Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-12-07 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 Tern 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 t.he 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. \~ ...J Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 4 , . . ;r 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 1I1e 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 alternative 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 staffs 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 concem 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 '.::onsensus 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 riot the Guideline$ 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 staff's 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 COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS 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 Director 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 ca rried 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 staff's draft letter to tihe 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 __"___._________.~_.__..,,__._____~.__1 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 .,~ ,-;r--..-----.- - - ~ . -- R . " .. - Puckett continued Wished everyone Happy Valentine's Day. Floyd 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. 8:35 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commi$sion will be held February 26, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. a~dA~~~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Minutes - Planning Commission February 12, 2007 - Page 13