Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-1999 PC Minutesc!S5/t, C 'J-'S"oo(j-, L._S MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange March 15, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of March 1, 1999.2. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1592-99 - JOHN WOlBERG A negative declaration to study the potential impacts, if any, regarding a request to add two rooms and one bathroom onto an existing single family residence located in the City's Old Towne District. The site is located at 138 North Harwood Street.RECOMMENDATION: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1592-99 with conditions and mitigation measures as recommended by the Design Review Board. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGSINRE: 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2277-99 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD COASTAL, INC. (SERRANO HEIGHTS 1400, llC) A request to allow minimum front yards of 10 feet for side-on garages or single-story extensions. The site is located northeast of "Mabury Ranch", north of "Hidden Creek" and north of Santiago Oaks Regional Park in Serrano Heights Planned Community Development Areas 3 & 1 0; Tracts 14359 and 15709,including 139 lots.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Smith chaired Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 Mr. Jones reported the Serrano Heights Specific Plan had standard requirements for setbacks and it also has provisions which allow encroachments into that setback area, based upon granting of a conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing four (4) different models and plans, of which a small percentage would extend into the setback area. Jim Dononvan, Senior Planner, presented a full staff report on this item. The Specific Plan requires 20 feet between the garage and openings, and the front property line. However, there is a provision in the Specific Plan which allows the builder to reduce the yards to 10 feet for single story buildings, and even as little as six feet by conditional use permit. The developer is not proposing anything less than 10 feet, and in many case, is proposing more than that. A similar provision exists in the City's Development Standards for R-1 zones. Similar proposals have been approved at residential communities and three other locations in Orange. The development of the property was previously approved through a series of actions taken by the City of Orange, including General Plan Amendments in 1978 and 1987. A Participation and Development Agreement was signed in 1988. And, approval of the Serrano Heights Specific Plan occurred in 1990. TraGt maps have been approved as documents consistent with the Specific Plan, and the property has been graded and subdivided to allow construction of single family residential homes on each parcel. The only question before the Commission is how 21 % of those structures will be situated with respect to the front property line. The remainder of the homes would have a full setback of 20 feet, as envisioned by the Specific Plan. The applicant's proposal satisfies all other requirements listed in the Plan. Houses include 2- and 3-car garages, the houses are less than 2 stories high, and the project includes a substantial percentage of single story homes. Development will also satisfy requirements for side and rear yards, including that for usable open space in back yards. The number of homes is somewhat less than initially authorized with a total number of 139 homes. With this request, approximately 36 homes will be built. And, a design theme has been established within the proposal that is not required by prior City approval. The applicant has exceeded the minimal requirements of the Specific Plan.Commissioner Romero questioned the development of 522 homes in the Development Agreement, but the blueprints don't show how they could have built that many units.Mr. Dononvan explained the 522 homes was taken from the Development Agreement, which is not the same as the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan more narrowly defines the development potential of the area, given a single family detached product as being 150 units.The public hearing was opened.Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, represented the owner of the property, Kaufman and Broad. He has been involved with this project for 15 years. They concur with staff's recommendation. Originally the lots were proposed to be much smaller than what they are right now. The average lot size is 9, 000 square feet. They are requesting the encroachment on their 1-story homes to improve the street scene. The FAR. is substantially less than what was anticipated by the Specific Plan.Public comments:Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Oranqe Park Acres, spoke in favor of this project. He supports the mixture of houses; the 1- and 2-story homes pleases the community.Commissioner Carlton referred to the staff report and noted the Design Review Board recommended six 6) items, and it states the applicant has complied with all of them. She wanted to know if there were any items that have not been addressed in the conditions.Mr. Elfend was comfortable with the conditions as currently worded.Mr. Jones said design guidelines were outlined in the Specific Plan. It also deals with fuel modification and landscaping requirements. Staff is following the Specific Plan very close to make sure the Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, 10 approve Conditional Use Permit 2277-99, with conditions 1-8 listed in the staff report, and adding condition 9 which sets the limit 0 n the number of properties that this special privilege can be applied to at 26%, as shown on the plans,finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It is granted because it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans 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:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting.4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2278-99 - EL TORITO RESTAURANT, INC.A request to allow the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of a new restaurant. The site is located at 745 South Main Street, Suite 150.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.No one opposed this item; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened.Art Rodriquez, 709 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 210, Pasadena, represented EI Torito. This is a different type of EI Torito restaurant; very small without a fixed bar. The alcohol is limited to only beer and wine. There are no residences within 500 feet of this proposed use. They have filed with the ABC for a type 41 license. They read the staff report and are in agreement with the conditions of approval.The public hearing was closed.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2278-99, with conditions 1-14 listed in the staff report, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community, and particularly the retail and professional office community in the immediate area of the site. The project will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located, including review by the Police Department with regard to the number of alcohol beverage licenses within the area and found that there is no problem relative to this type of use. With conditions 1-14, these conditions are necessary to preserve the general welfare of the community, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 5. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 81-99 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1593-99 - RALPH ZEHNER A request to allow the demolition of an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and one and one-half story construction of two (2) duplexes, a single story garage for six (6) vehicles and a workroom, to be located behind an existing single-family home. The site is located at 630 East Culver Avenue.NOTE:Mitigated Negative Declaration 1593-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.John Godlewski, Principal Planner, reported a number of changes have been made to this proposal over the last few months. The last proposal was presented to the City Council with maintaining the existing single family home and a proposal for five (5) units on the back of the property. The City Council denied the request, suggesting it was too dense for the property. They encouraged the applicant to return with a plan showing one less unit, which is before the Planning Commission. This is a new application showing a substantial change in the development in that this is now four (4) units, in addition to the existing single family home on the property. The primary changes from this plan over the previous plan is the unit that was above the garage structure. That unit has been eliminated and now the garage is a single story garage for six (6) cars and a work room. The four (4) units proposed for the property are in the form of two 2) duplex units.The Commission is being asked to determine if this project conforms with the various guidelines and standards that are required for development along the south side of Culver. First, there was a Mitigated Negative Declaration 1425-93 that was part of the zone change in 1993 that changed the zone from R-1 parcels to R-2. With the changing of the zone from R-1 to R-2, the Council was concerned and included mitigations so that any development that took place in the R-2 zone would be sensitive to the Old Towne area. Those mitigation measures are listed on Page 4 of the staff report. Secondly, would be the review of the current Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviews the impact of this project on the surrounding properties. Finally, would be the review of the Minor Site Plan for conformance with the development standards in the zoning ordinance, as well as conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards. Those findings have been listed in the staff report.Commissioner Smith questioned the findings for approval; specifically, Item 2.B., bullet one. One of the findings required is that the project is consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards in that it:Conforms to the standards and design criteria recommended by the DRB for the project. It was her understanding that this proposal was denied, or the motion failed at the DRB meeting.Mr. Godlewski responded the DRB of four (4) members took a vote and it was a 2-2 split. The DRB in this particular case, made a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and did not make a determination on the project. Any comments that come out of the DRB should be considered by the Commission in making a decision on the project.The public hearing was opened.John Waters, 2144 East Monroe. represented the applicant. Per the City Council and comments received, the second story unit has been eliminated. The building has been lowered to just barely over 20 feet high. It is a fairly large building, but it has deep garage spaces. This will allow the tenants to have some storage space. The DRB requested that a shed dormer be added to the south side of the building.He reminded the Commission that shed dormers were shown on the plans, but they were removed at the Commission's request. Air conditioning units are not being proposed at this time.Commissioner Carlton had a concern about very little privacy along the west side of the front house with the driveway. She wanted to know Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 Mr. Waters replied landscaping was proposed. They were also retaining the existing plants. However, they are not planning on anything tall at that location. Commissioner Smith asked how large the existing shed was and how large the proposed units would be. Mr. Waters said the shed was 576 square feet. Buildings 2 and 3 are each 2,094 square feet -- a little over 1, 050 living space per unit.Commissioner Smith previously talked about her concerns with the project, and they still remain unaddressed. It was very important that the architecture closely follow the Design Guidelines. It should duplicate a design between 1880 and 1930. There is a Craftsman design, but there needs to be more architectural detail. She would like to see wood trim or a gable tie added to the design.Mr. Waters agreed to add the enhancement of a gable tie trim on the buildings.Commissioner Smith also talked about adding wood windows at the previous hearing.Mr. Waters remembers their discussion and resolving Commissioner Smith's concerns by adding wood screens rather than installing wood windows. He deferred to Mr. Zehner to address this issue.Commissioner Smith stated the City Council asked the applicant to reduce the bulk and mass of the project. A living unit has been removed, but still on the garage, it contains a workshop/hobbyarea, and the garages are an additional 5 feet deeper. There is still about 1,000 square feet of space that is not required, and this adds to the bulk and mass of the project.Mr. Waters explained the garages are 10 feet-10 inches wide between two walls. The parking stalls exceed the City's minimum requirements. Storage area is needed for the tenants. And, the shed and workshop is for the property owner's use. Commissioner Pruett understood the footprint of the garage is larger now than what it was previously. (Mr. Waters replied the garage was the same size as originally proposed in footprint.) He asked if there was any consideration given to breaking up the garages into two 2-car garages. It puts another building on the property, but it breaks the two apart and removes some of the mass. The depth of the 2-car garage is very deep. It's almost like a 4-car garage in terms of square footage. The height of the gable is being driven by the size of the 2-car garage and that then drives a higher gable for even the one car garages that are pulled together.Commissioner Romero questioned building 1 in the drawing on the north elevation, yet on the front page it does not show. He also asked if a second story was proposed for the garage area. He asked what type of siding material is proposed and how different will it be from the existing residence.Mr. Waters stated that was correct. The details of the site plan are not included; but the floor plans are correct. He stated this was the shed treatment, to the side of a gable wall, to break up the expanse of the wall. It is a 2 foot pop out. Restrooms are not planned for the garage areas. The window above the gable in the garage is for architectural treatment. There is no height to allow a second story. The roof pitch is 7:12. It could never be used for habitable space. The existing residence has a very narrow board for siding. They plan to use individual 6" boards of a masonite product.Chairman Bosch noted the DRB had discussed the height of the wainscot around the outside of the building. He noticed several sizes of windows and wondered why they were different. Perhaps the wainscot height was set to go with the sill of the larger windows.Mr. Waters replied the smaller windows on the east elevation are in a side yard area and he thought it would be nice to have the larger windows face a public area. The wainscot height is 18" off of a normal slab. They are proposing a stucco product to create the appearance of a foundation wall. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 applicant to raise the windows and lower the wainscot. The minimum window that will meet code is a five 5) foot high window. The windows upstairs are meeting minimum code requirements, and he can't see reducing the windows downstairs. He stated the window will be set to where the actual window sill will be part of the 2x3. Chairman Bosch questioned the roof pitches on building 1. It appears there are two separate roof pitches. He was interested in the pitch and height of the roof, the windows -- it looks like a nice building and it doesn' t look like a garage. Maybe it should look like a garage and not a building because he is concerned about mass and volume in the space and to make sure it fits well. He asked why a lower pitch couldn't be used. Mr. Waters said that was correct. The north elevation shows the wider of the two garage structures. The west elevation shows a gable end of the narrower of the two garages. It works out to be 8:12 for the narrower garage. By lowering the pitch, it loses some of the Craftsman style detail. If the roof is lower than 7: 12, they wouldn't be able to have the gable dormer vent the same way as it is on the other buildings and they wouldn't be gaining that much.Public comments:One ( 1) person spoke in favor of the proiect:Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver Avenue, submitted two letters from neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting. After one year of delays and changes, the Zehner's project should be approved.18 people spoke in opposition:Dean Hiser, 545 South Grand Street.Gloria Boice, 143 North Pine Street.Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive Street.Betty Murrill, 603 East Almond.Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street.Gloria Freeman Bayer, 330 East Palmyra Avenue.Fred Gillett, 205 East Palmyra Avenue.Bob Hitchcock, 195 North Shaffer Street.Bill Hyndman, 391 South Harwood Street.Paula Sidler, 724 North Hidden Trail Circle.Warren Link, 801 East Culver Avenue.Mattie Link, 801 East Culver Avenue.Jim Owens, 163 South Cypress Street.Tom Matuzak, 340 South Grand Street.Martha Phelan, 375 South Pine Street.Mike Fitzsimmons, 442 South Orange Street.Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver Avenue.Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver Avenue.The speakers were still concerned with the bulk and mass of the garage. The project is still too large despite the fact it is a deep lot. There are CEQA concerns in that the project has a significant environmental effect on a historic site and historic district. An EIR needs to be prepared to address both the individual and cumulative effects of this project. The shed takes up a lot of space and is out of proportion. An article appeared in The Register stating that Mr. Zehner has been put through a convoluted process and has gotten the run around. The project has not changed enough to make a difference. Concern was expressed about the power poles, electrical lines, cable and telephone wires,trash bins, underground pipes, water supply and flow prevention devices, sanitation, health and safety issues. The project does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards. The Police Department has 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 recommended metal clad doors for this project, which does not meet the requirements for Old Towne. This will set a precedent, if approved, for future projects. Property values could be affected with this type of development. There will be increased traffic and the safety of children is feared. Not having wood windows and doors is inappropriate for a dwelling unit in the historic district, and is inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior's Design Standards. The R-2-6 zoning with a special overlay is too dense and the standard of living will be affected. Financial gain is the only motivation in this project and the neighborhood will be destroyed. The Commission was urged to place a moratorium on the project until a comprehensive evaluation is done. The character of the neighborhood will be changed if the project is approved. Multi-housing will destroy the historic neighborhood. The original house is going to be impacted. Five (5) families will be living on this property when it was originally built as a single family residence. The City Council recognizes the R-2-6 zoning does not work on these properties. Until a final vote is taken by the City Council for sensible re-zoning, it seems inappropriate to make a decision on this project. The zone change in 1993 was intended to allow houses to be built on some of the larger lots, but when a project proposes four or five units, that was not studied. The density has been reduced, but the intensity has not.RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p. m.Applicant's response Ralph Zehner. 630 East Culver, has no intention of selling his property or moving. The garages are larger deeper) to encourage tenants to park in them. The sanitation and trash concerns have been reviewed by staff. It was the City Council's suggestion to reduce the project by one (1) unit. They are saving their historic house at the front of their property. He felt it was too expensive to put in wood windows.However, they will add the tie-ins and put in underground utilities. He doesn't see how he can lower the pitch of the garage. The 7:12 pitch is normal in Old Towne. The 3- 2 window design is proposed for variety. He does not believe his project will set a precedent. He also stated the Design Standards cannot supersede zoning.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch requested clarification on the on-going study by the City Council relative to overlay zones and potential additional planning restrictions or interpretations for the East Culver block. There is a request for a moratorium. There has also been expression that significant impact requires an Environmental Impact Report. He asked about the rights, obligations, and limitations of the Planning Commission with regard to the application in its specific zoning vs. any other discussions or activities the City Council might be undertaking relative to zoning overlays.Ms. Binning addressed how the Design Standards work with the zoning. They are an overlay over the zoning. They are not inconsistent with the zoning; they supplement the zoning. The Standards were adopted by Resolution of the City Council. And where they are specifically applicable to an area, such as this, they are to be considered in conjunction with zoning. The issue of the moratorium is a major step by City Council. It would not be within the Planning Commission's purview to impose a moratorium on any particular application. In any case, once an application is submitted, a moratorium would not apply to it.The City Council is discussing the re-zoning issue; nothing is specific. Mr. Zehner's application is in progress and any review by the City Council, which might end up in a zone change, would affect the Planning Commission's review of future applications, but not Mr. Zehner's. The EIR and CEQA issues --the Negative Declaration of 1993, although the Commission is required to make a determination that relates to that Negative Declaration, the time to challenge the sufficiency of the 1993 document was in 1993. It's too late at this point in time to challenge the Negative Declaration. The Commission needs to review the mitigation measures that were set forth in that Negative Declaration and whether or not the Commission can make the findings that are required, which include four (4) mitigation measures. The Commission has been presented with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, with a number of findings checked off. The Commission is being asked to vote either yes or no on approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Commission finds that there is a significant effect Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 mitigation measures that are contained in the document, then the Commission would need to reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 1993 Negative Declaration made findings regarding density. This Negative Declaration is more related to the Design Standards. Changes reflecting on the Design Standards could be the type of impact that could be found to cumulate. The Commission would need to be exceedingly specific in exactly where the issues of bulk and mass were not meeting the Design Guidelines, if considering cumulative impacts. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if the Street and Traffic Departments were consulted on this project. Mr. Godlewski stated the Sanitation employee has not seen this particular plan, but is very familiar with the Zehner project, and has made recommendations on past plans concerning his issues of sanitation. The previous conditions have been carried forward and are consistent with Sanitation's recommendations, which require a trash enclosure and a roll-out trash bin that must be rolled out to the street for trash pick up. The Traffic Department probably has not seen this exact plan, but representatives from Traffic are on the Staff Review Committee and have seen the exact plan and also carry forward recommendations from previous plans concerning the number of units.Commissioner Carlton said Mr. Zehner referred to the Commission promising to approve this project if one unit was dropped. She wanted to make it very clear that was certainly not her intention, and she doubted if that was the intention of the other Commissioners.Commissioner Smith agreed; that was not a concession that she had made. She also included several other items for mitigation that needed to be in place for her to pass a vote of approval on. She asked how the Negative Declaration in 1993 was approved with a potential of a growth factor on that block of over 500% increase in unit~ without an EIR.Mr. Jones responded there were 29 parcels involved in the re-zoning of Culver and 28 existing dwelling units. The analysis he sees in the Negative Declaration looked at the property in terms of subdividing the R-1-610ts to maximize the properties to get a total unit count. It is identified as 61 total units. With the new R.2.6 zoning, with the existing lots, 126 units could be allowed. The density is slightly more than twice in the R-2-6 vs. the R-1-6 zones. The traffic generation would double from single family residential buildout.All areas were evaluated at the time and accepted by the City as being adequate and complete. There has always been two compatibility issues that have come forward with this re-zoning. One is density compatibility and the other is design compatibility. Now, the Commission needs to make a finding that the mitigation measures have been complied with, along with the Negative Declaration that was prepared for this project.Commissioner Smith talked about the trash enclosures and the width of the driveway. The units need fire sprinklers because a fire engine cannot get to the back of the property. Does the City allow properties to be developed where fire engines cannot get within range of structures.Mr. Godlewski stated these plans have been reviewed by the Fire Department and if a structure is more than 150 feet away from the public street, mitigation measures such as fire sprinklers, will be applied to those units. This will provide extra time for the Fire Department to respond to those units. The Fire Department will not drive onto the property to fight the fire. The engines will be left on the public street and the fire fighters will carry their equipment back to the fire. The fire sprinklers are required to help mitigate that problem by providing the extra time necessary for fire personnel to get to the fire. This is standard practice.Commissioner Smith asked why applications were being accepted in this controversial block, Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 Ms. Binning responded until the code is changed, staff does not have the authority not to accept applications. Once an application is submitted and all requirements are met, people have vested property rights to have the application considered per California law. A code change next week still wouldn't affect Mr. Zehner insofar as the Planning Commission's review of the current application. Commissioner Pruett said a comment was made that if one unit were taken off, the project would be approved. That is a very simplistic representation of the issue. The point that needs to be made is that by downsizing the project by one unit, it gives the opportunity for the project to maybe be approved, but with appropriate changes in the design of the project to address some of the issues. One of the major issues he had is with the bulk and mass of the garage structure. Storage space on the project, including the shed area, when the existing residence is taken out, represents almost 10% of the project. There is some room to downsize the mass of the project, especially as it relates to the garage buildings. He thought, too, the garages could be broken apart and designed in such a way that it would provide a better flow with what might be appropriate. The garage structure is still too big and too massive in his opinion. And, the bulk and mass become the major issue as it relates to the findings of the Commission. Commissioner Smith previously stated to add this type of density or intensity to this property, that the project needed to be a pristine example of Old Towne architecture. In her mind, the project does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards in terms of design, rhythm, space, bulk, mass or materials. The 6-car garage is very large and has a 300 square foot workshop. It does not fit in Old Towne on any property, let alone this one. She is disappointed in the material selection. The metal garage doors, metal front doors, the composite siding, the aluminum windows -- none of those things are what she has in mind to what an exemplary first multi-unit project on the street should look like. The use of proper materials would make it comply with the Design Standards. Wood windows will soften the look of the entire building. This type of project has to be near perlect because of the precedent that it sets. She needed more clarification on the roof pitch as she is concerned about living space being used in the second story of the garage (not by the current applicant/owner, but if the property is sold, illegal units could be put in).She wanted to see more architectural detail. The new units will be seen by the neighbors on either side of Mr. Zehner's property, and by anyone who comes onto the property.Commissioner Romero referred to Page 5 of the staff report in that the CEQA guidelines discusses cumulative impact as the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. And thereby potentially 50+ more units in this area. The Design Standards must be followed for this project.Commissioner Carlton agreed with Commissioner Romero on the CEQA guidelines. The footprint of the garage is way too big; it is twice what the footprint of each duplex is.Chairman Bosch said the Commission is being asked to set a threshold so high that the Commission should vote against any addition or modification to any dwelling in Old Towne. That may be the intent of some people. He didn't believe that was the intent of what his understanding is of either the Old Towne Design Standards, City Zoning Ordinance, the Historical Preservation Element of the General Plan or the Secretary of Interior Guidelines. The threshold is a little lower than that. If the threshold is that high, then it needs to be stated in an ordinance by the City Council, with the approval of the citizens of Orange. On the other hand, the Commission is also looking at a single piece of property and told they must focus on that application which is legally correct, but legally they must also look at potential cumulative impacts. They must look at what is best for the common good, which meets the community guidelines and standards.Therefore, they work with zoning ordinances and design standards to arrive at what can be done to reduce the impacts of a project below the level of significance. A potential change, no matter how large or small, can be significant. The smallest change to a National Registered Historic Building or District can be significant, if it isn't mitigated. It is mitigated by the design of the project and by conformance to other mitigation measures such as the Old Towne Design Standards and the much looser, and less informative Secretary of Interior Standards to arrive at what is appropriate for the entire District, as well as the single piece of property. The community will never arrive at a consensus as to what that means on any particular piece of land. From a zoning ordinance viewpoint, he is happy to state that with the proper design of the Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 buildings and the site, the addition of four (4) units can be compatible on the site without damaging the intent of the Old Towne guidelines and the National Registered Historic District relative to the spacing, sizing on the lot, and the existing residence. However, the part on the design is the thing that must clearly be defined. Starting at the larger scale, four (4) units can work if the design is done appropriately and in accordance with the Design Standards. The design of the dwellings and the accessory units does not have to replicate the existing residence in front to conform with those standards or the intent, but it has to be compatible. That can be done. The key element is reference to historically significant architectural forms and styles within Old Towne. It requires more detail than what is seen on the proposal. They have set up a strange series of mutually exclusive provisions in the Ordinance. A Security Ordinance requires metal doors and a commercial building is 18 gauge metal doors, when you can have a glass door right next to it. They have a desire to replicate exact materials even on a new building. He thinks the intent is to replicate materials exactly when adding on to, replacing or upgrading an existing historically contributing structure. But, the Design Standards have been interpreted to go beyond that and require a specific match in materials elsewhere. At the same time, the Design Standards talk of acceptable substitute materials. There is work in progress through study sessions to define what acceptable substitute materials are. There are some good materials that when covered with paint, exactly replicate and finish texture, style, design and finish intent what the original, no longer available, scarce resources represent in terms of design. But, first the architectural appearance has to carry forward. There are many lower roof pitches in Old Towne that are beautiful historic homes. That can be replicated on the garage structure. He wants to see a roof pitch that is substantially lower than what is illustrated on the application, perhaps down as low as the 4:12 pitch. It's a garage and it should not replicate the house. That would be a height reduction of at least five (5) feet, which is a substantial reduction in bulk and mass. He would approve the design of the garage if it had a substantial reduction in bulk and mass, and were reduced in square footage. He would impose the reduction of the garage as a condition of approval, and have the final plans reviewed by the Commission to be sure the right work was done to detail it and cause the height and slope to drop down. ~ that were the case, he would move the garage, as it shrank in size, back more toward the middle of the site from the front of the site to further enhance the open space relationship from the existing residence to the garage structure. Protection of the neighbors is important. These become apartments on the site; not a single family dwelling. A condition ought to be that the existing fence be replaced with a solid fence along the property line with appropriate landscaping, as has been shown on the plan, rather than an open fence of any type. He wished the shed would go away. He would approve a project for the site with four (4) units if the garage was substantially reduced to conform to the Old Towne Design Standards, and the shed was made to be compatible. Commissioner Carlton still thought the CEQA guidelines have got to be considered and addressed, even if the applicant reduces the size of the garage. Commissioner Smith said one of the features of passing this project, the documents of the Negative Declaration and the Design Standards state the project has to be approved by the DRB. This project was denied by the DRB -- the motion failed on a 2-2 vote. The DRB made a recommendation to the Planning Commission because of the Minor Site Plan Review. Ms. Binning pointed out the project was not rejected by the DRB, even though it did not pass. It was as if it never went to the DRB, except for six (6) pages of Minutes. Commissioner Pruett thought the applicant might want to look at his design for the garage structure, but he didn't hear that kind of support from the Commission. MOTION Moved by Commissicner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Minor Site Plan Review 81-99, in that the first three findings on Page 8 of the staff report have not been met. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Carlton, Romero Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith MOTION FAILED Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 1999 Commissioner Pruett voted no because he thought the issue can be dealt with. He would like to ask the applicant to continue the project to look at the bulk and mass issue as it relates to the garage structure. At this time, he could not support either a denial or approval. Commissioner Smith was more in favor of a continuance on the project, rather than a denial. Mr. Zehner thought the project could be wrapped up at this hearing and asked for five minutes to confer with his architect and wife. However, the Commission was not comfortable with verbal proposed changes and preferred to see a revised plan at another meeting. Mr. Zehner's legal counsel advised him not to accept any continuances. Therefore, he did not want his project continued. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to deny Minor Site Plan Review 81-99 and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1593-99. The proposal has not conformed to the mitigating measures that were included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration 1425-93 in that the Design Review Board has not approved the project as being compatible with current historical architecture, context, bulk and mass of existing buildings. As proposed, the project does not meet the CEQA requirements for mitigation of the potential cumulative effect of the bulk and mass of the garage structure. It is too large and does not fit in the context of the neighborhood, nor does it meet the Old Towne Design Standards. It is not compatible with the use and design of existing buildings within the neighborhood from the standpoint of the bulk and mass -- the mass, scaling, shape, and proportions contributing to the buildings on the street. The project does not conform to the Development Standards for the area in which it is located.And, as proposed, the bulk and mass of the project would cause a deterioration of neighboring land uses.The project would cause some negative environmental impacts. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones explained the appeal rights regarding the Commission' s action.IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a study session on March 22, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room "C" to discuss the Old Towne Historic District process and use of alternate materials. The meeting adjournedat 10:45 p. m. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED