HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes 02-12-07
ITEM #1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 12, 2007
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Given
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Floyd
Chair Pro Tem Puckett
Commissioner Kozak
Absent:
Commissioners Lee and Nielsen
Staff present
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director
Jason Retterer, Deputy City Attorney
Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director
Justina Willkom, Senior Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Associate Planner
Edmelynne Hutter, Assistant Planner
Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary
None
PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2007,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to approve to
Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0.
For the record, Commissioner Kozak noted that he voted due to the
limited quorum even though he was absent from the January 8th
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Adopted Resolution 2.
No. 4050
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-023 A REQUEST TO
OPERATE AN INDOOR, ONE-ON-ONE PERSONAL
FITNESS FACILITY WITH PRIVATE SESSIONS FOR UP
TO THREE (3) CLIENTS AND THREE (3) INSTRUCTORS
WITHIN AN EXISTING APPROXIMATELY 1,200 SQUARE
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 1
7:03 p.m.
Puckett
Hutter
Floyd
Hutter
7:08 p.m.
Continued to 3.
February 26, 2007
Planning
Commission
Meeting
7:10 p.m.
FOOT TENANT SPACE. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT
544 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
WITH COMBINING PARKING OVERLAY (C-2P) ZONING
DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4050
approving Conditional Use Permit 06-023.
Presented the staff report.
Asked for the exact location of the project.
Pointed out the location on the PowerPoint slide.
Inquired about the former tenant.
Indicated that the applicant has occupied the space since January
2005.
The Public Hearing closed.
It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution
No. 4050. Motion carried 3-0.
APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DESIGN REVIEW DECISION TO DISALLOW THE USE OF
CERTAINTEED WEATHERBOARDSTM FIBERCEMENT
SIDING ON A DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH
SECOND-STORY GAME ROOM THAT IS CURRENTLY
UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON A PROPERTY IMPROVED
WITH AN "A"-RATED DWELLING IN THE CULTURAL
RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROJECT WAS
APPROVED WITH REDWOOD SIDING BY ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 05-007. THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT 200 SOUTH A STREET IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) WITH CULTURAL
RESOURCE (CR) OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4051 to
uphold the Community Development Director's decision.
The Public Hearing opened.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 2
Ortlieb
Floyd
Ortlieb
Dave Vandaveer,
425 West 2nd Street
Mike Muzzy, a
representative from
James Hardie
Siding, and
speaking on the
applicant's behalf
Floyd
Mr. Muzzy
Puckett
Presented the staff report.
Asked if the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project with
redwood would also have been approved with the product now
requested.
Responded that one of the findings in the Zoning Administrator
approval required the use of redwood siding pursuant to the City's
Residential Design Guidelines, especially given the application
related to an A-rated structure in the Overlay District.
Stated he lives across from the garage property; a hedge blocks
part of the view; the proposed siding will look the same as redwood
siding but would eliminate the problems with termites, pealing paint,
etc.; it seems reasonable to live in the future, as long as it looks the
same, rather than in the past; the garage structure is setback some
distance from the street; comparing the products from the street, it
would be difficult to tell the difference; the owners of these
properties should be allowed to use the best materials available
that are within the District standards; this project is used quite often
on the television program "This Old House"; for the record, his
house is stucco and was when he bought it.
Stated that he works for James Hardie Siding Products and was
asked by Ms. Young to attend the meeting; if one did a Google
search on hardboard siding, the first ten pages would involve class
action lawsuits involving wood siding; the siding from 1907 and
today does not even compare; the fibercement product is fire
resistant, termite resistant, retains paint three to five times longer
than wood, and provides the same feel and look of wood with none
of the problems.
Asked if the redwood treated and processed today is a better
product than redwood was in 1907.
Stated he has been involved in several projects in Laguna Beach;
the Pottery Shack is fully wrapped with his product; the Montage
Resort has treated redwood; there is no comparison in how the two
products are withstanding the damp weather; there are many
homeowners in Laguna Beach using his product; while redwood
may be better treated today than in 1907, it is still wood and cannot
withstand the elements.
Stated he visited the property and the only difference he could see
was the product is not rounded like the redwood; and, asked if there
is a way to give his product the rounded appearance.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 3
Mr. Muzzy
Tim Weckerle,
510 West 2nd Street
Edward Wellman,
450 West 2nd Street
Bill Hankins,
220 South A Street
Floyd
Michelle Young,
appellant
Floyd
Ms. Young
Stated a layered look is possible but not beveled; his product is
being used at The Legacy; historic communities across the country
have adapted to the fibercement siding and are revising their
guidelines accordingly.
Stated that he lives in a redwood house in Old Town built in 1914;
he had to replace some of the siding and had it custom built at a
substantial cost, because no one makes siding that looks exactly
like his; there is a pride in the neighborhood; his is a Craftsman
house and was literally crafted by hand and not machine pressed;
cement siding may be heavier than redwood and the house may
not be engineered for the extra weight; if this new product is
allowed, people will come forward and ask for the same exception;
his house was the home of the second mayor of Tustin; The
Legacy is not a part of the Overlay District and should not be used
as an example of allowable products for the District
Indicated that he lives about three houses from Ms. Young and has
lived there for 37 years; a lot of change has taken place during that
time; while the original construction may have been similar, all the
houses look different now; the residents should be allowed to move
forward with new products that do not look different.
Noted he lives next door to the property and is closest to the garage
structure; since this is not an original structure, he has no problem
with the use of a better, longer-lasting product; he has no
opposition to Ms. Young using fibercement on the garage which
has been built to today's standards, not those of 1907; the Planning
Commission should allow the use of the new product.
Invited the applicant to the lectern.
Referring to the staff report, her written exceptions to some of the
issues raised in the staff report and which, by this reference,
became a part of the record, the Residential Design Guidelines,
photographs, and a sample of the product, Ms. Young stated the
reasons her appeal should be granted and the fibercement product
allowed on the garage structure.
Asked the appellant what existed on her property prior to the
garage structure.
Responded that the area was landscaped; she has envisioned the
garage structure for 28 years, and the timing was finally right.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12. 2007 - Page 4
Puckett
Asked if staff had seen the product presented to the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Young
Answered in the negative; added that it is comparable to the
product displayed on the dais; and, stated that the product
presented would be more compatible in appearance than what had
been provided to staff.
Kozak
Asked if the original application for the project and the materials
included the vinyl clad window material.
Ms. Young
Answered in the affirmative.
Kozak
Suggested that the elevation drawings indicate fiberboard octagon
shingles being used along the windows; and, asked if that was a
part of the approval.
Ms. Young
Answered in the affirmative.
Kozak
Asked if the modern metal garage doors were also a part of that
approval.
Ms. Young
Answered in the affirmative.
7:47 p.m.
The Public Hearing closed.
Puckett
Stated that Ms. Young's home is beautiful and an asset to Tustin;
when the Overlay District Guidelines were prepared, there was no
way to anticipate all the products that might be developed; if the
product were being considered for the home, there would be no
question about the siding; since the garage structure is setback 67
feet and is not a part of the original house, it would be very difficult
to see a difference in the material; it would be an asset to the
homeowner and the City if products that look the same could be
substituted; he is inclined to accept what the appellant is
requesting; if staff has not seen the product, that will need to occur;
perhaps amending the Guidelines is something that should be
considered; he is in favor of doing what it takes to approve the
project.
Kozak
Thanked staff for assembling the materials for the presentation and
the staff report, also the applicant for her presentation to the
Commission, and the speakers who took their time to come to the
meeting and make their thoughts and feelings known because that
is an important part of the process.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 5
Kozak continued
Such testimony proves the process is working; an application was
made, approvals were given, a request was made to make an
amendment to one item from that approval; the request was denied
as part of the process, and the applicant had the right to appeal that
decision to the Planning Commission.
Considering all the material provided and also his site visit, he
believes the information in many ways shows that the Design
Guidelines, while they may be a few years old, include room for
interpretation and flexibility and speaks to the viability of the
Guidelines.
There are situations such as the one before the Commission this
evening where an altemative material can be considered and
approved; this is an ancillary building, not an existing historical
structure that was built in 1907, which would require a different
standard and set of factors to be considered in making a decision.
This new accessory building will be setback more than 60 feet from
the street; the Design Guidelines refer to accessory buildings being
compatible with the style, quality, dimensions, texture, and color of
materials on the existing house to the greatest extent feasible; the
appellant has adhered to the spirit and intent of that statement in
the Guidelines; the material in combination with the other woodwork
that exists on the structure will be compatible with the existing
historic building; it will not be detrimental to the Cultural Resources
District and will be harmonious; the character of the architecture for
the building is consistent with the historical structure.
Approval of this project will not create a precedent with respect to
an historic structure.
Staff needs to take a consistent and strict viewpoint in interpretation
of the Guidelines; the Planning Commission has other information
that can be gathered and are not destroying the policy and intent.
It is important that the Planning Commission have findings to reject
the proposed resolution and also findings for a new resolution, such
as "the exterior appearance of new accessory buildings should be
compatible with the style, quality, dimensions, and texture of
materials on the historic house," which he could support as a
finding. Also, "the proposed work must not adversely affect the
character of the District or any designated cultural resources within
the District" does not suggest any adversity and should be a finding.
Another finding might be "the establishment, maintenance, and
operation of the use applied for will not under any circumstances of
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 6
this case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use." The last finding offered is
that "the general appearance of the proposed structure will not
impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the
present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole
in that the design of the accessory building ensures that it will be
accessory to the main residence appearing to be a garage."
In summary, his comments are intended within a brief discussion
and appreciation for the process and the importance of the process;
the Guidelines are viable and there is flexibility. Based on the
above findings, he would support the appellant's use of the material
with the appropriate review by staff.
Floyd
Indicated he also visited the property, which is a beautiful home;
however, approving one exception could allow the floodgates to be
opened for other residents and could upset all the residents who
abided by the rules; when the appellant submitted her application, it
was the intent that the redwood would be used, not another
material; staff had not seen the Hardiplank product or reviewed the
material; even if the Planning Commission found the material to be
acceptable, the Planning Commission would have to approve staff's
recommendation of rejecting the appeal and asking staff to review
the Hardiplank material.
Perhaps the Guidelines need to be revised or amended to include
products that have become available since the Guidelines were
written. The intent was to keep the historical value of the properties
in Old Town.
His concern is that changing the allowable material on these
historical homes would change the original intent and vision of the
Overlay District; other residents are opposed to any different
material used on historical homes; while this project is somewhat
different, a garage with vinyl windows and roll-up doors, this may
result in other redwood-siding homeowners in the District wishing to
make similar improvements and expecting the same consideration
regarding a primary historical structure.
Staff needs to examine the new material submitted this evening
before recommending rejection or approval of the proposal.
Director
Indicated that staff would take direction from the Commission; if it is
the consensus of the Commission to move forward with this project,
staff can bring back a resolution of approval that could be placed on
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 7
the Consent Calendar, allowing the appellant to move forward on
this structure.
If the Planning Commission is directing staff to consider the District
overall with respect to a policy perspective regarding materials and
what might be used by other residents throughout the District, that
is another issue. Staff attends training regarding materials that the
Secretary of the Interior uses for rehabilitation of historic structures
throughout the country. Staff is not aware of the Interior modifying
their standards, on which Tustin's Guidelines were modeled. Staff
can further research what peers are doing and report back to the
Commission.
Floyd
Stated that other homeowners have been required to adhere to the
Guidelines, and he is concerned about what to expect in the future.
Director
Suggested there may be other requests coming before the
Commission.
Floyd
Reiterated that was his concern stated above regarding opening
the floodgates to this sort of exception, which could destroy the
integrity of the Overlay District.
Director
Cautioned the Commission to ensure that no broader precedent
would be established by approving this request.
Floyd
Responded that he is not in favor of approving this request; he is in
favor of the applicant moving forward with the staff by submitting
the Hardiplank material not previously reviewed; he would prefer to
take staffs recommendation adopting Resolution No. 4051,
upholding the Director's decision to disallow the replacement of the
redwood siding with the fibercement siding for this project; when
staff has had an opportunity to review the new material submitted
this evening, the proposal can be reconsidered.
Puckett
Stated that with two Commissioners absent, three votes will be
necessary; perhaps staff can provide direction on how to best
proceed.
Ms. Green
Stated from the audience that she does not wish to face further
delay of the project.
Floyd
Reiterated that staff needs to review the new material.
Director
Indicated that, if is the desire of the Commission, staff would
recommend that the item be continued to the next meeting; the
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 8
reason staff kept the materials that were displayed behind the dais
was that the materials became part of the public record and official
file; once an appeal is filed, there is a cut-off point beyond which the
appeal cannot change for staff to make a recommendation based
upon what was submitted.
Floyd
Agreed with the Director that the item should be continued to allow
staff time to provide the recommendation; if there were to be a 2-1
split in the vote on the current resolution, carrying the item forward
might be the best option.
Kozak
Asked staff if it would be more expeditious to direct that a new
resolution be adopted based on staffs finding that the product is
acceptable, rather than adopting the resolution of denial; his intent
was, based on the ancillary nature of the structure, to find the new
product acceptable.
Stated he understood this might require a motion to reject this
resolution before the Commission and a second recommendation
to direct staff to prepare a substitute resolution to be presented at
the next Planning Commission meeting.
Puckett
Asked if it would be better to continue the item for two weeks to
allow staff to work with the appellant.
Director
Indicated that staff would need a consensus of the Commission.
Floyd
Stated he was in favor of continuing the motion until all five
Commissioners are in attendance, being cognizant of the cultural
significance of what is now allowed in the Design Guidelines and
what may happen as a result of approving this product.
Kozak
Stated that if he were to agree to a continuance it would be that two
resolutions be brought back; a resolution denying the current
proposal and an alternative resolution for consideration by the
Commission for adoption that would allow the use of this material in
this particular case.
Puckett
Added his agreement to Commissioner Kozak's suggestion; staff
should also consider whether or not the Guidelines would allow this
product on the ancillary building, but not on the primary structure.
Kozak
Suggested that would be a larger global policy matter that might
require a process that the Director indicated could be presented by
staff at a future time and should not be a part of any resolution.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 9
Mr. Hankins
Floyd
Mr. Hankins
Director
Floyd
Ms. Green
Floyd
Puckett
Kozak
Continued to
March 13, 2007
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Director
Asked the Chairperson if he would approve the product standing
before the Commission.
Answered that, if the sample is the same as the Hardiplank product,
he would approve; since staff has not reviewed the product, it is
necessary to continue the item.
Asked if Ms. Green stated she would be using the new product the
Commissioners could make a decision this evening.
Stated that, if the Commission is going to adopt a new resolution,
staff will need to bring the resolution back to the next meeting.
Clarified that the only resolution before the Commission was to
deny the appeal.
Asked what she is expected to do.
Answered that the Director would call her tomorrow with information
how to proceed in order to bring the item back to the next meeting.
Moved that the item be continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting, February 26, 2007, and consider staffs further
recommendation following their review of the product.
Asked the motion-maker if that would include the discussion of the
alternative resolution, in order to move the project forward, to find
that this material, specifications to be reviewed by staff, would be
approved for this application; with that clarification, he would
second the motion.
Motion carried 3-0.
4.
APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED USE AT 15201
WOODLAWN AVENUE IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAUBUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
until the March 13,2007, Planning Commission meeting.
Indicated the Chairperson should open the Public Hearing and take
testimony from anyone wishing to speak this evening.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 10
8:20 p.m.
Sammy Sayago,
15143 Woodlawn
D i recto r
Mr. Sayago
Director
Jeff Luvidsen,
15137 Woodlawn
8:25 p.m.
None
Director reported
The Public Hearing opened.
Stated his only concern was that the item would definitely be heard
on March 13,2007; the Pacific Business Center has asked him to
attend to share the concerns of the community; the Center is not in
favor of the proposal due to lowering of the property values and
possible environmental issues.
Asked Mr. Sayago if he received a copy of the Notice of Public
Hearing for this item.
Answered in the affirmative.
Added that staff will keep in touch with Mr. Savago regarding this
agenda item.
Stated his office is located at 15137 Woodlawn in the Pacific
Business Center; he received the hearing notice and attended this
evening to oppose any change in the recommendation to the
Planning Commission; he would like to be kept apprised of any
date change from March 13, 2007.
The Public Hearing closed.
It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Puckett, to continue the item
to the March 13, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Motion
carried 3-0.
REGULAR BUSINESS
STAFF CONCERNS
REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE JANUARY 15 AND
FEBRUARY 5,2007, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
The City Council pulled the Planning Commission Action Agenda
for review of the 2006 projects, which staff provided in a
PowerPoint presentation at the following City Council meeting.
The City Council approved staffs draft letter to the City of Santa
Ana with comments regarding the Mixed Use Overlay Zone project,
and the letter was mailed to Santa Ana.
The City Council provided staff with some general direction
regarding the proposed Building Industry Association directional
sign program; staff will be bringing a master sign program to the
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 11
Planning Commission; any questions the Planning Commission
may have should be addressed at that time.
Floyd
Asked what the issue was concerning the water meters.
Director
Responded that a contract was approved for water meter reading
and customer service; there was a question whether or not there
was a way to upgrade that service, but the cost was prohibitive.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Kozak
Apologized for missing the January meeting.
Noted that he accessed the agenda packet on the City's website.
Indicated that he found the "2006 Year in Review" very impressive
with the vast number of projects in all areas of development,
residential, commercial, and industrial; however, the number of
graffiti removal cases is an ongoing concern.
Stated he noticed graffiti on the back of the garage that can be
seen from the Main Street bridge passing over the SR-55 freeway;
there is an even better view from the f1yover from the southbound
SR-55 to the southbound 1-5; the graffiti appears to be gang-
related.
Referred to the County's proposed raised median on Red Hill north
of Irvine; stated he has information on that proposal that he would
be willing to share with Public Works and Community Development;
and, questioned the compatibility of that proposal with older and
future medians along Irvine Boulevard and the new work that has
been done and will continue to be done on Red Hill further south.
Puckett
Thanked staff for their work on the agenda items this evening.
Indicated he attended the 2nd Annual Mayor's Inaugural Dinner
sponsored by the Tustin Community Foundation, a phenomenal
event.
Pointed out the new banner hanging in the Council Chamber
referring to the City's recognition of the City's 80th birthday and the
75 years of service by the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, Tustin
Area Man and Woman of the Year, and Tustin Tiller Days,
respectively; this is a big year in Tustin's history, and everyone
should keep an eye out for the special events.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 12
Puckett continued
Floyd
8:35 p.m.
Wished everyone Happy Valentine's Day.
Indicated he also enjoyed the Mayor's dinner; and, offered kudos to
the Foundation on a fantastic job coordinating this event.
Thanked staff for their presentations.
Commented that perhaps Tustin will need to change in order to
keep up with the times regarding new housing products or make a
policy decision to preserve the character of the Overlay District
using the current guidelines.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held
February 26, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at
300 Centennial Way.
Minutes - Planning Commission February 12. 2007 - Page 13