Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 MINOR ADJ 06-001 09-05-06AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06- 001 (2650 DAVIS DRIVE, PRESIDIO TRACT) SUMMARY: On July 10, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4029, denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize the height extension up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum permitted height of the perimeter fence around the Presidio Tract pool located at 2650 Davis Drive. The Planning Commission found that the applicant did not provide the necessary findings to approve a minor adjustment. On July 17, 2006, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. ApplicanUAppelant: John Tkach, President Presidio HOA RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-109 upholding the Planning Commission's decision. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid applicable fees for the appeal of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL: The project is exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency. BACKGROUND: On July 10, 2006, in a Public Meeting, the Planning Commission considered information regarding the request for Minor Adjustment 06-001 to allow for an increase in the allowable height of the perimeter pool fence of the Presidio Tract common area pool by up to twenty percent (20%). The extension to the fence height was already constructed without permits and was the subject of a code enforcement action. City Council Report September 5, 2006 MA 06-001 Page 2 of 5 The project site is located within the Presidio Tract of the East Tustin Specific Plan and is designated as Planned Community Residential (PCR) by both the Zoning Code and the General Plan Land Use designation. Medium to Low Density Single Family Detached (ML-SFD) homes are permitted uses in the Presidio Tract. There is a Homeowners Association (HOA) that is responsible for maintaining all common areas within the Presidio Tract including the shared pool area. The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive, near the center of the Presidio Tract, and is not visible from the public right-of-way. The HOA board authorized and commissioned a contractor to increase the height of the existing wrought iron perimeter pool fence above the maximum allowable height of six feet eight inches (6'8") permitted in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the City of Tustin Zoning Code. The extension of the fence consists of vertical wrought iron spikes attached to the top of the fence and in line with the existing wrought iron bars. According to the applicant, extension of the fence height was to address safety issues associated with vandalism, non-member use, and ongoing illegal activities in the pool area. A minor adjustment application does not require a public hearing, however, the Planning Commission did receive public testimony from the applicant and other members of the audience. Upon consideration of the staff report (Attachment A) and testimony at the meeting (Attachment B), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4029 (Attachment C) denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 which included the following findings: 1) The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstances unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured from grade level and would allow for the same fence height limitations as flat land; 2) The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area; and, 3) Approval of the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site but remain subject to the zoning code. On July 17, 2006, a letter of appeal (Attachment D) from John Tkach (Presidio Tract HOA President) and all applicable fees were received in the City Clerk's office. The letter did not cite any specific reasons for the appeal but served as an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt Resolution No. 4029 denying Minor Adjustment 06-001. City Council Report September 5, 2006 MA 06-001 Page 3 of 5 DISCUSSION: The applicant as well as other HOA members and residents of the Presidio Tract present at the Planning Commission meeting held on July 10, 2006 gave various reasons supporting the case for approval of Minor Adjustment 06-001. Staff has listed and prepared a response to each point brought up in said Planning Commission meeting. 1. The Presidio HOA did not intend to ignore the code and received poor advice from their property management, legal counsel and contractor. The City of Tustin was not consulted by the HOA, property management, legal counselor contractor regarding the matter. In addition, the issue of the code violation regarding the fence height extension was initialized by complaints from residents of the Presidio Tract Community. 2. A pattern of trespassing, vandalism, litter, underage drinking and drug use has created a unique hardship. These reasons do not provide a unique hardship based on the land. Having a community pool and the associated maintenance is similar to many other communities in the City. A hardship based on land is required by state law to grant approval of a minor adjustment or variance. It was also argued by the applicant that other communities in Tustin Ranch are experiencing the same problems, thus not making the problem unique. 3. Other communities within Tustin Ranch are experiencing the same problems. The Community Development Department has not received complaints from other communities in Tustin Ranch regarding trespassing or vandalism at their pools. Furthermore, the Community Development Department had not received complaints or calls for assistance in resolving the matter prior to the code violation. It was noted that this problem has persisted for years. The applicant provided photographs in an exhibit to the Planning Commission of other community pools in Tustin Ranch with cameras and surveillance equipment. It appears as though other communities have dealt with the same problem in a different manner that does not constitute a code violation. Other photographs submitted by the applicant were of vandalism and lewd acts committed at the pool. These photographs were said to have been taken after the extension to the fence height, thus proving that the added height is not deterring these activities. An approval of Minor Adjustment 06-001 may set a precedent for all other recreation areas and parameter fencing within Tustin. 4. Teenagers and young adults know the pool is a place to hang out and sometimes come in large groups. City Council Report September 5, 2006 MA 06-001 Page 4 of 5 The applicant provided no evidence that the people vandalizing the pool were non-residents of the community. The applicant noted at the Planning Commission meeting that some residents of the community, with keys, were responsible for vandalism and lewd acts committed in the pool area. The extension of the fence height, as testified by the applicant, will not deter residents with keys that can open the gate. 5. Residents have made repeated calls to the Police for assistance. While various phone calls to the Tustin Police Department originating from the Presidio Tract have been documented, none of them pertain to the pool in any capacity including trespassing and vandalism. Gina Clemens, a resident of the Presidio Community, testified that residents tend to call the neighborhood patrol because they get a quicker response than from the Police Department. Linda Miskovic, a resident of the Presidio Community, testified that residents no longer call the police because the response time is too long. Chairperson Pro Tem Floyd noted that the Tustin Police Department has a 100 percent service response and that police response time was not the issue on the agenda. FOLLOWUP: During the staff presentation at the Planning Commission meeting held on July 10, 2006, and in the staff report, it was noted that the Tustin Police Department did not have any records of police reports filed at the address of the pool. In addition, staff reported in the testimony that the Police Department had not received any recent calls (within the past year) regarding trespassing or vandalism at the pool. However, several persons testified on behalf of the applicant that complaints had been made to the Tustin Police Department. Residents of the Presidio Tract indicated that they had made numerous phone calls to the Tustin Police Department regarding trespassing and vandalism at the pool. Planning Commissioner Nielsen also questioned the lack of reported phone calls to the Police Department. During the week following the Planning Commission meeting held on July 10, 2006, staff again consulted with Officer Chuck Still of the Tustin Police Department regarding complaints received concerning trespassing and vandalism at the pool. Addresses in the immediate vicinity of the pool that would be most likely to witness any illegal activities at the pool were researched for any calls to police. Again, it was confirmed that there have been no calls to the police regarding trespassing or vandalism at the pool from addresses in the immediate vicinity. Various phone calls over the past few years had been reported; however, none of them pertained to the common area pool. Furthermore, no police reports have been filed regarding the Presidio Tract common area pool located at 2650 Davis Drive. On June 20, 2006, the Presidio Tract had a neighborhood watch meeting with the City of Tustin Police Department. The meeting was held to address the trespassing and vandalism problems associated with the community pool, in addition to other safety concerns of the community. At the meeting, it was noted by the Tustin Police City Council Report September 5, 2006 MA 06-001 Page 5 of 5 Department that they had not received any reports of the incidents being described at the pool. There was an attendance of approximately twenty-five (25) residents who were directed to call the police should they witness any future trespassing or vandalism at the pool. Following the meeting the residents sent the Tustin Police Department a letter of commendation for their work with the community and noted their satisfaction regarding the response time of the Tustin Police Department in their community newsletter. The applicant has not submitted any additional material or revised findings since the Planning Commission meeting held on July 10, 2006. Therefore, Resolution No. 06-109 upholding the Planning Commission's decision is included as Attachment F for the Council's Consideration. CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES: At the close of the hearing, the Council may reverse or modify the Planning Commission's decision and/or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceeding with direction from the Council. If the Council does not take action within 60 days after the filing of the appeal (July 17, 2006), the Planning Commission's action is final. Ryan Swiontek Assistant Planner EIizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. July 10, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report B. July 10, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4029 D. Appeal Letter received July 17, 2006 E. Photo Exhibit provided to the Planning Commission by the Presidio Tract HOA July 10, 2006 F. City Council Resolution No. 06-109 S:ICddICCREPORT\MA06-001 Appeal.doc ATTACHMENT A July 10, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report ITEM #4 /~yo .:&l. ,S1( ~' Report to the Planning Commission DATE: JULY 10, 2006 SUBJECT: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06..()()1 PRESIDIO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LORDON MANAGEMENT COMPANY 17772 E. li'" STREET, SUITE 204 TUSTIN, CA 92780 JOHN S. TKACK, PRESIDENT PRESIDIO HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 2650 DAVIS DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92782 PRESIDIO TRACT COMMON AREA (POOL) 2650 DAVIS DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92782 GENERAL PLAN: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) MEDIUM - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED (ML SFD) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE PRESIDIO TRACT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FENCE HEIGHT SURROUNDING THE COMMON AREA POOL BY TWENTY PERCENT (20%). RECOMMENDATION REQUEST: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4029, denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize the height extension up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum permitted height of the perimeter fence around the Presidio Tract pool located at 2650 Davis Drive, MA 06-001 July 10,2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The project site is located within the Presidio Tract of the East Tustin Specific Plan and is designated as Planned Community Residential (PCR) by both the Zoning Code and the General Plan Land Use designation. Medium to Low Density Single Family Detached (ML-SFD) homes are permitted uses in the Presidio Tract. There is a Homeowners Association (HOA) that is responsible for maintaining all common areas within the Presidio Tract including the shared pool area, The HOA has increased the height of the existing wrought iron perimeter pool fence above the maximum allowable height of six feet eight inches (6'8") permitted in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the City of Tustin Zoning Code. According to the applicant. extension of the fence height was to address safety issues associated with vandalism. non-member use, and ongoing illegal activities in the pool area. The fence height extension was done without City approval and has since become an active Code Enforcement case. The HOA is now requesting a Minor Adjustment to allow for a twenty percent (20%) increase in the allowable height to permit the fence extension. Section 3.13.2.C. of the East Tustin Specific Plan allows administrative adjustments for "An increase of not more than 20% of the permitted height of a fence or wall, subject to city approved structural design." Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9299.b. of the Tustin City Code, the Zoning Administrator can approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for a minor adjustment to increase the height of a fence not more than twenty percent (20%). In order to minimize the cost and delay involved with the processing of potential appeals, the Zoning Administrator may forward matters directly to the Planning Commission for consideration and action in accordance with the same section. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive, near the center of the Presidio Tract, and is not visible from the public right-of-way. The extension of the fence consists of vertical wrought iron spikes attached to the top of the fence and in line with the existing wrought iron bars. Near the top of the spikes is a single horizontal wrought iron bar reinforcing the vertical members. All of the new wrought iron members have been painted to match the existing fence. Due to varying topography the fence height is of slightly different heights at points, but does not exceed eight feet (8') in height. The applicant provided the following arguments in support of their application: 1. The perimeter wrought iron fencing around the Association Common Area Pool has proved to be an easy access point for children, vandals, and non- members of the Association. In some locations, it allows for person(s) to MA 06-001 July 10, 2006 Page 3 scale the fence to an area where the ground on the other side is higher and, therefore, easy to jump. The existing pilasters the wrought iron is affixed to currently and has always been above the 6'8" height limit at 7'2" at the highest point. As constructed, the wrought iron extensions are not higher than those pilasters. 2. The addition was considered and processed based on the Association's concern for safety due to the area being open to a pool/spa, regular vandalism, and property damage. The previous fence height allowed easy access to private property by unauthorized persons, and illegal activities began to occur. The property is maintained and owned by a corporation of homeowners, and the City is not providing the maintenance or replacement of any components within the community walls. The extensions are not visible to non-owners of the properties and would not be in view to the public. ANALYSIS The arguments provided by the applicant identify trespassing as the major justification for the fence height extension. However, the Tustin Police Department does not have any records of police reports filed at the subject address. There have been no reported incidents of trespassing or vandalism at the project site. In addition, the fence height extension is not supported by all residents of the Presidio Tract Community. There have been numerous complaints by residents to the City's Code Enforcement Division regarding the height extension of the pool fence. The fence height extension is not continuous around the whole perimeter of the fence and stops at the entrance gate. This gap in the fence height extension provides a spot where the fence remains at its existing height and defeats the purpose of extending the fence. The entrance gate also provides an access point where trespassers could step on the door handle and climb over the fence where it has not been extended. Furthermore, at most points along the fence, the extension is above the existing pilasters. FINDINGS California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code require the City to make two positive findings to approve a minor adjustment. In determining whether to approve the Minor Adjustment for the proposed fence height extension, the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed use constitutes a special circumstance unique to the land based on hardship where the strict literal interpretation of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area. In addition the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed Minor Adjustment would not be a granting of special privilege inconsistent MA 06-001 July 10, 2000 Page 4 with limitations placed on other properties in the vicinity. A decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings: 1. The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstance unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured from grade level and would allow for the same fence height limitations as flat land. 2. The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area. 3. Approval of the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site and will still have to comply with the zoning code. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposal is a self-imposed hardship, that the applicant's argument does not meet the required findings needed to support a Minor Adjustment. and that approval of Minor Adjustment 06-001 would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4029 denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 to extend the height of an existing perimeter pool fence located in the Presidio Tract at 2650 Davis Drive by up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum allowable height. 4-4~ Ryan Swiontek Assistant planner D.-- QI,r- ~,- Elizabeth A. Bins Community Development Director Attachments: A. Submitted Plans B. Resolution No. 4029 ATTACHMENT A Submitted Plans -----' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r \ SUPPLEMENTAl APPliCATION FORM variance/Minor Adlustment .--- '_._'_.".._~.....,~,. ~.,...'..'."'.." California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code require the City to make two positive findings to approve a variance or minor adjustment. Please answer the following questions to provide evidence in support of the necessary findings. Please attach a separate sheet if necessary. 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Are there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification? The perimeter wrought iron fencing around the Association Common Area Pool has proved to be and easy access point for children, vandals and non members of the Association. In some locations, it allowS for person(s) to scale the fence to an area that the ground on the other side is higher therefore easy to jump. The existing pilasters the wrought iron is affixed to currently and has always been above the 6'8. height limit at 7'2. at the highest point. The addition of the wrought iron extensions are not higher that those pilasters. 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES How would the variance or minor adjustment, if granted, assure that the adjustment thereby authorized would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated? The addition was considered and processed based on the Associations concern for safety due to the area being open to a pool/spa, regular vandalism and property damage, current fence allowed easy access to private property by unauthorized owners, illegal activities began to occur. The property is maintained and owned by a Corporation of homeowners and the City is not providing the maintenance or replacement of any components within the community walls. The extensions are not visible to non owners of the properties and would not be in view to the public. I hereby acknowledge that all of the information contained In this supplemental application is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. I hereby grant the City the authority to place a public hearing notice on the property for which the variance or minor adjustment is requested, if required. :s ,1"3> t(\b Date -- ~ Applicant's Signature (if different) Date 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 . 714-573-3140 . FAX 714-573-3113 I LORDON MANAGEMENT CO. ... ,. "", DIVISION OF LORDON ENTERPRISES, INC. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT June 14, 2006 Ryan Swiontek City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RECElVED jUt! 1920Gb ;~OM~uNiW DEVELOHEI1' RE: Presidio Homeowners Association Dear Mr. Swiontek: I would like to convey the rationale for the action by the Board of Directors to install extensions at their pool fence. It was not their intention to willingly vIOlate a city ordinance or to set precedence, but a response to a serious situation. The extensions along the side of Ruth Kahn's property will be removed, however something needs to be constructed over the gate, which is one of the access points. Currently there exists a liability issue with trespassers climbing over the fence, behaving badly, being loud, disruptive and disrespectful. Homeowners are finding broken glass, used condoms and lhe pool furniture tossed in lhe pool. This has become an untenable situation. Homeowners are reluctant to venture out to the pool. Their private property has been invaded by uncontrollable intruders. At any time anyone of these intruders could potentially hurt themselves on Presidio Community property. I have spoken with a patrol company regarding providing service to monitor the pool area specifically. The Board is hoping to have city approval 10 allow the alteration to their pool fence due to the situation. [look forward to speaking with you do discuss how we can work to correct the situation. Sincerely, . -f,/ ~ K~tb~e~e . Community Association Manager PRESIDIO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1:275 CENTER COURT DRIVE COVIN". CA 9172.4. (626l961-7921 17772 E.l7TH ST.. STE_204 TUSTIN, CA 92760. (714) 505-1444 31416AGOURA RD.. STE 10S WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361. (818) 707-0200 Cc: John Tkacb ! ! , . fH .,., ., ..... ... U~ :J:l: l: ~! ~ U~ iU I I I h1~ ~ a a a l;~ t ~ ~ ~ o ..., Ii ;;: , l~~ I.... ~.. ~~~ ~5.. ~;:~ ~..~ ::: ~ .. _I ~I~ ~ .. ~~~ .. Sl:~ .". ."'~ ~51 , D! i ~ @ i@ @ . ~. @ 1:. ~I ... .. ...:; . - . - .- ~ ; 1;:'" '. - . . ~ 02 14 OYO<I '. R; . ,.. e il t) @ . ... ;>> . i I @ I , GRAY' - ~ ~ -, @ @ @ i: . @ . ~ d ~ ~ . t . @ t @ C @ . @;,@ i : @ . .. . 1'tAC6 , , @,I @, , .. t ~ ~ ~@ ~I - ... ;Il!: ... ~ . . 13lJO- (IYOI/ . t IJ31HOId '@ . ~, eo. ..~ .. , @ l 0 i w I ~ : . , e - @ e r . e e I f " ,~ G \..V~ ; @i' <!> @ g ....-.. ' . "'" O".!l~;t~~ O' !l..~~~ ,,-Q....., !m!;,t ~- ~~. ~-:~~iii~ i 4t"'~i ~ ~!tf~ . .h~.. ... l/I:-.1I:jr,- ~ Jt~~. & ~ ~~t~ : ;~.::' '. .... '" .... I o O"l 4ctJrhm tf \++ of Wrb . Trtn ~, c'i6h61- . (y.,f+ w~ T(t{) WY.e I 14 ! t MgKN o. f; . I1YOII II , ;;: ,. i' ; e ~ . e10~ <'l ... . @ , ... . ~~ ~ ~ @ @ .@ . ~i@ .~ . . ~"'t r: i . ~~ ~ II @ I . . . ~ ... :c:c :c . e 0 I ~ ~nr:ll: GRAY ~ I ..- .... , . ~ ~ , @ I . . @ e . @ H~ @ e I 0 ~ . aU ~ e = e . t , ~ . . I I I @ @ I ~~ !o @ ! 0 ~o c: . . ~ . @ . ls:~ :; , ~ ~ ~ 0 '" . Pt.Ace I<II8AU ... @ ......,.,. 0 @'& . .... ~ I & .. "''" ~ .d @ . . e . . ;;: o. @ . . ~ . . . "~"-i:~~ , II ,.,..~i:': '::; ~~. . ~"Q..t;.. 5t~ f t@i @ ~~UIC(~~ ~ t"'" ~;: ~~~I ~ ~~ ;, /1:('" ........ il~ - . , ~i~I~\1~ " ~ , ~ 5"'~~~~ ;),.,0:1 , " f ~~~;" ,,~. ~ . .~~ ". U~ ::r ::: . _I @ to _! x:R .. , i@ lq ;...;;:"'& c:::::: ! .... ,".no @ ~o ~ ;e.~ -. ,@ '. ~~:....:" E ,,"'. @ @ .. ..-.r.. ~~~ I , :c. ' ~ '.., ..... .... .~ . ~ . ..,;~., ~~~ ~@ 2~ . ~ .., . ~ .. . . ~ ~:Jt :;: .- ~~t ~ 1.l5l .... ii h: ", .~; ~~ ~ 0 3J1lO8f1"1' . . . D~ ~ '" oVOM ... '" I 1 0 en 02 s.~~ E~4 ... ! ! . OYOIJ . ~H "'... '" ..... ... ~H li:~ li: ~~ II: ..- " H~ aU I r r b:'" .. -" (: c: a ll:~ :; ~ ~ ~ o .... ~ ;;: ~-'. e~~ I;;:~ ~'" .~Sl "5'" i,.,~ ~~~ :;: . ~ __I ,. I< . : I< ~ i . . GIlA Y ~ @ @ !' C lJ: '. @ ~ d . . @ . D' ~ D @l , @r " - 4. I<NfJALL . - @ ! @'~ .. I = d <ID @ ~ . 0 C@)! @ ~ .~ ~ ..,... ~~~ ~~~ '" 3i:E ~~" g~ D D~ i ~ ~@ ~i ,~ " " ;: " ;i Ii:: ~1 ~ , 331/0811'f1" oVOll u. -'er.;:, DISMIAN ~ ~ ~ I< . .. _ ~ ,@ ~ . '14 to. - . . ~ /ISKM = . ;;: ,. " .. " ~ En 0~ ~ ". a . . @ . . @ ~ @ -, I D@ _ ~f ~ .~ .. . PUoCC e ~ 0 ! . ~ I . - .... , ~ : . . '@ @ = . @ e r : ~ . e e e . t . " . @ f @. i I D~ : @ . . . · CID G 1'I.ACC ~ ~ , . ~ i C@ @I @ C - @ ~ . , D I e t ! : " ~ ~ ~ @ PUoCC . . . ~. "" ;:- - ~ ' "c .> .. "~.o"', @ @ . n@ @ ,./of.1 ,- i~~'" ~~ ; ~.. " - . . ~ "! 02 . - o UI """"",,' ~ ......,. ! Ct""'::;"'!"'., B...lI...~,s:~ ..~...., "'... .." ~p, ~Ii:.. ~;:"~~~l! ~~~i!ij ~~& e:b11' ~. :~:~~ . .U'~ . , ..~t ' ~."'. .... ...., .... r. ~ ~ ;:-e-.; .. R..., ~ !':.~t.. , - , - '" '" '" , o en ~".'." r~ rr"", i 14 ~ 103HOId . eo ~. . f)~ lit . oroll = I e ;;l ,. () ..., ~~ ~ r' . - . .", " @ ...... ... ~~ ~ ,,3: " @ ~ lO: ..- " .... r' PLACC ~H ~ :;: ~ .' @ ".. @" aU ' B @ I I ~ d @ :. , . = II:!: ~ @ . - ~ . . . . ~ a ""i .. @ . @'@ 15:'" 0 ! '" .. ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ . I @ ".. ... ~LL. PLACC 'W ..p@ ... n! t: ..~ . .. . ~ ! e 0 ~ , . - . ~ . . . e - e ! @ = . e t . . n f ," n. ; 8\ o.u.CHU. ~ ~ "<Co ~ E ll@ G ~ . ;: ~ @ . I II ! . @ ~: !@ @ I @! ~ . @ I . @ @ . e . ~ .. . e '. . ~ .. .. .. " i @ f .. ,. .~. . . t o ..., ~ ~ : ~ "l , ~~. ..~ O~~ ~~~ .~ .~~ 25'" i!:~~ - ~v,~ ~ .. 51 ;li <!> @ @ @ ~~~~~~!; ~~~);e?"'" .~~t1Il.?I:i:~ \!;;:..~....,... _'. ",..,1';~~ !oJ,"'l::'" ~."..... ;.~~~!~~ ~~~.'.> t)Q........!".... R' ......\... !Ii 'bL".'...~ ., "~~... .,...... \:os: ........ ',,' .... ~~"ri:\~ ~ F~;~'~ 'il ~~~.r'~' ~ ~~~.:::- - .. -, , " , N' ,. OISINAN' '@ t o. n ~ t: " , " ~ " . .. PLACC . -- j t .e' .. 'r.>. ~\e) ... '@ ! @ I @ ! 0 I ~ ! .- ..... .0' ., .- .. ~~ :;: ~@ .... .... ~~~ . ~ ~!i!~ g~Vl },.~E ~"'~ "S ~ ~.. ~~ " @ .. ....~ oa a~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~;;: ~~.., ~~ ~~ ....,. ~~ ~ ~ . . 331108fIVI' Of . arOlJ ~ '" '" I o m n? ATTACHMENT B Resolution No. 4029 RESOLUTION NO. 4029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06-001 TO AUTHORIZE THE HEIGHT EXTENSION UP TO TWENTY PERCENT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF THE PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE PRESIDIO TRACT POOL LOCATED AT 2650 DAVIS DRIVE. I. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That a proper application, Minor Adjustment 06-001, was filed by John S. Tkach (President Presidio Homeowners Association), requesting authorization to extend the height of the existing perimeter pool fence up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum allowable height in the zoning district. The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract within the Planned Community Residential (PCR) zoning district and the Planned Community Residential General Plan land use designation. B. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on July 10, 2006, by the Planning Commission. C. That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). D. That Section 3.13.2.C. of the East Tustin Specific Plan allows administrative adjustments for "An increase 01 not more than 20% of the permitted height of a fence or wall, subject to City approved structural design." E. That pursuant to California Govemment Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code, the proposed project would require the City to make two positive findings to approve a minor adjustment. That the proposed project does not meet finding requirements needed to support a minor adjustment. F. That the Planning Commission has considered the mater and made the following findings: 1) The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstances unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured Irom grade level and would allow lor the same fence height limitations as flatland; 2) The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area; and, Resolution No. 4029 Page 2 3) Approval 01 the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site, but remain subject to the zoning code. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize an increase in the allowable lence height by twenty percent lor the lence surrounding the common area pool at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2006. BRETT FLOYD Chairperson Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 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 City 01 Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4029 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10111 day of July. 2006. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT B July 10, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 2006 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Pro Tern Floyd Commissioners Lee, Nielsen, and Puckett Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Jason Retterer, Deputy City Attorney Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Edmelynne Villanueva, Assistant Planner Ryan Swiontek, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 26, 2006, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Adopted Resolution 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION THAT No. 4024 THE LOCATION, PURPOSE, AND EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED VACATION OF PREBLE DRIVE BETWEEN EAST MAIN STREET AND EAST THIRD STREET CONFORMS WITH THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN. It was moved by Lee, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adopted Resolution 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-042 REQUESTING No. 4028 AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE AN APPROXIMATELY 2,650 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE OF AN EXISTING 12,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A RELIGIOUS FACILITY AT 14712 BENTLEY CIRCLE WITHIN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4028 approving Conditional Use Permit 05-042. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 1 7:01 p.m. Di rector Villanueva Nielsen Villanueva Nielsen Director Puckett Director Floyd Director Floyd Mazhar Zubairi applicant The Public Hearing opened. Introduced new Assistant Planner Edmelynne Villanueva to the Planning Commissioners. Presented the staff report. Asked how many assembly uses of a religious nature exist in that area. Reiterated there is one facility located approximately 1,100 feet away from the project site. Indicated he was referring to the total number of such facilities in that general area. Responded that her recollection was the most recent summary indicated eleven within the industrial area; and, added, if that number was incorrect, staff would provide the correct information at the next meeting. Asked if the Baptist Church on Walnut and Tustin Ranch Road would be closer to the project that the facility referred to in the staff report. Answered that the Baptist Church might be closer in drive time but not in linear distance. Asked what measures are in place to allow for growth of the congregation beyond the 69 persons in the report. Indicated there is no allowance for additional members at this site; increasing the congregation would require coming back to the Planning Commission to provide additional or reciprocal parking with adjacent uses. Invited the applicant to the lectem. Stated the staff was very helpful in developing this project; this facility will serve the Muslim population of Tustin and the surrounding cities and will enhance the spiritual community; stated there are eleven buildings which have permits for religious services in this area but only three are active: the Baptist Church, the church on Chambers, and Trinity Broadcasting Network which does not use the site for religious services; the others have converted to commercial activities; the proposed use will provide an avenue for the youth to become good citizens and stay away from offensive activities. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10. 2006 - Page 2 Lee Asked what the applicanfs plans might be for increasing the size of the congregation. Mr. Zubairi Answered that two other tenants have already agreed to work with the applicant regarding additional parking; the applicant will work with staff to ensure the planned arrangement can be implemented. Puckett Asked if meetings are already being held in the facility. Mr. Zubairi Answered in the affirmative; a prayer service is also still offered in Irvine in the bowling alley at Michelson and Harvard; the plan is to purchase more space as the congregation grows. 7:17 p.m. The Public Hearing dosed. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Nielsen, to adopt Resolution No. 4028. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS Adopted Resolution 4. MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06-001, A REQUEST FROM THE No. 4029 PRESIDIO TRACT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FENCE HEIGHT SURROUNDING THE COMMON AREA POOL BY TWENTY (20) PERCENT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4029, denying Minor Adjustment 06-001. Swiontek Presented a staff report. Nielsen Asked if there were police calls from any of the properties surrounding the pool. Swiontek Indicated that Community liaison Officer Chuck Still had no record of any complaints filed under the pool address; when Code Enforcement initially researched the project, there was no record of reports filed for trespassing or vandalism of the pool site. Puckett Asked if the additional height has already been added. Swiontek Answered in the affirmative. Puckett Asked when the extra height was added. Swiontek Responded that portion was added approximately six months ago. Puckett Asked how staff became aware of the addition. Minute. - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 3 Swiontek Replied that it was initially a Code Enforcement complaint made by one of the residents in the community. Floyd Asked staff to retum to the photographs in the slide show for clarifICation regarding the varying degrees of height of the spiked fence. Swiontek Indicated that everything above the horizontal bar had been welded on. Floyd Asked for confirmation that the height was added without any City permits or discussion with staff. Swiontek Answered that there was no interaction with the City regarding permits or approval by the City. Nielsen Asked how many complaints are on record from residents. Swiontek Indicated that one resident made repeated complaints to Code Enforcement and filed a report; there were 2-3 calls from other residents with complaints. Floyd Verified with staff that no spikes were added over the gates to the pool area. Swiontek Responded affirmatively. Puckett Asked for verification that everything above the horizontal bar had been added. Swiontek Answered in the affirmative. Floyd Suggested that the height of the spiked portion seems to vary. Pointed to the horizontal bar on the slide; and, indicated everything above that bar was added. Swiontek Floyd Stated he had misunderstood where the addition began and that he appreciated the clarification; and, asked who decided to add the spiked portion. Director Indicated that the homeowners association board made a determination to have the extension installed at the facility. Referred to the photographs that were provided by the homeowners board showing trash, debris, and some damage to the facility; there were also photographs of the EI Dorado and San Miguel gates; the Commissioners might want to ask for clarification regarding the inclusion of those pictures. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 4 , Floyd John Tkach, President, Presidio HOA Lynda Randall, 10814 Churchill Nielsen Ms. Randall Puckett Mr. Tkach Puckett Mr. Tkach Lee Mr. Tkach Floyd Mr. Tkach Ms. Kimball Invited the applicant to the lectem. Stated that various members of the community wished to speak and that he would hold his comments until the end. Stated that the Presidio HOA never intended to ignore the Code; this was an error of omission; it is important that the Commission understands the HOA board was acting on the advice of the former management company, legal counsel, and the contractor and were told no variance or permit was required; the evidence presented in the photographs shows a unique hardship, i.e. a pattem of trespassing, vandalism, litter, underage drinking and drug use, and overt sexual acts plaguing the community; the San Miguel fence is approximately 7' 4W; throughout Tustin Ranch communities with pools are struggling with this escalating problem; teenagers now know this is a place to hang out, up to 15-20 at a time at all hours; many residents fear retaliation if the police are called; she herself has called the police many times. Asked for an explanation of the photographs of EI Dorado and San Miguel. Indicated the intention was to illustrate the use of surveillance cameras at those two sites, suggesting this is a problem shared throughout Tustin Ranch. Asked how long the additional spikes have been in place. Stated the additional height was installed November 2005. Asked if residents have noticed a decrease in the incidents. Indicated the incidents have been deterred. Asked to what extent the incidents have decreased. Indicated that some residents with keys have accessed the area after hours; the added height does not deter those infractions; it has deterred teenagers and young adults from hopping the back fence. Asked if the cut-off time for the pool hours are the same as San Miguel and EI Dorado: 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 11:00 p.m. weekends. Answered in the affinnative. Stated her belief that San Miguel is open until 12:00 a.m. on weekends. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 5 ----- . --......- ------_.._._----------,~----_._--,,--- Mr. Floyd Ms. Kimball Nielsen Ms. Kimball Mr. Tkach Nielsen Mr. Tkach Ms. Randall Sharon Komorous, 10875 Kimball Place, Pool Committee Chairperson Linda Miskovic, 10814 Churchill Indicated the photograph states 7:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Clarified it is EI Dorado that is open until midnight. Asked if the calls to the police were through the security agency or residents. Indicated the calls were placed by residents who are concemed; the young people now know that there is no consequence to their behavior because the police are tending to more serious crime or not making reports when they do respond to calls; a neighborhood watch meeting was held with the Police Department in an attempt to determine what could be done beyond what the residents are already doing. Stated that he has made calls from his residence to which police have responded to his address. Asked if this involves neighborhood young people within the homeowners association as well as people from outside. Replied that it is primarily young people from adjacent neighborhoods, perhaps some from neighborhoods with pools that are now being monitored by surveillance equipment who realize that Presidio does not currently have such equipment; there is a proposal to install surveillance equipment; teenagers have been cited through the CC&Rs and their parents fined. Added that Presidio is one of the few ungated communities in this particular area which adds to the surge they have had. Stated she has resided in the Presidio tract for 13 years; trespassers at the pool has been an ongoing issue; groups party all night, keeping residents awake, leaving broken glass in the pool and on the deck, and destroying property; continual attempts have been made over the years to stop the vandalism and trespassing, including residents getting out of bed in the middle of the night, putting themselves in harm's way, and trying to disperse the trespassers; she has called the Tustin Police, sometimes more than once a night; Presidio residents understand that the police have important jobs and other priorities taking precedence and appreciate the times the police have responded to residents' requests to force the trespassers to leave; the fence extension was erected to help correct the problem and is only one phase of an overall plan to put an end to the problem; the fence was extended to help protect the Presidio community who ask that the Commission grant their request to allow this variance. Noted this is a quality of life issue; there is an accident waiting to happen; residents are no longer calling the police because the Minutes - Planning COmmission July 10, 2006 - Page 6 Gina Clemens, 2621 Wolert Court Mr. Tkach Nielsen Mr. Tkach Floyd Mr. Tkach response time was too long; at the neighborhood watch meeting it was clear that this type of problem is not a high priority; this project was completed in good faith; every community is experiencing this sort of problem; the residents need help. Stated she is a 10-year resident of the Presidio tract; Patrol One, which patrols neighborhood parking, is called regarding after-hours use of the pool; they have no authority other than to chase the violators out; residents call them because they get a quicker response than from the Police Department; there is an elderly widow who lives next to the pool who is afraid to call the police because she does not want to suffer retaliation and because the response time is ineffective; at the neighborhood watch meeting the suggestion was to keep calling the police because residents should not put themselves in harm's way; she and her children frequently use the pool and often the spa is out of commission due to vandalism; the previous management company assured the homeowners association that raising the fence would solve the problem and that no permits were required; it was never the intention to avoid getting proper permits. Stated he was asked by the residents and the Board to try to resolve the problem; three bids were solicited and all three contractors indicated no permits were necessary; reiterated the efforts made by the community and possible solutions now being considered; and, asked that the Planning Commission acknowledge the special circumstances of this case and allow the fence to remain. Asked how many times during a year these incidents occur. Replied there are too many to count; during summer months, perhaps four or fIVe times a week; incidents also take place after footballs games; the lewd acts referred to by Ms. Randall involved adults over the age of 21, not teenagers. Suggested there is no way to know if these problems are created by trespassers or homeowners within the community who have keys to the pool area. Stated that homeowners with keys would have no reason to destroy the gate handles; acknowledged that the lewd and lascivious acts were performed by people with keys; however, teenagers hop the fence, ride their bicycles into the pool, play water polo; teenagers also hop the private gate on the widow's property; these youngsters are coming from outside the Presidio community; since EI Dorado put up fencing and camera monitors, those young people are coming to Presidio; Encore Property Management Company, working with the subcontractor, solved similar problems in other areas of Tustin Ranch. Minutes - Planning Commisaion July 10, 2006 - Page 7 --~-------,.,_. ------ Lee Asked when the photographs presented this evening were taken. Ms. Randall Responded the photos were taken over a period of time. Lee Asked if the photos were taken after the fence was heightened. Ms. Randall Answered in the affirmative; the traffic indicates the people were from outside the community; youngsters are changing clothes in the middle of the street to put on bathing suits. Mr. Tkach Stressed that the majority of the residents support having the fence remain; one or two that might have had a problem with the heightening had their own agenda and did not even bother to show up tonight. Floyd Asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak on this item. Nielsen Stated the issues presented are troubling; if dozens of calls were made to the police and staff reports none, that is polar opposition; and, asked if the research involved only the pool address. Swiontek Answered the research involved 2650 Davis Drive with no calls to police or reports filed; the Code Enforcement Division also found no police records regarding trespassing or vandalism at the pool when the initial complaint was made six months ago. Nielsen Reaffirmed there were no complaints and no calls for that specific area of the neighborhood. Swiontek Stated Commissioner Nielsen was correct. Nielsen Indicated that it is troubling when the residents say there were many calls, but the City staff has no record of any calls. Floyd Noted that the issue is two-fold: the vandalism at the pool and a fence that is not to Code standards; while he may be sympathetic to the homeowners, other communities have dealt with the same issues but did not erect a higher fence to prevent people from jumping the fence; whether a community is gated or ungated, these problems exist; there are avenues available other than putting up an unpermitted fence. Nielsen Stated his concem was based on illegal issues taking place with the City having no record. Floyd Agreed that it is troubling to hear about drug use and underage drinking among the youngsters who live in the neighborhood; nevertheless, those are police issues; the fence is a separate issue. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10. 2006 - Page 8 Nielsen Reiterated that it is his concem that the appropriate City officials have performed due diligence. Swiontek Indicated there may have been complaints from other addresses; however, the police were not aware of anything recent relating to the pool vandalism and trespassing. Nielsen Stated that it is a concem that trespassing is occurring in the City's communities, particularly in areas where small children may encounter disgusting debris; there seems to be no evidence that the extension to the fence has eliminated the problem; he does not believe the HOA purposely set out to break the Code; if there are other unpermitted fences in Tustin Ranch, those should be addressed separately; he supports staff's position. Lee Indicated that he was also sympathetic to the homeowners; a determination cannot be made regarding the fence since no direct relationship was established between the trespassers and the debris left behind; the fence is not attractive, looking more like a jail than a pool site; he would not support keeping the fence; increasing the patrolling of the area by private security would be a better solution. Puckett Stated he was extremely sympathetic to the homeowners; the appearance of the fence is not offensive to him; however, even barbed wire or razor wire would not keep people from figuring out a way to get into the pool area; he was hesitant to approve denial and would rather have staff work with the HOA for a few months to find a solution for the whole community. Nielsen Agreed that Commissioner Puckett had a good idea; however, the Planning Commission would not be able to create a cure-all with this particular situation; the problem should be revisited throughout Tustin Ranch. Floyd Noted that the Tustin Pollee Department has 100 percent service response, whether it takes 15 minutes or 30 minutes; the issue on the agenda this evening is the added height to the Presidio fence without permits, not what is happening with other properties in Tustin Ranch. Chair Pro Tern Floyd indicated he agreed with staff's recommendation and asked for a motion. It was moved by Nielsen, seconded by Floyd, to adopt Resolution No. 4029. Puckett Asked if adoption of the resolution would allow future dialogue to help try to find a solution to this community problem. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 9 -..-'"-....--------.---.-..-.--------- Director Answered that further dialogue would not grant an approval to keep the extension to the fence; staff can work with the Police Department to see if there are additional suggestions they may have to thwart any criminal activity that may exist on-site. Floyd Stated there will be a new Police Department plan, beginning August 21, changing the division of the City from four beats to two beats divided by the 1.5 freeway; this change will result in extra resources being assigned to the north side of the 1-5; given the fact that new communities at Tustin Legacy will have no gates, it can only be imagined what sort of difficulties will arise on the south side as that community is built out. Nielsen Agreed that both the Police and Community Development Departments need to find ways from a land use perspective to work with the homeowners associations to improve pool fencing and security. Floyd Directed that staff should continue to explore the issues and determine what other communities are doing on this issue rather than erecting additional fencing; there cannot be a different type of fence in every community; the Code needs to be followed to ensure that standards are maintained. Nielsen Added that the Planning Commission needs to be flexible when addressing issues from a land use perspective as well as a safety perspective. Puckett Stated that it appears the Commission will face this issue with other communities who have also put extensions on fences. Mr. Tkach Reiterated that Presidio is attempting to work with staff; it cost $10,000 to add the extension and will cost another $10,000 to remove it; it may not be the most aesthetically pleasing result, but the HOA is doing Its best to solve problems; it would be appreciated if the Planning Commission could assist the HOA in that endeavor. Floyd Restated that the Presidio HOA got bad advice from the property management company and the three contractors. Floyd Asked again that the Planning Commission abstain from the vote this evening and look into the matter further, allowing the parties to work together toward a solution. Referred to the motion to adopt Resolution No. 4029 and asked for the vote. Motion carried 3-1; Commissioner Puckett voted no. Mr. Tkach Minutes - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 10 Director reported Lee Nielsen Floyd Director Floyd Director Floyd Puckett STAFF CONCERNS 5. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE JUNE 19 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Stated the City Council acted on Tentative Tract Map 17026, Tustin Legacy Community Partners, per the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendations, excepting the 420111 occupancy permit; took action to leave the condition as it was and directed that the applicant and staff work together to make a determination how much progress has been made and how many more permits may be issued at that time; staff will report back to the Commission as to progress in this regard. As yet, no plans have been submitted to plan check for the recreation building. The City Council took action to remove the Chairperson from the Planning Commission; the Commission needs to make a determination whether or not to have the Chair Pro Tem continue to act as the Chair. The City Council is requesting applications for the vacancy and could appoint someone when the interviews are conducted. The Commission may want to wait until there are again five members and proceed with election of the Chair and Chair Pro Tem or schedule the item for a future meeting. Suggested waiting until a fifth member is appointed to the Commission. Concurred with that suggestion. Asked for the time frame for interviewing. Indicated the City Clerk was to advertise immediately and set the interviews at the next Council meeting. Indicated that 10 days are required for submission of applications. Noted there may not be a second Planning Commission meeting in July. Stated he has no plans to be out of town; and, the Commission may continue as it is until a fifth member is appointed. Indicated he would not have a problem with setting the vote sooner, since the person chosen will probably be from the current group. Minutes - Planning Commission July 10, 2006 - Page 11 Floyd Director Nielsen Commissioners Nielsen Lee Puckett Floyd Stated Commissioner Puckett's suggestion would be fine with him. Noted the matter would need to be agendized for a meeting, whenever that meeting is scheduled. Suggested that the item be agendized for conversation in order to see how the process has progressed. Agreed to Commissioner Nielsen's suggestion. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thanked staff for the presentations this evening. Welcomed Assistant Planner Villanueva to the staff. Stated the Rotary "Deportation Hearing" of former Commissioner Leslie Pontious was well-attended and a lot of fun. Ms. Pontious's expertise and outlook will be missed. Commissioner Nielsen wished her well on her Mure travels and indicated he looks forward to seeing her when she retums for visits. Indicated he also attended the "Hearing"; Ms. Pontious was roasted as no other but showed her ability to hold up under pressure; she will be sorely missed. Thanked Ms. Villanueva and welcomed her. Stated he was happy to be back in Califomia; his allergies did not do well in Kansas. Indicated he regretted missing the "Hearing" where he would have had a few things to say, having served with Ms. Pontious on the City Council and the Planning Commission. Added his hope that staff will work with the homeowners association of Presidio and others in the City to try to eliminate some of the problems discussed this evening. It is important to be pro-active to prevent the problems getting worse. He regretted voting against staff's recommendation but felt the Commission needed more time to address the issues. Added his thanks to staff and welcomed Ms. Villanueva aboard. Agreed with Commissioner Puckett that it is difficult to vote against homeowners, but each homeowners association faces a similar problem which requires an HOAIPolice Department/Code Enforcement decision regarding what to do. There are ways to address such a problem without adding height to a pool fence without permits. HOAs should not be allowed to reach a private Minutes - Planning Commission July 10. 2006 - Page 12 solution such as erecting barriers and homeowners doing the policing. Better solutions might be a Neighborhood Watch. hiring private security, installing cameras, elc. which were implemented in his neighborhood. Reminded everyone that Concerts in the Pa..x are happening now and encouraged people to attend. Surprised the Recording Secretary by wishing her a belated happy birthday; and, stated the Commission's appreciation for her support of staff and the Commission. Harris Thanked Chairperson Pro Tem Floyd and the Planning Commissioners for their thoughtfulness. 8:25 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. i/P.tt.0tff:= Floyd Chairperson P m ~udC~ 1m Elizabeth A. Binsack o - Planning Commission Secretary Minutes - Plsnning Commission July 10. 2006 - Page 13 ATTACHMENT C Planning Commission Resolution No. 4029 RESOLUTION NO. 4029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06-001 TO AUTHORIZE THE HEIGHT EXTENSION UP TO TWENTY PERCENT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMmED HEIGHT OF THE PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE PRESIDIO TRACT POOL LOCATED AT 2650 DAVIS DRIVE. I. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That a proper application, Minor Adjustment 06-001, was filed by John S. Tkach (President Presidio Homeowners Association), requesting authorization to extend the height of the existing perimeter pool fence up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum allowable height in the zoning district. The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract within the Planned Community Residential (PCR) zoning district and the Planned Community Residential General Plan land use designation. B. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on July 10, 2006, by the Planning Commission. C. That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the Califomia Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the Califomia Environmental Quality Act). D. That Section 3.13.2.C. of the East Tustin Specific Plan allows administrative adjustments for "An increase of not more than 20% of the permitted height of a fence or wall, subject to City approved structural design.' E. That pursuant to Califomia Govemment Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code, the proposed project would require the City to make two positive findings to approve a minor adjustment. That the proposed project does not meet finding requirements needed to support a minor adjustment. F. That the Planning Commission has considered the mater and made the following findings: 1) The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstances unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured from grade level and would allow for the same fence height limitations as flat land; 2) The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area; and, Resolution No. 4029 Page 2 3) Approval of the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site, but remain subject to the zoning code. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize an increase in the allowable fence height by twenty percent for the fence surrounding the common area pool at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2006. &~;L ~~ ~f"~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 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 lhe City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4029 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2006. ~~~.:-.J- ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT 0 Appeal Letter received July 17, 2006 / July 17, 2006 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 To: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk RE: Appeal of Decision for Minor Adjustment 06-001 This letter serves to appeal the decision rendered on July 10 denying the minor adjustment for fence extensions at the Presidio Community Association. ,( 10hn Tkach, President Board of Directors Clpy Cl./E2(1(~ O!F!FlCE 2('ECEIPT PREPARED BY: . t b DATE: '{I. 11\ \ 't CASH 0 CHECK " -t:;r'" CREDIT CARD: MC VISA AMEX DISC TOTAL $ : j- -, NAME: L' ,r j ,r,- L '..A_ I / ADDRESS: '~--~ . ~,. :~:; /-~.:... ~, CITY, STATE, ZIP: SALES OF MAPS. PLANS, & PUBLICATIONS 01-000-4444 COPIES (SUNDRY) 01-000-4795 POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT 01-801-6415 RECOVERY OF EXPENSE (TELEPHONE REIM) 01-000-4786 OTHER ACCT #: I DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION: I DESCRIPTION: I D~SCRIPT~~N: " , ", i ATTACHMENT E Photo Exhibit provided to the Planning Commission by the Presidio Tract HOA July 10, 2006 ,. (." I! Ii, , ',,' . .' , , , J.' 'v' - ,\ '-, '" ( .c ,. ','c.... .t ,. ~"', "~':? ""." ,--- .'-".' ,'~ .." . ..' ~ ~." " '(----' ."~'~' l""--"~ ...." ~ , ^""'"- "'",- " 1'"""""'-' ,...............~:. 'f"'._~ ,'~- - ,r''' ..,~- . -t'"'' .-- '" r .y~' ",-'''''' W,.,..,.#.; .....&."~,~ ._.......~ ,r-- ' ,."" ~..- .~ \:'~ .-,-, " ATTACHMENT F City Council Resolution No. 06-109 RESOLUTION NO. 06-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06-001 TO AUTHORIZE THE HEIGHT EXTENSION UP TO TWENTY PERCENT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF THE PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE PRESIDIO TRACT POOL LOCATED AT 2650 DAVIS DRIVE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Minor Adjustment 06-001, was filed by John S. Tkach (President Presidio Homeowners Association), requesting authorization to extend the height of the existing perimeter pool fence up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum allowable height in the zoning district. The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract within the Planned Community Residential (PCR) zoning district and the Planned Community Residential General Plan land use designation. B. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for Minor Adjustment 06-001 on July 10, 2006, and denied by the Planning Commission. C. That on July 17, 2006, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny Minor Adjustment 06-001. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Minor Adjustment 06-001 on September 5, 2006, by the City Council. E. That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). F. That Section 3.13.2.C. of the East Tustin Specific Plan allows administrative adjustments for "An increase of not more than 20% of the permitted height of a fence or wall, subject to City approved structural design." G. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code, the proposed project would require the City to make two positive findings to approve a minor adjustment. That the proposed project does not meet finding requirements needed to support a minor adjustment. H. That the City Council has considered the matter and made the following findings: 1) The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstances unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of Resolution No 06-109 Page 2 the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured from grade level and would allow for the same fence height limitations as flat land; 2) The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area; and, 3) Approval of the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site, but remain subject to the zoning code. II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's action denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize an increase in the allowable fence height by twenty percent for the fence surrounding the common area pool at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of September, 2006. DOUG DAVERT MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do 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. 06-109 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of September, 2006, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK