people feel pride.
APPROVAL AUTHORITY:
Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9294b, any decision of the Planning
Commission may be appealed to the City Council by any person and that the appeal
hearing shall be de novo and the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions,
disapprove the project, or remand the matter to the Planning Commission with direction
from the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 2017, Code Enforcement staff issued a Notice of Violation for the
storage of an RV on the residential property and in public view. The property owner, in
response to the November notice of violation, installed a portable vinyl fence to screen
the RV (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Street View
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 3
On February 15, 2018, a Final Notice of Violation was issued to the property owner
regarding storage of an RV and unauthorized portable vinyl fence. The property owner
was requested to remove the RV and portable fence because the portable fence poses
a hazard to health and safety and the RV storage is in violation of the TCC.
The property owner wished to contest this determination by proposing the placement of
the same vinyl fence into holes drilled onto the concrete driveway and asked the City to
consider this as a permanent gate to screen the RV. In addition the applicant indicated
that while the RV storage area encroached onto the required backup area, there is
adequate area in front of the garage to allow cars to enter and exit the garage.
On May 8, 2018, the Planning Commission considered the request and adopted
Resolution No. 4364 denying the proposed RV storage and screening.
On May 11, 2018, the applicant submitted a written appeal of the Planning Commission
decision stating that the proposed gate can meet the TCC requirements and that the
garage backup distance requirement does not apply to the subject property.
TCC Section 9294b states that a decision of the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council and that the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on
the item and that the hearing shall be de novo.
DISCUSSION:
This staff report is organized as follows:
• Site and Location — provides the context of the property layout and surrounding
areas.
• Application Submitted — a request by the applicant to allow for storage of an RV
within the required backup area and the installation of vinyl fence along the front
of the property.
• Tustin City Code Requirements, Variance Required and Design Review —
provides provisions contained in the TCC applicable to the request and property.
This section also provides a graphic describing the requirements and how the
request does not meet the TCC.
• Appeal Discussion — appeals provided by the applicant and staff responses.
Site and Location
The property is comprised of a 1,471 square -foot single family residence with an
attached 441 square -foot garage and located on a 7,200 square -foot lot within the
Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The residence was built around 1965
and annexed into the City in 1987.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 4
Uses surrounding the subject property are single family residential to the southeast,
southwest and northwest, and office uses to the northeast.
Figure 2 — Vicinity Map
The following photographs show properties that are adjacent to the subject property and
show that fences on the property, when present, do not cover the front of the houses.
They are low fences and consistent with the Tustin City Code.
Figure 3 —1451 Garland Ave.
Figure 4 —1462 Garland Ave.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 5
Figure 5 —13071 Red Hill Ave.
Application Submitted
The applicant submitted a Design Review application for approval to install vinyl gates
across the driveway as screening for the RV storage. The RV storage would also require
a variance request to encroach into the garage backup area but a variance application
was not submitted.
Plans for three (3) similar proposed gate configurations, with variation of gate location,
were submitted (Attachment C). The proposed gate configuration would have two (2)
swing -out panels that are twelve (12) feet wide for vehicles, and one (1) panel
approximately three and one-half (3.5) feet wide as a pedestrian gate.
Tustin City Code Requirements
TCC Section 9266c2. states that RV storage is permitted when located outside required
building setbacks, on a paved surface, and screened from public view. The required
setbacks for the subject property are twenty (20) feet from the front property line, and
five (5) feet from the side and rear property lines. The RV is approximately eight (8) by
twenty-two (22) feet in dimensions. Figure 6 provides a diagram with more context by
showing the structure, dimensions and an illustration of the proposed gate, RV storage
and garage backup area.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 6
TCC Section 9262b requires that off-street parking areas and access ways shall be
made permanently accessible, available, marked and maintained for the purposes of
temporary vehicle parking and access. TCC Section 9271 requires approval of a
Design Review for exterior modifications on private property. In addition, TCC 9292
requires approval of a Variance if the proposed improvements are not in conformity with
the provisions of the TCC.
Garland A�nue
• 335'
20'
IProposed Gate
2'4'1 i \
1 I 1
1 ' Backup Area
Pianterl 1 1 1 295
1
I'�--25' Size of RV and proposed
5 Storage Area
8'22• x
Garage I �.
Backup o°°r I 1 RV Encroach into
I Area \ ;' I_ Backup Area
� I
I
I
I
� I
Property Line
Figure 6 — Partial Site Plan with RV Storage and Gate
The existing garage is a side -loaded garage with the roll -up door facing the side yard
instead of the street (See Figure 6). This configuration requires twenty-five (25) feet
backup distance in front of the garage door to allow vehicles enough room to maneuver
out of the garage and onto the street (TCC Section 9267a6).
The two -car garage for single family homes must be clear of obstructions that would
prevent vehicles from entering, parking in and exiting the garage.
Staff analyzed the proposal and determined that the RV storage would encroach into
the required backup distance and prohibit access to the garage.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 7
Variance Required
The proposed RV storage would necessitate a variance due to the proposed deviation
from the required backup distance for the garage. Although the property owner has
been informed about the need of a variance application, a request for a variance was
not submitted.
However, if a variance request was submitted, the circumstances to support the
required findings for a variance are not present. Findings to approve a variance
requires that there are special circumstances regarding the property that would justify
granting of the variance and would not allow a special privilege to the subject property
that other similar properties do not already have.
The proposed RV storage and gate would not meet the criteria for granting a variance
because of there are no special circumstances applicable to property that would warrant
the granting of a Variance for following reasons:
1. The lot size is typical of any other lots in the neighborhood.
2. The lot shape is rectangular (not an irregular shape) and is typical in the
neighborhood.
3. The topography is generally flat and there is no unique slopes or hillside
applicable to the property.
4. The building layout is similar to other houses in the neighborhood.
5. The situation is a self imposed hardship (personal circumstances), not a
condition particular to the property.
Approval of this variance would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the
circumstances of the property are common throughout the R1 zoned properties. Should
there be support for the request, it may be appropriate to amend the TCC so all property
owners in single family zoning districts may store RVs within the front of the home and
also use temporary fencing.'
Design Review
The explicit purpose of the proposed gate would be to the screen the RV. Since the
storing of the RV in the proposed location would not be allowed by the TCC, there is no
justification to approve the gate. The addition of gates and fencing would also reduce
the ability for cars to maneuver in and out of the garage.
From a design review perspective, the proposed gate would essentially create a walled-
off property where the view of the single-family house is obscured by the gate. The
In 2008, the City extensively studied the storage of recreational vehicles within residential areas.
Ordinance No. 1354 was adopted by the City Council in 2008, establishing the current recreational
vehicle storage standards. Modification of the established standard should be conducted as a citywide
analysis and not on an individual property basis.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 8
photos in Figure 1 show temporary vinyl fence panels in front of the RV and illustrate
the general appearance of the property if gates were installed on the driveway.
High walls that obscure the view of the house from the street reduce the neighborhood
look and feel of being an inviting and engaging area. The proposed gate would not be
harmonious with the customary style of improvements in the surrounding area and
would impair the quality and desired general appearance of the neighborhood.
APPEAL DISCUSSION:
The applicant submitted an appeal that stated 1) the backup space requirement for a
garage does not apply to the subject property and a variance is not required, 2) a gate
can be installed across the driveway and is not detrimental to the neighborhood, and 3)
the RV can be stored adjacent to the front of the house outside of the backup area of
the garage. The following sections contain staffs responses to the appeal.
Item 1: The twenty-five (25) feet backup distance requirement for garages does
not apply to the subject property.A variance is not required since the backup
distance requirement does not apply to the property.
Staff Response: An RV, whether it is a motorhome, trailer, or boat, may not be stored
within setback areas and/or in a location that would restrict the use of required parking
spaces and/or garages. TCC 9267a6 indicates that where garages face each other and
are separated by a shared driveway, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty-five
(25) feet. The minimum of twenty five (25) feet backup distance requirement was
intended to ensure that vehicles have adequate room to exit the garage and maneuver
into the street when the drive aisle is constrained with structures on both sides.
Item 2: Temporary fence does not need a permit and therefore can be placed on
the property. The gate and fencing is not detrimental to the health, safety or well-
being of the neighborhood.
Staff Response: TCC 9266c2 indicates that storage of a recreational vehicle is
prohibited except when located outside of any required front, side, or rear yard
setbacks, on a paved surface, and when fully screened from view from the public right-
of-way and adjoining properties by a wall or fence to a minimum height of six (6) feet
and landscaping in a manner approved by the Community Development Director.
Notwithstanding that the portable vinyl fence panels placed on umbrella stands are not
considered as appropriate screening, the portable fencing implemented by the applicant
is a potential hazard to people and property. The fencing panels are not secured to the
ground and they could be blown over by strong winds and/or fall on someone.
Placement of vinyl fence panels on umbrella stands is not a typical application of vinyl
fence panels, which were designed to be installed in a permanent manner. The
applicant's option to put holes in the driveway concrete and secure the vinyl fence
panels into the holes also pose potential hazards to passersby.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 9
Item 3: Recreational vehicle can be parked outside of backup area and comply
with storage location requirements.
Staff Response: The applicant provided photographs of a minivan abutting the front of
the house and positioned parallel to the street, which was attached to the Planning
Commission staff report and shown in Figure 7 for reference. According to the applicant
this location would not be encroaching into the backup area in front of the garage.
Figure 7 - Photograph of minivan parked adjacent to the front of the house.
Based on research, there is a band that is approximately seven (7) to eight (8) feet wide
between the building eave and the garage door. While the minivan may fit nicely in the
area, the RV is much taller, longer and larger (see Figure 8).
Figure 8 - Photograph of minivan and RV in front of the house.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Code of
Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) pertaining to projects
that are disapproved.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 10
FINDINGS:
In determining whether to deny the Design Review for vinyl gate across an existing
residential driveway for storage of a recreational vehicle, the City Council must
determine whether it can be found that the location, size, architectural features, and
general appearance of the proposal will impair the orderly and harmonious development
of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. A
decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings:
1. That the existing garage on the subject property requires a backup distance of
twenty-five (25) feet in front of the garage door. That the proposed storage of a
recreational would encroach into the required backup distance. That allowing
such an encroachment would require a request for a variance from the backup
distance requirement, and/or a comprehensive Tustin City Code amendment.
That such a variance request was not submitted by the applicant.
2. That a vinyl gate across the driveway would create a closed -off look to the
property and impact the general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. That
single-family properties in the area have low walls or no walls in front of the homes
visible from the public street.
3. That temporary and/or portable fencing is not appropriate for this property in that
the fence is not safe, has the potential of being blown over by winds, creates an
undesirable aesthetic and generally detrimental to the health, safety and wellbeing
of a single family residential neighborhood.
4. That the proposed gate may hinder emergency responders in gaining access to
the property in an emergency situation to this site, or if this became a City-wide
standard, to other sites.
5. That a variance would be required since the proposal includes a deviation from
the required backup distance for a garage and results in prohibiting vehicular
access to the garage.
6. That if a variance request were submitted, the request would not qualify for
approval of a variance in that the property does not have special circumstances on
the subject property that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zone classification. That the proposed RV storage and
gate would not meet the criteria for granting a variance because of the following
reasons:
a. The lot size is typical of any other lots in the neighborhood.
b. The lot shape is rectangular (not an irregular shape) and is typical in the
neighborhood.
City Council Report
July 17, 2018
DR -2018-00007
Page 11
c. The topography is generally flat and there is no unique slopes or hillside
applicable to the property.
d. The building layout is similar to other houses in the neighborhood.
e. The situation is a self imposed hardship (personal circumstances), not a
condition particular to the property.
7. That approval of such a variance would set precedence for the R1 zoning district
because the circumstances of the property are common throughout the R1 zone;
therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a variance, but
rethinking the RV storage restriction on a city-wide basis. Should this be a
desired outcome, an impact analysis city-wide would be appropriate and
necessary.
8. That the explicit purpose of the proposed vinyl gate across the residential
driveway is to screen recreational vehicle storage. As proposed, the recreational
vehicle storage is not allowed by the TCC and therefore there is no need for the
proposed vinyl gate.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and
adopt Resolution No. 18-47 denying DR -2018-00007 to authorize an 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.
Edmely ne V. Hutter
Senior Planner
Attachments:
l
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
A. Location Map
B. Land Use Application Fact Sheet
C. Submitted Plans
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4364
E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 8, 2018
F. Written Appeal
G. City Council Resolution No. 18-47
ATTACHMENT A
Location Map
LOCATION MAP
DR -2018-00007
1461 GARLAND AVE.
ATTACHMENT B
Land Use Fact Sheet
LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET
1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): DR -2018-00007
2. LOCATION: WEST OF NW CORNER OF RED HILL AVE. & GARLAND AVE.
3. ADDRESS: 1461 GARLAND AVE.
4. APN(S):103-532-09
5. PREVIOUS APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: NONE
6. SURROUNDING LAND USES:
NORTH: OFFICE SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL
EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: RESIDENTIAL
7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION:
NORTH: PROFESSIONAL (Pr)
SOUTH: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1)
EAST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1)
WEST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1)
8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
NORTH: PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
9. SITE LAND USE:
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
A. EXISTING: RESIDENTIAL
B. PROPOSED: RESIDENTIAL WITH RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE.
C. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GP: NO CHANGE
D. ZONING: R1 PROPOSED ZONING: NO CHANGE
DEVELOPMENT FACTS:
10. LOT AREA: 7200 SQUARE FEET (EXISTING)
11. PARKING: 2 GARAGE SPACES (EXISTING)
ATTACHMENT C
Submitted Plans
J
3
V
a W
� Q
Ll
m
t;
O
a
W
Q
N
r -I
Q Li
Lfl
Q O
m
m
2 M
j X
ryj
>
cr
p
p vi
o
N
dl
N
d
rl
vi
n
0
x
t
N
N
z
w
a
O
z
LU
x
3
z
z
w
LL
z
O
N
v
N
0
W
N
O
J
U
z
W
S
3
w
z
z
w
w
z
z
0
Ln
a
N
W
V
z
w
LL
tz
Lq
N
Q
K
O
Lq
d
x
tz
Ln
O1
N
40 4
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4364
RESOLUTION NO, 4364
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 2018-00007, A REQUEST TO
AUTHORIZE THE STORAGE OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WITHIN
THE REQUIRED BACKUP AREA OF AN EXISTING TWO -CAR GARAGE
AND INSTALL A VINYL GATE ON AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
DRIVEWAY FOR SCREENING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
STORAGE, ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1461 GARLAND AVENUE.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That on November 6, 2017, a Notice of Violation was issued for the
subject property. That on February 15, 2018, a Final Notice of Violation
was issued for the subject property regarding recreational vehicle storage
and a temporary vinyl fence.
B. That a proper application for Design Review 2018-00007 was filed by
Christin Coursen, applicant and property owner, to request a vinyl gate
across the existing residential driveway for recreational vehicle storage,
located at 1461 Garland Avenue.
C. That the subject property is designated as Single Family Residential (R1) on
the City of Tustin Zoning Map.
D. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said application
on April 24, 2018, by the Planning Commission at which the, Planning
Commission continued the project to the May 8, 2018, meeting.
E. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed and held for said application
on May 8, 2018, by the Planning Commission.
F. That the existing garage on the subject property requires a backup distance
of twenty-five (25) feet in front of the garage door. That the proposed
storage of a recreational would encroach into the required backup distance.
That such an encroachment would require a request for a variance from the
back-up distance requirement. That such a variance request was not
submitted by the applicant.
G. That in denying the Design Review for vinyl gate across an existing
residential driveway for storage of a recreational vehicle, the Planning
Commission must determine whether it can be found that the location, size,
architectural features, and general appearance of the proposal will impair
the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future
development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. A decision to deny
this request may be supported by the following findings:
Resolution No. 4364
May 8, 2018
Page 2
That a vinyl gate across the driveway would create a closed -off look
to the property and impact the general welfare of the surrounding
neighborhood. That single-family properties in the area have low
walls or no walls in front of the homes visible from the public street.
2. That temporary and/or portable fencing is not appropriate for this
property in that the fence is not safe, has the potential of being blown
over by winds, creates an undesirable aesthetic and generally
detrimental to the health, safety and wellbeing of a single family
residential neighborhood.
3. That the proposed gate may hinder emergency responders in
gaining access to the property In an emergency situation.
4. That a variance would be required since the proposal includes a
deviation from the required back-up distance for a garage and
results in prohibiting vehicular access to the garage.
5. That if a variance request were submitted, the request would not
qualify for approval of a variance in that the property does not have
special circumstances on the subject property that deprive it of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification. That the proposed RV storage and
gate would not meet the criteria for granting a variance because of
the following reasons:
a. The lot size is typical of any other lots in the neighborhood.
b. The lot shape is rectangular (not an irregular shape) and is
typical in the neighborhood.
C. The topography is generally flat and there is no unique
slopes or hillside applicable to the property.
d. The building layout is similar to other houses in the
neighborhood.
e. The situation is a self imposed hardship (personal
circumstances), not a condition particular to the property.
6. That approval of such a variance would set precedence for the R1
zoning district because the circumstances of the property are
common throughout the R1 zone; therefore, the issue becomes no
longer a question about a variance, but rethinking the RV storage
restriction on a city-wide basis. Should this be a desired outcome,
an impact analysis city-wide would be appropriate, necessary and
cost prohibitive.
Resolution No. 4354
May 8, 2018
Page 3
7. That the explicit purpose of the proposed vinyl gate across the
residential driveway is to screen recreational vehicle storage. As
proposed, the recreational vehicle storage is not allowed by the
TCC and therefore there is no need for the proposed vinyl gate.
G. That this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects
which are disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Design Review 2018400007, a request
for authorization to store a recreational vehicle within the required backup area of a
two -car garage and install a vinyl gate across an existing residential driveway for
recreational vehicle storage screening.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the 8th day of May, 2018.
AUSTIN LUMBAR
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Resolution No. 4364
May 8, 2018
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF TUSTIN }
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 4364 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of May, 2018,
PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT:
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith.. Thompson (S)
F-
I
ATTACHMENT E
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 8, 2018
1
1
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 812018
7:09 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak
Ap present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith,
Thompson
None. PUBLIC CONCERNS:
Ms. Linda Jennings comments/concems 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 comer 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.
l711kom 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. Hudler's
fencing on her comer 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.
Hutter 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.
Hutter Hutter 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.
Wiiikom 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
1
1
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.
Lumbaid 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.
WNikom 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.
Huder 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 seAsider concern 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.
Lumbar! 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.
W7ilkom Wilikom 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
1
1
1
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 Reekstinl
Smith No concerns.
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:
• 4/11 The Flight Tour
• 4112 Tour with OCTA - Environmental Cleanup Allocation
Committee meeting
• 4/16 Gentlemen's Haberdashery Heart of Jesus Retreat
Center in Santa Ana
• 4117 OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting
• 4/19 OC Real Estate Luncheon in Support of Veterans
• 4120 Cal State Long Beach Mock Interviews for the Next
Generation of Engineering Leaders
• 4/20 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 Reekstin 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:
a 4/28 Disaster Preparedness Event (City Sponsored)
• 5/5 "Dollars for Scholars fundraiser for the Tustin High and
Foothill High Seniors.
Lumbatd Lumbard attending the following events:
« 5/2 Lumbard participated in a BIA OC Next Gen Panel
• 4/28 OC Brewers Guild in Newport Beach
Happy Cinco Cie Mayo everyone!
8:25 ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled
for Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 7:00 p,m. in the City Council Chamber
at 300 Centennial Way.
Closed in Honor of the Hewes House.
1
AUSTIN 1-01015ARD
Chairperson
JVNIREETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
1
Minutes — Planning Commission May 8, 2018 — Page 8 of 8
Written Appeal
RECEN a
May 11, 2018 1 i 2016
TUSRE: 1461 Garland Avenue —Resolution Na. 4364, Passed and Adopted May 8,
LMAY
Y CERK�'S OFF:
The Planning Commission stated that I could request an appeal of the above resolution.
Edmelynne V. Hunter informed me that in order to request an appeal I needed to write a letter
and submit it within ten (10) days. I am writing this letter to request an appeal the above
Resolution.
Background:
On November 6, 2017, Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer (Brad), mailed to me "NOTICE OF
VIOLATION/PRE-CITATION NOTICE —1461 GARLAND AVENUE— PARCEL # 103-532-09 CASE #
V2017-0331" stating, in part "You are hereby directed to remove the motor home from the
property or to store the motor home in compliance with the Tustin City Code 9266 (c)(2) by no
later than November 19, 2017."
Storage of a recreational vehicle is prohibited except when located outside of any
required front, side, or rear yard setbacks, on a paved surface, and when fully screened
from view from the public right-of-way and adjoining properties by a wall or fence to a
minimum height of six (6) feet and landscaping in a manner approved by the Community
Development Director. No habitation is allowed at any time.
I was out of town and received the notice on Monday, November 20, 2017. 1 immediately went
to City Hall to speak to Brad. Brad introduced me to Edmelynne V. Hunter, Senior Planner
(Edmelynne). Brad, Edmelynne, and I discussed the appearance of the fence; and it was agreed
that a vinyl fence with a lattice design at the top would be the best option. Edmelynne told me
I needed to apply for a permit to build the fence and to draw a plan. Brad told me that I could
continue to park the RV in my driveway while the fence was in process and that he expected
that I would have begun construction by the end of the calendar year.
returned the following day with the drawings and pictures of possible fences. Edmelynne
picked the one that she liked the best. She then informed me that I needed it would be
necessary to have the back-up distance of twenty-five (25) feet between the garage door and
the RV. I asked if a permit would be required to build a portable fence and was told "NO".
However, Edmelynne stated that she was concerned about a portable fence being able to blow
over in the wind. I stated that I was confident that I could build one that was sturdy enough to
withstand the wind. Edmelynne stated that she felt that the portable fence was not what the
Page ( 1
City would prefer. I again asked if there was any Code stating that it was not permitted; and
was told "NO".
Based on the information I had, I proceeded to research how to build a fence that would not
blow over in a strong wind. I purchased the items (Exhibit A) and began construction of the
fence (Exhibit B) on December 11, 2017.
On February 15, 2018, Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer (Brad), mailed to me "FINAL
NOTICE OF VIOLATION —1461 GARLAND AVENUE — PARCEL # 103-532-09 — CASE # V2017-0331"
stating, in part "You are hereby directed to remove the unpermitted portable vinyl fence and
the motor home from the property by no later than Sunday, February 25, 2018."
I again was out of town and received the notice on Monday, February 26, 2018.1 went home
and wrote a letter (Exhibit C) and took a picture (Exhibit D) which I then delivered to Brad on
the same day. Brad told me that he had not done anything sooner because he had assumed
that my portable fence was sufficient. Then Edmelynne informed Brad that the portable fence
was not allowed. Brad had me talk with Edmelynne then they asked if I would be willing to
speak to their supervisor. (I apologize, but I do not have his name.) The supervisor came out
and he looked over my drawing and indicated if I was to move the gate to the other side of my
driveway, so that it would be twenty-five (25) feet from the front of the garage, and submit the
application for a permit that it would be able to be approved. I picked up an application, took it
home, prepared new drawings, and submitted the application for my permit two days later on
Wednesday, February 28, 2018, along with the $375 fee.
On March 27, 2018, Edmelynne V. Hunter sent me a letter referencing "DESIGN REVIEW 2018-
00007 (DR -2018-00007); A REQUEST TO INSTALL A VINYL GATE ACROSS AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY LOCATED AT 1461 GARLAND AVE. FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
SCREENING PURPOSES". This letter indicated in part that "Please be aware that the Community
Development Department is not in support of your application because the proposed gate
would impact the surrounding area by changing the look of the property an creating a closed -
off appearance, the proposed storage of the recreational vehicle will encroach into the required
back-up distance for the two -car garage and the proposed storage of the recreational vehicle
cannot be accomplished on the driveway that complies with the Tustin City Code. Accordingly,
the Community Development Department will be recommending denial of the proposed
project." and "If you wish to proceed with your application, your project is tentatively
scheduled for the April 21, 2018 meeting before the Planning Commission."
Page 12
The day I received the March 27, 2018, letter I went to City Hall to indicate that I wished to take
the matter to the Planning Commission. (I apologize, but I don't have the date.) I had been
planning on a three month RV trip to Alaska, leaving mid-April. I wanted to observe the
Northern Lights, so leaving later would not work. This had to be cancelled because I was told
the Planning Commission meeting would be on April 24, 2018.
A couple of days later there was a conference meeting with Brad, Edmelynne, and two other
persons. I was then told that I could apply for a variance at a cost of $3,000. When I asked if it
would be likely to be approved, I was told "NO". Obviously, I did not pay the $3,000 since there
was no point. I then asked if I was to purchase a Sprinter which has the appearance of a van,
would it be acceptable. Brad came outside with me to get a picture of the Sprinter and stated
that he would get back to me after talking with the others privately. He later called and said
that the Sprinter would be acceptable as long as 1 was also using it as my primary
transportation. I agreed to do that.
On April 7, 2018, 1 signed a purchase order for the Sprinter. (Exhibit E) The Sprinter was
supposed to be ready in July 2018, but it has been delayed. The estimated delivery date is now
in November 2018.
On three separate days Edmelynne called me to request to change the date for the Planning
Commission meeting because she felt that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan
project would cause my project to be discussed very late into the meeting. I kept stating that
this was okay, as I had travel plans and did not want to postpone. The third time, I agreed
because it seemed important to her. She sent me an email to verify. (Exhibit F)
Review of the Agenda Report, Item #2
I was surprised to find that the report for the meeting had falsely stated on Page 2 in part: "For
scheduling and timing reasons, the applicant requested to continue the item to the May 8,
2018, meeting". Why didn't it state that Edmelynne made the request? Furthermore, it has
again interfered in my vacation plans. I had planned to leave yesterday morning for a trip to
Indiana. Instead, I spent the day preparing this letter.
On Page 5 it states in part "This configuration requires twenty-five (25) feet back up distance in
front of the garage door to allow vehicles enough room to maneuver out of the garage and
onto the street (TCC Section 926a6)." However, according to my research this ordinance states:
Where garages face each other and are separated by a shared driveway, the minimum
driveway width shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
Page 13
There Is no shared driveway, and the width of the driveway is 30.5 feet. So this appears to me
to be irrelevant. According to the measurements in the report, same page, there is 20.5 feet
between the RV and the garage door. However, the new Sprinter is only 6.25 feet wide, which
would leave 22.25 feet between the garage door and the Sprinter. This should be ample room
for any normal sized vehicle to enter the garage; and if needed the RV can be moved for access.
When I spoke to the supervisor, it seemed that his only concern was the distance from the gate
to the garage door. Almost all of the houses in my neighborhood have vehicles parked in their
driveways which would prevent vehicles from entering, parking and exiting the garage. AND
this does not seem to be a requirement of the ordinance.
On Page 6 it states that a variance is required, however, the ordinance quoted does not seem
to apply.
Everything on Pages 7 and 8 seem to only address the portable fence, for which I was told a
permit was not required. However, if a permit was to be granted for a permanent fence, I feel
they are still incorrect.
On Page 7 the pictures shows that the portable gate, in fact does not block the entire driveway
and is in fact similar to the gate on the adjacent property. Therefore, Finding #1 is not correct.
Page 7 Finding #2 states "That temporary and/or portable fencing is not appropriate for this
property in that the fence is not safe, has the potential of being blown over by winds, creates
undesirable aesthetic and generally detrimental to the health, safety and well-being of a single
family neighborhood." I feel that none of this is true. Each fence panel is attached to two 54
pound stands and has now been standing for over five months and has not blown over; and if
the permit is approved it would be anchored permanently to the ground. The aesthetics are the
ones that were chosen by Edmelynne and are similar to the adjacent property. I cannot imagine
what the fencing could possible do be detrimental to the health, safety or well-being of the
neighborhood.
Page 8 Findings #2 through #6 assume that a variance is required. As I read City Code 9267-A-6,
it does not pertain to the distance for parking any vehicle or motor home.
Planning Commission Meeting
At the meeting photographs were shown of properties that were said to be similar to mine.
However, they were not pictures of any of the houses near mine. I have attached a photo of my
next door neighbor's property (Exhibit G) and a photo of the two properties across the street
Page 14
from mine (Exhibit H). None of these three houses are similar to the ones shown at the
meeting.
Also at the meeting, it was stated that the fence would be a hazard to emergency personnel, i
don't see how. The portable fence only covers half of my driveway. There is plenty of room to
walk around it. If a permit is approved for the permanent fence, there will be a gate. I am sure
that the emergency personnel will be capable of opening the gate.
Additional Information
On April 20, 2018, while speaking to Edmelynne about her request to postpone the meeting
with the Planning Commission, I stated that I had investigated parking and found that it was
possible to park my RV at the back of my driveway, where it is not in front of the garage door. (I
have included this information here because, as already stated, I do not believe the setback
ordinance applies to any movable vehicle, including RVs.) Edmelynne requested that I bring her
by a picture. Later that afternoon I dropped off the April 20, 2018 letter describing what I
thought would be a possible solution (Exhibit 1) and the photo of my Toyota van parked in the
proposed location (Exhibit J).
Summary
There was a sign placed in front of my house about a month ago telling about the Planning
Commission Meeting. There is nobody in the neighborhood that came to the meeting to
oppose my fence (either portable or permanent) or my RV. The only person who came supports
my RV and portable or permanent fence. Everyone who has walked by and commented to has
told me that they don't understand why this is a problem.
I do not believe a variance is required. I have acted in good faith and have spent time and
money to do what was requested. I paid for the permit with the understanding that it would be
approved. The materials I purchased for the fence were verbally selected and approved by
Edmelynne. I have cancelled my first vacation plans and delayed the second one. I have made
arrangements to sell my current RV and have purchased a Sprinter after getting verbal
approval. I would like to have it verified that a permit is not needed for a portable fence or I
would like to get a permit to have it more permanently installed.
If a permit is granted, all I wish to do is to have holes placed in my driveway.) will then be able
to remove the portable fence from the umbrella stands and place them in the holes.
Page 15
I would also accept a written variance giving me permission to park the new Sprinter in my
driveway without any fencing. Remember, it looks Just like a large van with windows on all
sides. (Exhibit H)
Thank you,
Christine L. Coursen
Residence: 1461 Garland Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780
Mail: PO Box 4087, Tustin, CA 92781
Page 16
Phone: 714-812-1591
Email: CCoursen@aol.com
UP TO 50% OFF SELECT TOOLS + PRES PARCEL SHIPPING WITH MYLOWEIS. SHOP NOW >
Prices, promotions, styles, and availability may vary. Our local stores do
open until 9PMI not honor online pricing, Prices and availability of products and services
Irvine Lowe's v are subject to change without notice, Errors will be corrected where
discovered, and Lowe's reserves the right to revoke any stated offer and
to correct any errors, Inaccuracies or omissions Including after an order
has been submitted.
4"
t3
Print
Shopping Cart Your purchase Is always
Lowe's Of Irvine, CA I Change Store >
13300 Jamboree Road, Irvine, CA 92602
..... . . ....... .. ..... ...... ..... ...... ... . . . - . .... . .. ....
Products in Cart
. ........
Select a Delivery Method
.. ...... ........ ... ... .... ........ ... . ................ .. . . .. ........... ........
Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Freedom (Actual: 6.66 -ft x 6.66 -ft)
i Store Pickup
Pre -Assembled Wellington White
Your Item Is avaNable for
4 1 $69.98 $279,92
Vinyl Seml-privacy Panel
pickup today,
Item #:766771 Model #:73013822
... ....... . ....
Lowe's Truck Delivery
Youl be contacted vAthin 24
. .. .........
hours to arrange your
delivery.
... ... .. .. . .... ....... ... .. ......
X Parcel Shipping
.....
Unavailable for This Order
Sent by carriers like UPS,
............. . ... . .. . ... ...................... . .. .. . .... - . ..... ..... ......... . ..... . ........ . .... .... ........ . . ... ...
FedEx, USPS, etc,
.. ........ . .......... ...... . .. ...... .... .......... . ................ . ..... ...
. . ......... .. .. . .. . . .. ... ........... ........................... .... ... .......... .. ....... . ... . ...... .. ....
... .. ..... . . ... .....
Freedom Metal Aluminum Fence
. ... ... ....... .........
Store Pickup
. . .. .. ....... .. ... .......
r
Post Insert
Your order will be available
I
8
:32.12 $266.96
Item #:430374 I Model #:73012362
for pickup by 12/20/2017.
Lowe's Truck Delivery
Yount be contacted within 24
hours of 12120/2017 to
arrange your delivery,
X Parcel Shipping
Unavailable for This Order
Sent by carriers like UPS
.... ..... . .... . . ... ...... .......... ............ .. ..... . ... .....
FedEx, USPS, etc,
......... ........ .. ...... ..... .... . .... .... .... . ..... .. . ...... .... —
i
........ .. . . ..... .. ........... . ... . ..
. . . ....... . . .... .. ... ... ... .. . ..... ...... .. ... ... ...... ..
Freedom (Common: 4 -in x 44n x x
.. ....... .. ... ... ... .. . . ... ... .. ...... . ...... ..... .
Store Pickup
. . . ...... ... .. ...... ... ... . ..... - . ............... . .... . .. . ........ .... .. ..
6 -ft: Actual: 4 -in x 4 -In x x 6-ft)$116.98
Your Item is available for
8
$135.64
Pre -Assembled Mite Vinyl Blank
pickup today,
X Post
Item #:24992 I Model #:73002277
.... . ... .
Lowe's Truck Delivery
Youl be contacted within 24
hours to arrange your
delivery.
X Parcel Shipping
Unavailable for This Order
Sent by carriers like UPS,
FedEx, USPS, etc,
IFreedom (Fits Common Post
Store Pickup
Measurement; 4 -in; ActuaC 4.125-
In x 4.125 -In} White Vinyl Post Your Item is available for 8 $3,08 $24.64
449. Cap pickup today.
f, Item #;1860821 Model #;73002188
Lowe's Truck Delivery
You$ be contacted within 24
hours to arrange your
delivery.
...............
Parcel Shipping
Sent by carriers like UPS,
FedEx, USPS, etc,
...,.......... 5........ ..., .
..... ........._................................................................................................_ .......... _............... ••.........
_......_' Freedom Set&Secure 2 -Pack Store Pickup
White Vinyl Fence BracketsYour item is available for 2 $4.97 $89.64
Item #:768815 Model #:73004820 pickup today. _.
p' Lowe's Truck Delivery
You$ be contacted within 24
hours to arrange your 1
delivery.
Parcel Shipping
Sent by carriers like UPS, i
FedEx, USPS, etc.
. ...... ............... ........................................................,......_......._........,,................................. ...... ... ... ... ... ....... ........ .... 11 ............. _............ ........... i...
•.............................•....._....................... .... .... ........................ ...... ..........,..,......,.,....... ,.......... .,... ..... ..... ... .................. •.............,.... ................... -.._.......... ........ ._ ........... .................. .... _....._........... _........._•••......
..,.........I
: Garden Treasures Speckled Beige Parcel Shipping
Patio Umbrella Basesent by carriers like UPS, g $39.98 $3119.84
i Item #:4019951 Model #:SJ -518 FedEx, USPS, etc,
s
�.. �X Store Pickup �
...... ...................• ., ........_ �Unavailable for This Order
........ ........ .... I ....... .... ...
.........
Cart Summary
j
5% OFF
EVERY DAY
6 MONTHS
SPECIAL VINAN. CINr "
$299 minimum purchase
a
i
i
Past Details >
Estimate Parcel Shipping Charges
Standard 1-3 Days
......_....................................
...........
.....
�
I
Promotion Code
I
...................... _......m..._,
Subtotal
$1,076.84
Estimated Trude Delivery
$79.00
Estimated Parcel Shipping
FREE
Estimated Sales Tax
$99.68
Estimated Total
$1,246.42
Christine L. Coursen
1461 Garland Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780
(PO Box 4087, Tustin, CA 92781)
714-838-3025 / CCoursen@aol.com
Mr. Brad Steen
Code Enforcement Officer
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
RE: Parcel #103-532-09 Case #V2017-0331
February 26, 2018
Mr. Brad Steen,
I am writing in response to your letter dated February 15, 2018. 1 was out of town last week (in my motor home) and just
received your letter at the post office today. My motor home was in Phoenix from February 18th through February 24th. I
assume that it's okay for it to be in my driveway temporarily for the purpose of unpacking. I don't know how long that
period is.
Regarding the alleged violations:
My motor home: It is currently parked in my driveway with a side yard fence more than 5 feet away from the property
line and with front fence more than 20 feet away from the sidewalk. I do not see anything in the code that requires the
fence to be of a permanent nature. If you wish the fence to go across my entire drive way, please advise and I will
extend it as needed.
My portable vinyl fence: I was informed that a permit was not needed for a fence that was not permanently installed. I,
-therefore, built the temporary fence, as required for the parking of my motor home in my driveway. I am enclosing a
copy of the fence. As you can see it is similar to my neighbor's fence.
I was informed that I cannot obtain a permit to build a permanent fence because the distance from my motor home to
my garage door is less than 25 feet. While I would still be able to enter my garage the code assumes that this would not
be possible. If permanent installation is possible, it would be preferred.
I am leaving for a 15 -day trip to China this coming Friday. I will return on March 17th. There are currently four
recreational vehicles in my neighborhood that are now being parked on the street and moved every three days. I can do
this also, if needed. However, I'd prefer to find some other way. Would it be best for me to request a Hearing?
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Christine L. Coursen
04/0-7/2018 11:21 16572474296
A SUMASTORES, 100-
-Moll'
0000001"I"
Customer info -mat on
COURGEN COATING LABS
Primary Phone, (714) $12-1591
Carl 0 Coarsen Christine L our en Revocable Trust Other Phone,
PO Box 40V F -Mall, CCOLirsen@aOl.com
Tustin, CA 92781 Salesperson, Sandra Retell
we Infor-mation:
2018 Winne�ago Era 70X
S e 10 c_(q;Lo- A Lo _ns '*
IMM - MrISenz Need Van, 0 Cylinder
flYZ 4 Cylinder MAND, ONL.Y wl$llver ftT)t (WA 70M)
360 - Coltfalon -NVddancs SWM?,,Mw 016 for DMAIts,
Sales Acreement-SuM.Ma
a-) i 16 1, + r-
PAGE 02/03
153 - Large SUW (0")- I*Mioment Radio ltI & §Nri mW
(M -bay rM* TO' nf)
83A - NNW $Hver LEXwor
M F
J - High-Glose Orly$ W006WOUgntum Interior Color
Sales Pi I
06,340.00
Desuription-Of AddslSoMoiY rO,Insfaffl
PWIDOM0
Fudis Fl/led
RV S*ter Klt
iI 9t-A1b#nY-RV
P 'UP
Sub Total
L'4i Tr4de''AllibWain"ce
Trade Dow;
Trade-Dmw 2, -
Trade Difference
---
da -Mi so. Reaulred T6x65161fem's
"'�I'q6,340,00
N Taxabit,
Taxable Total
$106,490,00
1 .60'
Total
Less, initial eposi
if this -wit is not in stork it to Awond by bdill Vona sopor-(�too' Mt, Ma "�storilor Iwmd obtm3 ihni th"; 1� n bunb .460 #,Peft OlOW fq thn pmhatd Of 0 nGW RM(W-Inpl WhIdo, Dapt.11I ARC=
NOT forundable.
IRC-
NOTforundable. Rvondsugrsk)res
h affiby OAMO til 60mit fhla nrdm' IMM6014 WV to ft ronpr3clilve numdacturgr. 0"womnr 'Iqmor io acrepi 4'1nl product felar4ovxs elf minor modIACMIlme r.8f;'18 by menol"Adumrto ldvtuf, 4195'S' t 0�10M
or Dpilnr typon ;I MWIll 01I in prooilotton, U.B[I 0grona to 'IWd KVQA* superstow nnrmlon 46f kmArinauntmd char-imt by III* nlAnUfRiI dolpi�m IM "![Watl 14 18 ROW Apr%l
thol: (1) RNA One Supar.immN hp,--tibl agwAittod to A =MPI&W We of Mis qrvll'luwt' ('11 Thl'. produot Is Apo'nifiezilly and 6doly WA"weld by the mwitaracturw f3) No mthnr hMAMAnl, 01016rWOU-11 tF
by 01thar pA,1I In in 1 (4') i:irw payrriant VIA tm& de 5)111 W MIA whnn urilf =mm Off P,10dudion III A0 to thir �a�reonwit mu� ti
ha domi In wrii no o�l Ajlammd, RI
ustomer Sign �X
fOf-ln� 0 44 '7-7"VJ I
.. rr
From:Hutter Edmelynne<EHuftnr@tuebnca.org>
To: onoursen .00m>
Subject: DR-2018-00X007;Gate/RV Storage Planning Commission
Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2018 10:23 am
Hello Christine,
As we discussed on the phone, the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan projectispneoedingyourproject
onthe meeting agenda. It is anticipated that this project will generate many public comments and an
involved discussion, which means your project may be discussed very late into the meeting.
Per our phone discussion, I'm sending you this e-mail for your confirmation to continue your projectto the
May 8,2O18,Planning Commission meeting. Please reply tothis e-mail confirming the continuance ofyour
Edme|ynne\LHutter|Senior Planner
City of Tustin
3ooCentennial Way
Tustin, CA9278o
T(714)573-3174
F(714)573'3113
F�A ib; l S_
April 20, 2018
Edmelynne V Hutter
Senior Planner
Thank you for the information about the Planning Commission meeting. Per our discussion this morning
I have attached a photo of a possible location for parking my motor home. I would prefer to park it
along my fence; but with some time and effort it is possible to park it along the front of my house,
leaving full access to my garage.
Since I was originally informed that a permit could not be issued to have a fence installed, I began to
build one using umbrella stands with wheels so that it could be moved as needed.
1. it was, and is my understanding that a permit is not needed for a portable fence because it is
not attached to any real property.
2. Since I already have this fence constructed, it is now my wish to obtain a permit to drill holes in
my driveway, 20 feet from the sidewalk. I then would like to remove the umbrella stands and
place the fence posts in these new holes.
3. When the motor home is being stored, not used for a period of more than one week, I will store
it so that there will be 25 feet available in front of my garage door.
4. While it is possible to park my motor home across the rear of my driveway, I would like a
variance to park it along the side fence when it is being used on a regular basis. I understand
that there will not be 25 feet between it and my garage door.
If this is not possible; it is my plan to park the motor home on the street for 72 hours, move it the
required distance, and park it for up to another 72 hours. I will park it in my driveway for no more than
48 hours per week for cleaning, loading and unloading.
I have purchased a new Sprinter to replace my motor home. My most recent update is that it will be
available in November. This sprinter is a van conversion, with normal windows on all sides, 4 captain's
chairs and a bench seat. It does not have a bed. I understand that I will be able to park it in my driveway
as long as it is being used as my primary form of transportation.
I am a retired widow and plan on traveling more that being at home. However, I could become ill and
may need to be at my house for extended periods. Therefore it is necessary to plan for the future as well
as for the present.
Thank you,
Christine L. Coursen
of
Am i pt Nol (030 1573,
Pla
if
1��5O
O°OO
DIAOREN LIVID,
Ca hii--
I�c�c�
ATTACHMENT G
City Council Resolution No. 18-47
RESOLUTION NO. 18-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - DENYING DESIGN
REVIEW 2018-00007, A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE
STORAGE OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WITHIN THE
REQUIRED BACKUP AREA OF AN EXISTING TWO -CAR
GARAGE AND INSTALL A VINYL GATE ON AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY FOR SCREENING OF
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE, ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1461 GARLAND AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That on November 6, 2017, a Notice of Violation was issued for the subject
property. That on February 15, 2018, a Final Notice of Violation was issued
for the subject property regarding recreational vehicle storage and a
temporary vinyl fence.
B. That a proper application for Design Review 2018-00007 was filed by
Christine Coursen, applicant and property owner, to request a vinyl gate
across the existing residential driveway for recreational vehicle storage,
located at 1461 Garland Avenue.
C. That the subject property is designated as Single Family Residential (R1) on
the City of Tustin Zoning Map.
D. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said application
on April 24, 2018, by the Planning Commission at which the Planning
Commission continued the project to the May 8, 2018, meeting. Following
the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4364 denying the proposed project.
E. That on May 11, 2018, the applicant filed a written appeal of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4364.
F. That in denying the Design Review for vinyl gate across an existing
residential driveway for storage of a recreational vehicle, the Planning
Commission must determine whether it can be found that the location, size,
architectural features, and general appearance of the proposal will impair the
orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future
development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. A decision to deny this
request may be supported by the following findings:
1. That the existing garage on the subject property requires a backup
distance of twenty-five (25) feet in front of the garage door. That the
Resolution No. 18-47
Page 2
proposed storage of a recreational would encroach into the required
backup distance. That allowing such an encroachment would require a
request for a variance from the backup distance requirement, and/or a
comprehensive Tustin City Code amendment. That such a variance
request was not submitted by the applicant.
2. That a vinyl gate across the driveway would create a closed -off look to
the property and impact the general welfare of the surrounding
neighborhood. That single-family properties in the area have low walls
or no walls in front of the homes visible from the public street.
3. That temporary and/or portable fencing is not appropriate for this
property in that the fence is not safe, has the potential of being blown
over by winds, creates an undesirable aesthetic and generally
detrimental to the health, safety and wellbeing of a single family
residential neighborhood.
4. That the proposed gate may hinder emergency responders in gaining
access to the property in an emergency situation to this site, or if this
became a City-wide standard, to other sites.
5. That a variance would be required since the proposal includes a deviation
from the required backup distance for a garage and results in prohibiting
vehicular access to the garage.
6. That if a variance request were submitted, the request would not qualify
for approval of a variance in that the property does not have special
circumstances on the subject property that deprive it of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone
classification. That the proposed RV storage and gate would not meet
the criteria for granting a variance because of the following reasons:
a. The lot size is typical of any other lots in the neighborhood.
b. The lot shape is rectangular (not an irregular shape) and is typical
in the neighborhood.
c. The topography is generally flat and there is no unique slopes or
hillside applicable to the property.
d. The building layout is similar to other houses in the neighborhood.
e. The situation is a self imposed hardship (personal circumstances),
not a condition particular to the property.
7. That approval of such a variance would set precedence for the R1
zoning district because the circumstances of the property are common
throughout the R1 zone; therefore, the issue becomes no longer a
Resolution No. 18-47
Page 3
question about a variance, but rethinking the RV storage restriction on
a city-wide basis. Should this be a desired outcome, an impact
analysis city-wide would be appropriate and necessary.
8. That the explicit purpose of the proposed vinyl gate across the
residential driveway is to screen recreational vehicle storage. As
proposed, the recreational vehicle storage is not allowed by the TCC
and therefore there is no need for the proposed vinyl gate.
G. That this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects
which are disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
II. The City Council hereby denies DR -2018-00007, upholding the Planning
Commission decision to deny a request for authorization to store a recreational
vehicle within the required backup area of a two -car garage and install a vinyl gate
across an existing residential driveway for recreational vehicle storage screening.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting
on the 17th day of July, 2018.
ELWYN A. MURRAY
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ERICA N. YASUDA
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 18-47
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 18-47
ERICA N. YASUDA, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 18-47 was duly passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of July,
2018, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
ERICA N. YASUDA, CITY CLERK