Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None October 3, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19. 1994 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue the Minutes of September 19, 1994, until the next Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -CALIFORNIA QUARTET An amendment to Development Agreement No. 1-88 entered into by the City of Orange and California Quartet, a California Limited Partnership, as successor-in-interest to Woodcrest Development, Inc. This Amendment to the Development Agreement proposes to amend sections referencing the Duration of the Agreement, Beginning of Construction, Progress Reports, Reservations or Dedications of Land for Public Purposes and Construction of Serrano Avenue. The subject site commonly known as "Serrano Heights" is located on both sides of the planned extension of Serrano Avenue (which will connect those portions of Serrano Avenue in Orange, east of Loma Street, and in Anaheim, south of Nohl Ranch Road.) NOTE: Previously approved EIR 1305-91 addresses the environmental impacts of this project. Chairman Bosch excused himself from the hearing due to a potential conflict of interest and Vice- Chairman Cathcart chaired the meeting. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive #1290, Newport Beach, has reviewed staff's report and concurs with their recommendations. A prior property owner had gone through bankruptcy on the property. During the interim time (two years) there was no movement on the property regarding some of the provisions of the Development Agreement. Subsequent to the foreclosure and bankruptcy, the current owner (California Quartet) has submitted a request to the City to essentially provide for an additional two years to comply with the provisions of the agreement. Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 Commissioner Cathcart wanted to make sure everyone understood in the supplement to the Agenda item, staff picked up on the applicant's comments regarding some of the errors that were in the original staff report. Those fees that are in the original agreement as an escalator clause will be honored at the current fee schedule (at the time of construction). Mr. Elfend explained there are certain fees that are indicated in staff's memorandum to the Planning Commission, which were negotiated and have an increase on the engineering news index. They will pay those fees with the increase as set forth in their agreement. The other normal processing fees will be paid at the time the actual permit is issued. Commissioner Pruett said one of the issues he was curious about was the Mello-Roos District financing. The report indicated those funds had already been created. He asked if those funds had been issued? Mr. Elfend said the district has been set, but there has been no bonds. That was done a few years ago, but the sale was put on hold because of the adverse market conditions. Those speaking in favor Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, gets a little nervous when he sees Frank Elfend, especially in Serrano Heights. But he has looked at this and sees nothing wrong with it. He suspects there will be a change in the housing mix in the future, but will deal with that when the time comes. He sees this as a necessary step in the process. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement No. 1-88 entered into by the City of Orange and California Quartet as per the revised Exhibit 3. The Commission felt the project was consistent with the required, mandatory findings (made with the original agreement and stated on Page 5 of the staff report) and are still valid. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-94 REGARDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS -CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to revise the review process for conditional use permits for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Amendment to the following Orange Municipal Code Chapters is proposed: 17.42 (C-1, Limited Business), 17.43 (C-TR, Limited Business, Tustin Redevelopment), 17.44 C-2, General Business), 17.80 (Alcoholic Beverage Control); 17.92 (Conditional Use Permits and Variances); and, 17.94 (Zoning Administrator). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061. The public hearing was opened. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, understood the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board could deny or approve a license regardless of how the City acts on the license. By law, the Chief of Police can use the crime rule. Is that automatic or does ABC use their own judgment? Have there been any court decisions clarifying what happens when a dispute occurs between the Planning Commission and Police Chief? Chairman Bosch explained the ABC could deny a license, regardless of what the City chooses to do. But, it cannot approve a license without the City's approval under the City's ordinances. The Police 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 Department's appeal or utilization of the statute with regard to the ABC is taken into account by the ABC, but it does not have to be followed. Mr. Soo-Hoo didn't know of a case where the courts have reviewed the concept of the two-tier approach. The cases he's familiar with are where the business owner is applying to ABC for a license and is denied. The court then goes through the review process to determine whether to uphold the denial or to reverse the decision. In those cases, the courts look at the individual details of the application and makes a determination as to the reasonableness of the license. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the item was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Commissioner Cathcart wanted to know the correct ordinance amendment. On Page 1 of the staff report the amendment number was 3-94; then on Page 2 it was listed as amendment number 2-94. Mr. Jones verified the correct ordinance amendment number was 3-94. Commissioner Pruett thought the Commission needed to look at the amendment in proper context. They were talking about the TR limited business district. What's permitted in the district is any original on- site or off-site sale of alcohol license, which is defined by the ABC, and is going to be permitted subject to the conditional use permit. It's referencing the district; not the permit. Chairman Bosch stated this was a language problem -- they were permitting the use of a license within the zone if the conditional use permit were approved. Commissioner Walters commented on the statement made on Page 1 of the staff report -- "The conditional use permit process will be the mechanism for the Police Department to evaluate proposals in regard to the concentration levels of alcoholic beverage licenses within the surrounding area of the proposed site and the potential relationship with the area's crime rate, and make recommendations to the Commission regarding the application." He applauded that effort to be done, and with sufficient detail so they would know on what basis they made that decision and recommendation to the Commission. Chairman Bosch stressed that information needs to be passed on for follow up. Crime impact is a key issue for the Commission to take into consideration when making decisions on conditional use permits to prevent deterioration of the surrounding land uses. Commissioner Cathcart wanted a personal note in the Minutes: The City Council should meet with the Chief of Police to make sure there is an approved procedure that the Police Department is using for the appeal of all ABC licenses within a certain district. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 3-94 regarding Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements, with a revision to the text, as follows: Page 488-11, Section 17 43.130 Alcoholic Beverage Control. A. Permitted District. "Subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission, any original on-site or off-site alcohol license, as defined by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, shall be permitted." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATION OF INQUIRIES REGARDING ON-SITE BREWING AND SERVICE OF SPECIALTY BEERS (MICRO BREWERIES) The Planning Commission was asked to make a determination regarding whether micro breweries can be permitted in the City's commercial and industrial zones as a use similar to other establishments permitting the on-sale of alcoholic beverages, and if so, what processing requirements should apply? This item was continued from the September 7, 1994 Planning Commission hearing.) Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 No one from the audience wished to speak on this item. Commissioner Cathcart personally felt it was appropriate and didn't have a problem hearing the request on a conditional use permit basis, specifically with regard to restaurants. Commissioner Smith felt it would be consistent for all on-site/off-site sale of alcohol beverages and micro breweries to come before the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Walters was glad staff researched the ABC rules on these issues. Is it really a micro brewery they're considering action on, or is it the brew pub, which is a small brewery with a restaurant that serves beer produced in draft form exclusively on its own purposes and may sell other suppliers' bottled beer? Chairman Bosch said staff was eliminating the confusion between them by referring to on-site brewing and sale within restaurants. The key word is "restaurant" as far as he was concerned. And the City's definition of restaurant, which is more stringent than that of the ABC's. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend that requests to consider on-site brewing and sales of specialty beer within restaurants, in the commercial and industrial zoning districts, be brought to the Planning Commission and evacuated on a conditional use permit basis. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 02-94 - GERLIND ALTENDORF An appeal of the Design Review Board's action to continue (thereby to deny) an application for a front porch enclosure on a residence in Old Towne. Property is located at 144 South Cambridge Street. Commissioner Cathcart wanted to make sure the Commission was considering an appeal of a continuance based on an item the Design Review Board asked the applicant to consider during the continuance; not a formal denial. Commissioner Pruett asked if the item was continued a single time? Mr. Jones explained the item was continued at last week's DRB meeting. Those appeals go to the City Council; however, staff has recently asked to run those through the Planning Commission, but not extend the time period for the appeal. Commissioner Smith was curious to know who prepared Exhibit A, Page 4 of the packet. (Staff was not sure who prepared Exhibit A.) Applicant Dean Lippi, 144 South Cambridge, prepared Exhibit A. The proposal is to enclose the front porch. The end result would be similar to the enclosure of the house at the corner of Almond and Cambridge. He had some pictures to show the Commissioners to help them understand what was being proposed. The only difference between their proposal and the porch at the corner would be that there would be no stained glass treatment and the front door would be larger. The action of the DRB was due to the sole reason the porch enclosure was not consistent with the historic flavor of Old Towne. It was not a health and safety reason, nor a violation of ordinance; it was not even a denial due to aesthetic reasons. If the house were outside of Old Towne, it would be approved. There was discussion of an alternative -- that is, enclosing the porch as requested, but in addition, put on an additional porch. One of the board members drew a rough map showing amini-porch on the side of the existing porch. Their contractor drew up some plans showing a side porch. But they believe the second porch would be a disaster -- a cookie cutter porch. The cost of this second porch would be an additional $4,000 and would take away from their yard. It would not be aesthetically pleasing. He felt their porch should be enclosed for the following reasons: 1) They're across the street from a cafe restaurant and the excessive noise disturbs them. 2) The DRB said their existing porch does not conform with the Craftsman style of house; thus, the porch's historical value has already been compromised. 3) They live on Cambridge and Old Towne is divided right in the middle of the street. The dividing line is apparently arbitrating and capricious; it's not 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 based on the age or style of the houses. He felt their house should not have a strict historical flavor test due to this arbitrary division. There are many houses that have enclosures and many do not have porches at all. Commissioner Walters said if sound outside is the culprit problem, why isn't there an effort to soundproof the front wall of the house, rather than build another room in front of the house? Mr. Lippi responded a major factor is sound. His wife wants the porch enclosure because she thinks it is aesthetically pleasing. It also allows a buffer of safety between the two doors and allows an area for their animals to not get out. Commissioner Pruett asked if the pictures were submitted to the Design Review Board for their consideration? (No.) Were the plans submitted to the Commission the same plans the DRB reviewed? Yes.) What action did the DRB take to deny the porch enclosure? Mr. Lippi said it was his understanding the DRB would not allow a porch enclosure. But they would consider a porch enclosure with an additional porch. However, at this point, an additional porch is not an alternative to the applicants. Commissioner Pruett heard him say he was not willing to work with the Design Review Board to seek some solution to the problem. Mr. Lippi was willing to work with the DRB, but it the alternative is to have an additional porch, which would be to the side of the house, (an add-on) they don't look good to him. Cost is also a major factor and they don't want to spend a lot of money on the project, especially when they don't want to add another porch. Commissioner Walters referred to the Historical Resources Inventory document. The drawings show porches in front of the existing porch way. The DRB's suggestion and hope was to see a porch in front of the enclosed porch. Sound was a major consideration, but not enough to put any sound proofing material in the existing walls. The porch enclosure, while the applicant wishes to do it, doesn't wish to do it to the extent of following the Design Review Board's recommendation of building an extending porch, while enclosing the existing porch. Mr. Lippi responded the additional sound proofing was something they did not consider. The second dissertation is basically correct. Commissioner Cathcart called the applicant's attention to Page 1 of the staff report. There is in place, and adopted by City Council, the Historical Preservation Design Guidelines for Old Towne Orange, California, which were adopted through Ordinance 38-88. The Guidelines require the DRB's approval of a project when more than 10 percent of the building's facade would be altered. Mr. Lippi was aware of that, but felt the DRB's decision should not deny them the right to do something which they felt was aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Cathcart was having a problem with this because the DRB had not denied the request. He didn't know what the Commission's recommendation would be -- to appeal an appeal that wasn't denied. Mr. Lippi requested the Commission assume that the Design Review Board will deny the application as proposed without an additional porch. He believed the DRB indicated very strongly the application would not be approved. Chairman Bosch asked if the Design Review Board gave Mr. Lippi an opportunity to indicate he would not accept the continuance, but preferred action on that date? Mr. Lippi indicated to the DRB he would explore the possibility of an additional porch. He explored that possibility and it was not an alternative. Chairman Bosch said he was trying to save time vs. going back to a point where he believed the DRB was leading or proposed some alternative and therefore, they would deny the application. The drawings show windows elsewhere on the facade and in the proposed porch enclosure that are substantially 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 different than the existing windows in the house. Was it the applicant's intent to replace the existing windows with aluminum sliding windows? Mr. Lippi said the bedroom window on the far left is not going to be affected at all. It's not drawn to scale. It's more of a long window. Chairman Bosch said it could be stated the remainder of the drawings beyond the proposed porch enclosure are an artistic liberty of the contractor and have no part of the application. Mr. Lippi said there would be no change other than the porch enclosure. Chairman Bosch said there was one more thing in regard to the ordinance -- the applicant stated the boundary, the centerline of Cambridge, was arbitrary and capricious. It was important to inform him if he went back through the history of review of Old Towne and the City's General Plan and ordinance, the powers of the Design Review Board, whether or not everyone agrees with what action should have been taken, it certainly was not arbitrary and capricious. Those words are not appropriately applied in this case. It was thought out after much debate and is the basis for the ordinance now in place, administered by the staff, Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council for a number of years. Commissioner Walters asked Mr. Lippi what year he moved into his house? (1979.) Was the applicant aware of the process by which the Design Review Board and the boundaries were created? (No.) Public Input Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, remembered a homeowner on North Center Street was rebuilding his home and the Design Review Board made him tear down and start over. During the process his permit expired and he wasn't allowed to renew it. She felt they were losing sight of all freedom in this country. If someone wants to do something on their property that is not going to hurt anyone else and it is reasonably nice looking, please look at the project and think about putting some freedom and liberty into your decision. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, felt Old Towne has become a dictatorship by certain groups. No one has the right to dictate to another person. It's like living in a homeowner's association. When someone buys a home in Old Towne, does the City tell them they have to live by the guidelines? It's wrong for the City to let this go on. Commissioner Cathcart asked if disclosure has been a problem? It's important. If anyone buys into Old Towne after 1988, there has to be disclosure. He didn't know whose responsibility that is. Chairman Bosch believed the seller would be responsible to disclose such information. Mr. Soo-Hoo did not know how that would apply to resales. Just as zoning ordinances are not typically disclosed on sale. He was not sure how a preservation type ordinance would be handled. He doubted it would be in the transaction. Chairman Bosch agreed something more needs to be done to inform everyone before they buy in Old Towne. He didn't think it applied in this particular case, however. The public comment period was closed. Commissioner Walters said the basic problem he had with the applicant's appeal is on not knowing how to appeal when it hasn't been decided. The applicant hasn't given the Design Review Board the ability to come to a final decision or hear his answer. His answer appears to be coming to the Planning Commission with an appeal. He felt the Planning Commission should step aside and not make a determination because it was not a proper appeal -- there was no denial by the DRB. Commissioner Cathcart thought it was important that the staff also make it clear to applicants that perhaps they should get some help when it comes to delineation of architectural elements. When talking about a historically relevant piece of architecture, to ask a building contractor to do some drawings that are not to scale, that lack an artistic license and produce something that is not accurate, it does the applicant a disservice when it comes before the DRB and Commission. There should be a better translation of the 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 product because given the information, he's not comfortable in understanding what the applicant has in mind. Commissioner Pruett shared the concern of the Design Review Board about taking action on the request. It concerned him because in looking at the Minutes of the DRB meeting that the Board found the plans somewhat difficult to understand. He found them difficult to understand as well. Especially where the Board was going to consider the details and historic character of the changes being proposed. And how those treatments are going to be dealt with. That is lacking in the plans. The window treatment on the plans is difficult to understand in terms of the treatment on the proposal. The Design Review Board tried to make it clear to the applicant that he needs to come forward with something more definitive in terms of what his plans were. He thought the Board proposed the modification of adding a porch to the modified architectural detail at the front entrance wasn't really in response to the applicant where the applicant asked if his application were being denied. He quoted the Minutes of DRB: "The Board replied that the proposal may be approved if modified to architectural detail that defines the front entry." In other words, if the plans were submitted and they were ones that could be dealt with, then the DRB would be in a position to take action. He was disappointed the applicant did not ask for a decision on the part of the Board. He hears the applicant asking the Commission for a decision. He hears the applicant say he's willing to accept anything but what he's asking for, and if you don't want that, then deny it. There is evidence being submitted to the Planning Commission that was not submitted to the DRB (i.e., pictures and other information). He didn't think the applicant has been fair to the Design Review Board in terms of putting forth the best proposal that one could put forward. He recognizes the applicant does not want to spend a lot of time with this nor money, but at the same time, he didn't think he was being fair to himself or City staff nor the DRB or Planning Commission. Commissioner Cathcart didn't think it was the role of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board to make recommendations on the use of an architect or a building designer. However, he thought staff would be remiss if they did not refer the applicant to local architects who were familiar with Old Towne and some of the architectural elements. He suggested it might behoove the applicant to take under his consultation an architect for a short period of time to give him some ideas, which could be translated into solving the problem the DRB mentioned. Chairman Bosch had trouble when any DRB would dictate specific details or approach to the design of a building that does beyond the requirements of the ordinance. He felt with the appropriate illustration and consultation there could be a variety of solutions to this that would fulfill the needs of the applicant. He believed the DRB's suggestion was to consider other ways to resolve the problem as it relates to the house. He thought there were a varlety of ways this could be treated without damaging the historic context of the home and still fulfill the needs of the applicant. He would look to recommend to the City Council the applicant be directed back to the Design Review Board through the continuance process to clarify the plans and to explore other reasonable options that are still within budget and guidelines meeting his needs. Commissioner Cathcart would like the applicant to understand the Planning Commission does not rubber stamp the Design Review Board. The documentation doesn't do justice to the architecture of the building; they don't do justice to the applicant, Design Review Board or Planning Commission. There are a lot of ways to detail a piece of architecture rather than just add on a porch. There might be some other methods, but he thought perhaps the people who prepared the documents have exhausted their capabilities and it's time to ask someone that perhaps has a better handle on the historic architecture or architectural design for details. He didn't necessarily think the addition of the porch on the front is the only answer, but he wasn't the one to make that call. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to recommend to the City Council to refer this issue back to the Design Review Board for a proper hearing on the continuance and hopefully a decision will be rendered. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1994 tN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, wanted to address the liquor licenses. He asked about the 916 rule -- the crime areas set up by the Chief of Police. Is that set up by state law? No, it is the Chief's idea.) Is Orange the only city with that procedure? (No.) Commissioner Pruett understood it from the workshop the ABC also keeps statistics, but they're based upon precincts. Their precincts don't overlay the Police Chief's zones. ABC is trying to move towards doing some kind of overlay that really matches the two. It is tracked by ABC, but it is tracked by census tract precincts. There needs to be an explanation of how crime stats are gathered for less confusion. The City needs a clear basis for decisions with good information that everyone understands and concurs with as a community policy. Commissioner Smith has heard the Police Chief speak on this three different times. She didn't think he was saying all crimes were committed by people under the influence of alcohol, but he referred to that body of research in the world indicates that the high incidences of crime are related to alcohol use. He's drawing on that big picture and part of his theory was to get a handle on gangs and to decrease the vending sites for alcohol, hoping it would decrease crime. Gene Sommers, 1539 East Candlewood Avenue, asked how long does a person have to finish a project? He's talking about the eyesore at 320 North Cambridge, which is on the edge of Old Towne. hat guy hasn't done anything for years. He sees thousands of enclosed porches. Dan Ryan, Planning staff, said this is one of the frustrating things staff runs up against. There is no sunset...there are no bonds required on some of these projects. He has received numerous calls on this particular project and has stopped by to talk to him. He's doing it when he has a free weekend here and there. Staff does not know when the project will be finished. Commissioner Pruett asked what would happen if the project changed scope? Does it require a new permit? Mr. Ryan said if there were changes in the work that required additional review through plan check or a revision in the plan, it would come back to staff. But that hasn't happened. Commissioner Walters asked staff to consider drafting a proposed ordinance that might address sunsetting and termination of building permits beyond a certain period of time, and bring it back to the Planning Commission for their review in 30 days. Mr. Soo-Hoo responded the building code is in a different section than that which the Planning Commission has furisdiction over. The Zoning and Subdivision sections are in a different area of the code. He didn't believe the Planning Commission had jurisdiction over the building code aspects. Chairman Bosch thought the City Council requested the Planning Commission to assume the duties of the Building Code Appeal Board. So that will be a gray area. Perhaps it is more in the purview of the Planning Commission to look to the General Plan of the City and specific ordinances. Then, in light of the planning impacts and impacts on neighboring land uses and deterioration of bordering land uses, it does become a planning issue, rather than a building code issue. Chairman Bosch would support a report with the legal input, as well as the uniform building codes. He would encourage staff to research available remedies to see if anything makes sense. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters MOTION CARRIED NOES: None 8