Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - October 2 CI/<;:s/'e/ MINUTES C /Jtf'3. G, A' 3 Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: October 2, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary C:) l~~~ 1-. -:,i.';;~'~;; 1,1,j0 - ITEMTO BE WITHDRAWN 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16072 - WOODLAND CONDOMINIUM A request for a tentative tract map to allow the conversion of 900 apartments to for-sale condominiums. The site is located at the northeast corner of Shaffer Street and Katella Avenue, at 501 East Katella Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Dan Luares. the architect for the project and representinq the applicant. stated the owner of the property has withdrawn their request. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to accept the withdrawal 01 Tentative Tract Map 16072, AYES: NOES: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of September 18, 2000, Chairman Bosch was present for a portion of the meeting, but not the entire meeting. He will vote to approve the Minutes for the portion in which he was present. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the Minutes of September 18, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2000 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR SAV-ON DRUGS A request to make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for previously approved Conditional Use Permit 2286-98 to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and distilled liquor) for the purpose of off-site consumption, The site is located at 480 South Main Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition to this request; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Paulette Dewire. Sav-On Druqs/Albertson's. 6565 Knott Avenue. Buena Park, explained this is the same type of land use and liquor license that had been approved for Rite Aid. ABC will not allow them to transfer a letter of Public Convenience or Necessity. They are requesting that the Commission make that finding again for Sav-On Drugs. They have reviewed the conditional use permit that was approved for Rite Aid and will abide by all conditions, The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to make a finding of public convenience or necessity is served for Sav-On Drugs, based on the identical findings to the original application. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2352-00 - DANIEL VARGAS A request for a Type "41" license to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine at an existing restaurant (Viva Mexico), The site is located at 3702 East Chapman Avenue, Suite A, NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition; therefore, the public hearing was opened without a full presentation of the staff report, Daniel Varqas. 3702 East Chaoman Avenue #A, through his interpreter, explained that he wanted to sell beer at his existing restaurant. They have read and understand the conditions of approval, including the hours of sale of alcoholic beverages and condition 2, converting the outside area in front of the restaurant to a landscaped planter per the original approved plans. The outdoor seating area was installed without benefit of approvals or permits, The Commission discussed condition 3 relative to the hours of operation. Sale of alcoholic beverages shall begin at 11 :00 a,m, and shall cease at least one hour prior to the close of business each day. The public hearing was closed. 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2000 It was noted the project is categorically exempt trom CEQA review, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2352-00, with conditions 1 through 11, amending conditions 1 and 2 in that "Development shall be in substantial compliance with plans to be submitted to the Department of Community Development for approval, which shall clearly delineate the work required by condition 2 prior to approval by the Department." And, modifying condition 3 to state that service of beer and wine shall not begin prior to 11 :00 a.m, and cease one (1) hour prior to the close of business each day, The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located, And, it is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 5, APPEAL NO, 487 (RE: DRC #3458) - PAUL HUDSON An appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision that denied a request to replace an existing window for a residence located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The site is located at 212 South Orange Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Godlewski reported that the applicant is in the process of constructing a 1 1/2 story 1,400 square foot addition at the rear of his existing Craftsman Bungalow residence, The addition was recently approved by the Planning Commission, and was reviewed by the Design Review Committee. During the construction of the project, a change was made to remove a dormer window in the front portion of the house that was not originally considered by the Planning Commission or DRC, The original window was removed and a new opening was cut, removing a smaller window and proposing to replace it with three wood windows, Although the DRC reviewed this modification, they felt that the new replacement windows. although consistent in style with the rest of the house, may not be consistent with their interpretation of the Secretary of Interior Standards for replacing windows, The Secretary of Interior Standards states: Not Recommended - Removing or radically changing windows which are important in defining the historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character of the structure is diminished. The DRC made a split vote decision, which failed to produce an approval of the project. The public hearing was opened. Paul Hudson. 212 South OranQe Street, has been working on his house for three years, He did not change the window on a whim, nor was it to be replaced w~hout the City's approval. The replacement was on the floor plan, but not on the elevations, The new living space is 12 x 12 and it was originally an attic, The back of the house was unsalvagable. He has spent a considerable amount of time in collecting doors, wood, and hinges to keep the addition as close to the original architectural style of the house, He has salvaged as much of the materials as possible to re-use. He has also kept the dormer window and reinstalled it at the back of the house as he felt the window was not practical at the front of the house. He shared a couple of pictures of the windows with the Commission, 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2000 Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Hudson had asbestos siding on the house? And, did he intend to convert the upstairs attic into living space? Mr. Hudson explained why he took off the siding, which had asbestos, His intention all along was to remodel the upstairs to create a livable area, along with the addition to the back of the house. The only elevation not reviewed by the City was the front elevation. 9 oeoole sooke in favor Gina Gabrielli, 204 South Orange Street. Jane Fields, 212 South Orange Street. Gill Hatfield, 220 South Orange Street. Orville Hatfield, 220 South Orange Street. Kristin Hale. 220 1/2 South Orange Street. Greg Raab, 351 North Maplewood, Christina Tardif, 221 South Orange Street. Andre Tardif, 525 East Washington Avenue. Lydia Passannante, 204 #A South Orange Street. Mr, Hudson's neighbors have watched him remodel and preserve his home in a manner that is in keeping with the historic character at Old Towne and they do not believe the new wood windows will detract from the historic ambiance, Having a window upstairs that can open is important for ventilation and light. The wood window is custom-made to match the existing house and gable, 4 oeoole sooke in ODDosition Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Jeff Frankel. 384 South Orange Street. Robert Imboden. 226 West Palmyra. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive Street. The speakers believed the fixed leaded glass window is a defining architectural feature of the house, and matches the windows below, The DRC discussed the code issue and that is not a problem, The original fixed window needs to be put back to where it was. It would have been more helpful had the window change been included in the original plan. The City told the owner not to take out the window until it was approved because it had not been part of the original plan, The real issue is: Does the modification meet the standards used in Old Towne? The new windows are historically appropriate, but they do not reveal the same historical craftsmanship that the original window did, There is concern about the City's process. The City needs to be careful in not allowing homeowners to alter homes in the National Registered District of Old Towne. Education is needed so that applicants understand what they can and cannot do when restoring houses in Old Towne, Aoolicant's reSDonse Mr. Hudson stated the window is not leaded and it does not match exactly the windows below. It's a similar size, but a dissimilar construction. He honestly did not mean to replace the window without City approval. He understands now that DRC requires all elevations, but at the time of submittal, it was not required. The remodel project encompasses the entire house and he does not believe the window is the only defining architectural feature, He believes the Secretary of Interior Standards are interpretative and are guidelines to follow, and he should not be penalized. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was concerned as to what kind of windows are actually needed to meet code requirements for that living space in the attic, Mr. Godlewski responded the lighting and ventilation issue was not discussed at the DRC meeting, This would be taken up in Building at the time of plan check, It is his understanding that there is adequate light and ventilation from the windows on the south elevation to meet code requirements, 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2000 Commissioner Smith had many questions about the process with this project. The project was presented as a second story addition to the rear of the house. She asked about the development of the rest of the attic as living space? Mr. Godlewski said that was included in the original application, and reviewed. The only portion of the application that was not reviewed was the front elevation of the property and the detail of that window and the change out to the larger windows. Commissioner Smith asked if the three windows that have been added are omitted, will the upstairs living area still meet code requirements for light and ventilation? It was Mr, Godlewski's understanding that it will, Commissioner Smith asked if there was anything in the original proposal that addressed the removal of the siding of the entire house. Mr. Godlewski explained the interpretation that the Building Department has taken is that the asbestos siding is not desirable to remain, if it is possible to remove it and if there is redwood siding underneath, Staff is trying to be more specific as to what the applications entail. He could not say whether the actual removal of the asbestos siding was before the DRC or Planning Commission as part of the original application. Commissioner Smith thought the question of removing siding should be added to the application, when additions are being built. She does not like to see the neighborhood polarized, especially when everyone wants the same thing, In her mind, the window is an important detail to the house, And, the inclusion of the window in its original location will make this a much better project. The hand drawing does not include the transom windows in the front windows, However, the photo shows that the transom windows are in the bottom windows, The craftsman era was about craftsmanship and workmanship on the houses. It diminishes the house to take the window off of the front of the house. She checked the original plan and the window is not included on the rear elevation, She thinks it is assumed the house is going to stay the same; that there is no change when elevations are not submitted, She affirmed and congratulated Mr, Hudson for restoring this house and using authentic materials of wood and wood windows. The City was not told that all of the siding would be removed, She calls that a demolition, Something needs to be added to the process before a structure is demolished, A lot of leeway has been given to the property owner on this project. She recommends to put the original window back and to continue with the restoration of the structure, Commissioner Carlton thought this was a tough call because the DRC could have gone the other way if the fifth member had been present. She commented on the varied architecture in Old Towne and believed the guidelines leave it open to interpretation, The authentic wood windows and the light and ventilation are mitigating the fact that the small window was removed. She is in favor of the appeal. Commissioner Pruett agreed this is a tough issue, He believed the window is a defining feature of the home. He finds it very difficult to approve the modification. That window is also replicated in the two front windows on the front elevation. He is inclined to agree with Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Romero believes the original window is a historic feature of the home. The Standards for Old Towne should be adhered to, but he also felt it could be over done, To follow the Standards could be a detriment to the homeowner. The owner has done quite a bit of work to improve his home. He is in favor of the appeal. Chairman Bosch agrees with the Commissioners about the difficult decision they must make. There are still faults with the process; this is a learning curve that will continue for quite some time, They need to find a way to strengthen City ordinances. He believes if appropriately done, one could retain or replace an 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2000 architectural feature and have it conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards and the Old Towne Design Standards. There is absolutely no question that the quality of life is improved with the change out of the window. It fulfills the cross ventilation desire that one would have, but it is not unlivable without it. The pre-existing window was very unique, He wishes to not uphold the appeal and restoring the previously existing window. Commissioner Smith does not think Mr. Hudson changed out the window intentionally, but the fact remains the change was not approved by the City, It did not go through the process in the proper way. There is no front elevation. The back elevation does not show the eyebrow window and even the drawings at this meeting omit the transom window on the front windows. People in the community have worked very hard to have a conscientious code, People are drawn to the historic, valuable neighborhood of Old Towne. This change had every opportunity to go through scrutiny and to be approved, but that step was missed in the process, If approved, it will set a precedent for the next applicant. Commissioner Pruett is not looking at this in terms of the process, He is looking at the unique aspects of that window feature on the house, It will lose that unique characteristic of the structure's design if the original window is not put back and retained, Commissioner Carllon said with the addition to the back and converting the attic to living space, the plans show a double window. She realizes this might set a precedent, but she does not see it as a major factor, The window blends in well with the second story addition at the rear and it is much more logical to have a bigger window in the front. Mr, Godlewski said the original plans that were submitted indicates a double window. He doesn't know if anyone looked at that portion of the floor plan at the time the DRC was looking at the elevations for the rear addition, The front portion of the house was not discussed, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to deny Appeal 487, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch explained that the applicant has the opportunity to appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 6