Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - April 7 Planning Commission Minutes e..a5 CO. Gr.4l3 April 7, 2008 10f6 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange April 7, 2008 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker Commissioner Steiner STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Vice Chair Whitaker opened the Administrative Session @ 6:40 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1: Approval ofthe March 3, 2008 minutes. No changes or corrections noted. Continued Item: Item #2: Richardson In-fill Garage/Office, Zone Change continued from the March 17, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Imboden stated he would be recusing himself from the item as he owns property in the vicinity. Assistant Planning Director, Ed Knight, stated the next Planning Commission Meeting had 5 items on the Agenda, most were requests for ABC licensing. The Taco Company had gone before the City Council and gained approval 5-0 for their ABC license request, presenting their establishment as a sit down type restaurant. Administrative Session closed @ 6:45 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2008. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of March 3, 2008 as written. SECOND: Commissioner Imboden Page 1 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008 20f6 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARING: (2) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1238-06, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1797-07, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 422-5, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 158-06 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4047-05-RICHARDSON IN-FILL GARAGE/OFFICE The applicant is requesting a Zone Change approval in order to construct a new 1,683 square foot in-fill project consisting of a 170 square foot office and a 1,513 square foot three-bay garage on the vacant southern half of two lots that are currently split zoned. The northern parcel (lot 24) is zone C-l (Limited Business District) and contains a historic residence converted for office use, and the southern parcel (lot 23) is vacant and zoned OP (Office Professional). The applicant proposes to change the current zoning of the northern parcel from Limited Business District to Office Professional zone. No change in the General Plan designation of Old Towne Mixed Use is proposed LOCATION: 419 S. Glassell Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC 11-08 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 1238-06, Negative Declaration No. 1797-07, Minor Site Plan Review No. 422-05, Administrative Adjustment No. 158-06, and Design Review No. 4047-05. Commissioner Imboden stated he was recusing himself from the item as he owns property in the vicinity ofthe proposed project. Senior Planner Historic Preservation, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Bonina asked for confirmation that the roll up doors were wood roll up doors? Mr. Ryan stated, yes they were sectional wood roll up doors. Commissioner Bonina asked if the justification for the Administrative Adjustment was for the right-of-way on South Glassell Street and asked what was the time frame for the widening of Glassell Street? Page 2 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008 30f6 Mr. Ryan stated the street may never be widened. Dedication was required on new developments. Public Works, in remaining consistent, had requested 10' dedications on new developments along that area of Glassell Street. Commissioner Bonina asked, on the street parking along Glassell, would larger vehicles be allowed to park in that area, vehicles such as larger RV's? Mr. Ryan stated it was his understanding that the area in front of the 3-bay garage would be open and available for loading and unloading of vehicles and equipment. The 5 parking spaces would not go past the door opening on the proposed site. There was alley access and it was assumed that the vehicles would use that access. Commissioner Bonina stated he was speaking to the marked parking on Glassell Street. Mr. Ryan stated that would remain public parking. Commissioner Merino asked on the Administrative Adjustment was the rational due to existing residences on the same block having similar setbacks that were less than the requirement? Mr. Ryan stated the setbacks varied somewhat, but not too much along South Glassell. There were setbacks that were greater and some that were within 20' . Commissioner Merino stated for clarification; it was not just based on a single residence, but on other residences, and there was variation along the entire block. Mr. Ryan stated yes. Typically they looked at adjoining buildings to see if they aligned to make sure the street scape had some continuity to it. They tried to avoid having a juxtaposition of large disparity between setbacks. Commissioner Merino stated the Commission was required to make a finding based on the fact that the issuance of the permit would not compromise the intent of the Code. If there was a substantial amount of variation along the block already allowing the additional Variance would not compromise the Code, however, if the only Variance was the adjacent property that may not be enough justification. Mr. Ryan stated in looking at his Sanborn maps there was not much variation on the east side of the street, there was more variation on the west side of the street. There was more continuity on the east side of Glassell. Commissioner Merino asked ifthere was continuity as far as blending in? Mr. Ryan stated yes, as far as the setbacks were concerned. Vice Chair Whitaker stated there was some concern in the mixing of architectural styles and could he amplify what those concerns were and what were the efforts made by the DRC and the applicant to mitigate those concerns. Page 3 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008 40f6 Mr. Ryan stated there was a combination of architectural styles, Craftsman and Hip-Roof Cottages that were mixed both in roof design and window treatments. The applicant and the DRC discussed that issue and they came to the conclusion to focus on one design element and to follow through with that. Vice Chair Whitaker stated he noticed on the porch there was a typical Craftsman pilaster on the left side of the front porch without anything on the right side. Mr. Ryan stated there was not an issue with that as it was not uncommon on some Craftsman to have two outside pilasters and only one center pilaster. It happened quite frequently and did not seem to present an issue. Vice Chair Whitaker opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Applicant, Kimm Richardson, 413 S. Glassell, Orange, stated he was available to answer any questions. They had changed the design from mixed use to a Craftsman style design. He had been at the 413 location since 1973 and his business had grown. He did not want to give up his location with the proximity to the freeway. He was a general contractor and wanted to make the business dual use by adding the garage for security purposes. Commissioner Bonina asked if they would be parking any job site trailers at the Glassell location? Mr. Richardson stated yes, they would be parking in the garage. Commissioner Bonina stated his vision of a job site trailer was a portable type larger vehicle. Mr. Richardson stated he had a 22' trailer with 2 offices in it. It was not a 70' job site trailer. When there was a need for that type of trailer, they were delivered to the job site, kept at the job site and would not be parked at the Glasselllocation. Commissioner Merino stated there was mention of parking an R V in the garage. He clarified that the applicant would not be able to take care of waste materials at the site. Mr. Richardson stated they were aware of that. They had been vandalized and wanted a secure area for their equipment. Vice Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for Public Comment. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTP A, stated they were pleased that the applicant would be keeping one of the mature trees that was on site. They agreed that the zoning change was consistent with surrounding properties and they commended the applicant for using in kind materials. They did have concerns regarding the scale and mass of the garage as it created context issues. The OTP A would like the project scaled down to include a height reduction and a setback that would be consistent with the rest of the block. If the proj ect had been proposed as a new in-fill residence, instead of as a false residential garage - would it have been approved - he felt it would not have been Page 4 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008 50f6 approved by the DRC, as a detached garage would have been recommended or strongly encouraged. The design was inconsistent with the size and scale of the surrounding developments. There would never be a Craftsman design with a huge gable looming over the front portion of the porch. It was the first project to be reviewed by two of the DRC members. A more appropriate design was suggested at the first DRC meeting; apparently the applicant rejected that suggestion. He felt they could have come up with a more sympathetic design considering the location ofthe proposed project. Architect, Tom Peters, 3002 Dow, Suite 140, came forward to answer any questions. Vice Chair Whitaker asked in regard to the height scale, could he explain how they came up with that in relationship to the rest of the neighborhood? Mr. Peters stated the proposed project was a foot lower than the adjacent buildings on either side of it. There was a height requirement for the trailers that needed to park within the structure and a specific roof pitch necessary to keep the columns to an absolute mInImum. Vice Chair Whitaker closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Merino asked Staff, regarding a concern OTPA had raised, if the applicant should sell the property and being of a substantial size, could the new owner make the property into a different type of stealth residence that would not conform to the standards for a residential project? Mr. Ryan stated he felt there could not be too many changes to the garage to convert it into a residence, it was possible. The item would need to return to the DRC for approval. Commissioner Merino stated it would essentially be a remodel of an existing structure and it would be non-conforming from a residential standpoint. Mr. Ryan stated the project would be designed as an office and it would be compatible with a new office in-fill, reflecting the materials and features of that particular period. The scale of the building related to its function. There had been suggestions to change the roof form and trusses to get the roof form lower. Mr. Ryan stated he felt the building was designed as an office as far as the street scape was concerned and that function could continue. The office area could be expanded inside and applicable to that use. If the property was sold the design of the rear of the property would need to be changed to have a 2 car garage and it would automatically require DRC approval. Commissioner Merino asked if it came before the Commission in the future they would have the opportunity to make recommendations to bring down the scale? Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. Commissioner Bonina asked what utilities would be brought into the property? Page 5 of 6 Pages Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008 60f6 Vice Chair Whitaker re-opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Richardson stated the utilities would be gas, electricity and water. Commissioner Bonina asked if there were any unique, separation, or construction issues to consider with a three car garage, an RV and an occupied office space? Mr. Ryan stated if there was a building code issue of separation between the garage and office area it would be handled through the Building Department. Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight stated generally speaking it would be a B-1 occupancy, the separation would be with a one hour wall, which would be a Type X drywall, 5/8" - that would be the minimum. There might be the need for sprinklers, but they would need to meet the building code. He did not see the need for extreme measures such as a 2 or 3 hour wall. Vice Chair Whitaker closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC 11-08, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 1238-06, Negative Declaration No. 1797-07, Minor Site Plan Review No. 422-05, Administrative Adjustment No. 158-06 and Design Review No. 4047-05 SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Bonina Commissioner Bonina, Merino, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED (3) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bonina made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, April2l, 2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @7:30P.M. Page 6 of 6 Pages