2016 - March 21 Planning Commission March 21, 2016
Minutes
Planning Commission March 21, 2016
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation
Judy Eguez, Contract Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Correa led the flag salute.
1.3 ROLL CALL: Commissioner Willits was absent. All other Commissioners were
present.
1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None
1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016.
Motion was made to approve the minutes as written:
MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND: Commissioner Simpson
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
1
Planning Commission March 21, 2016 I
3. NEW HEARINGS:
3.1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
An ordinance to streamline the review process and add or clarify definitions and City
standards for instructional uses, Senior Housing in strictly commercial zones, remove
mention of Mixed Use Development from commercial only zones, and address private
office and residential uses in the Public Institution zone.
LOCATION: Citywide
NOTE: The draft Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations in
Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 02 -16 recommending
City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the
OMC to define and streamline the review process.
Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with
the staff report.
The Planning Commission wanted to know about the faculty housing and dorms in the
neighborhoods around Chapman University where they may buy houses and encroach
into the neighborhoods; noted this was the 5 effort to update the organizational
assessment streamlining procedures and asked if there would be more to come in the
future; asked if public input and support was elicited; asked what the reason was behind
eliminating mixed use in the commercial areas; asked if there was not currently a clear
definition for Senior Housing and asked if staff was concerned with instructional uses in
the Industrial zones being an issue with on -site parking.
Public Hearing was opened.
A member of the public voiced concern that Chapman University would be bypassing
parking allowances in the area.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission commented that the Ordinance was well done; asked about housing in
the Public Institutional zones and would that be like using it as residential; and noted it
was a great opportunity to expand the potential housing sites on the Public Institutional
areas and to see what the marketplace would generate around hospital areas.
2
Planning Commission March 21, 2016 I
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -16
recommending City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the
OMC to define and streamline the review process.
MOTION: Commissioner Correa
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
3
Planning Commission March 21, 2016
3.2 VARIANCE 2240 -16 AND DRC 4475 -10 — YAGHI REHABILITATION &
ACCESSORY 2ND UNIT
The applicant proposes to relocate an historic single family residence and garage, remove
non - contributing additions and construct a new rear addition to the historic building. The
building will be relocated forward on the lot by 8' to a 58 foot setback to the attached
garage and 63' setback to the primary residence. The building will contain both the
primary residence and an attached 638 SF accessory second unit. The primary residence
and accessory second unit will be accessed from two existing doors on the front elevation
of the building.
LOCATION: 812 E. Washington
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) and 15331 (Class 31 — Historical
Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) because the project involves
relocation of a SFR on the same lot and construction of an
accessory second unit attached to the existing residence. The
proposed relocation and addition to the existing structure are in
conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties in that the project is compatible
with the character of the Old Towne Historic District and retains
character - defining features of the property, including the large
front yard setback.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -16 for relocation
of an historic single family residence, construction of an attached
accessory second unit and elimination of one required parking
space on property located in the Old Towne Historic District.
Discussion: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a
project overview consistent with the staff report.
The Commission asked how much of the historic home would have to be demolished to
accommodate the extra parking; and asked about the front yard tree and how that might
limit adding an additional parking space.
Craig Wheeler, architect for the project, commented that the current garage was
unusable for parking a car and they were proposing to make the garage suitable for a car.
The Commission asked Mr. Wheeler about the size of the proposed garage; the tandem
4
Planning Commission March 21, 2016 I
parking; the preservation of the tree; and how much of the historic home would have to
be removed in order to make a driveway.
Public Hearing was opened.
Linda Swartz, address on file, was against the Variance and was concerned with the
increased density and parking on the street. She thought the parking was more important
than the tree.
Another member of the public said she disagreed with the Design Review Committee
and did not think it was a unique historical home. She stated the big issue was the
parking and its impact on the neighborhood.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission asked staff if the owner had ever lived on the property and if it would
continue to be a rental; and if Washington Avenue was under a neighborhood permit
program and if overnight parking was allowed.
Commissioner Correa stated that in granting the Variance they had a responsibility to the
community. He could not see granting a Variance that would impact the tranquility of
the neighborhood. He was concerned with continuing to grant Variances on other streets
in the City.
The other 3 Commissioners commented that the Variance would allow 1 parking space
to be eliminated but also would allow for an additional pad on the front to park a vehicle
on -site; the garage would become usable; noted how the Design Review Committee does
a great job of determining what to do to help preserve the historical homes in Orange;
did not think demolishing the home was the way to go and the hardship of destroying the
fabric of this historical structure outweighed the need for the parking space; noted the
unique situation of the property and supported the Variance.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -16 approving
Variance No. 2240 -16 and Design Review No. 4475 -10, for relocation of an historic
single family residence, construction of an attached accessory second unit and
elimination of one required parking space on property located at 812 East
Washington Avenue in the Old Towne Historic District.
MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND: Commissioner Simpson
AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: Commissioner Correa
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
5
Planning Commission March 21, 2016 I
3.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2991-15 — KAMADO KITCHEN
The applicant is requesting an ABC Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine) License allowing
the sale of beer and wine for on premise consumption for a new restaurant.
LOCATION: 313 E. KATELLA
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities)
because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an
existing establishment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -16 approving an
ABC Type 41 license to allow the sale of beer and wine for on-
site consumption.
Discussion: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with
the staff report.
The applicants present for the project were Lydia Kim and Yi Ran Teng. Ms. Kim
confirmed they had reviewed the conditions of approval and they would abide by them.
Public Hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission commented that as long as the Police Department supported it there
would not be a problem approving the request.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -16 approving
Conditional Use Permit 2991 -15 establishing an ABC Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and
Wine) License to allow the sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption on
property located at 313 East Katella Avenue.
MOTION: Commissioner Correa
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
6
Planning Commission March 21, 2016
3.4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2992 -15 — COMMUNITY
REHABILITATION
The applicant is requesting to conduct instructional group sessions in conjunction with a
drug and alcohol recovery and treatment center.
LOCATION: 315 - 321 S. TUSTIN
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities)
because the project consists of licensing a new operation within an
existing structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -16 approving a request to allow
a drug and alcohol recovery and treatment center.
Discussion: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with
the staff report. Mr. Garcia indicated the Planning Commission had been given a written
correspondence from Jeff Berkowitz on this project which was included in their hot file.
Staff also received a phone call today expressing concern about parking and loitering in
the area.
The Commission asked if the applicant met the parking requirements and if the use
already exists at the site. Mr. Garcia confirmed the parking requirements have been met
and individual sessions are currently being conducted on the site.
Scott Wilson, from Community Rehab, explained the proposed operation of the facility.
The Committee asked Mr. Wilson about the letter from Mr. Berkowitz and his concerns
regarding cigarette butts and smoke going onto the neighbor's property; the location of
the basketball hoop and the balls bouncing over the fence; the maximum number of
clients at one time at the facility and how long each day they would be open; if there was
a code of conduct; if he was good with the conditions listed in the resolution; and asked
where the clients were coming from.
Public Hearing was opened.
Jeff Berkowitz, the owner of the business at 327 S. Tustin Street, was in opposition to
the project noting it was not the place for a drug and alcohol rehab center. He was
concerned with lowering his property value; cigarette smoke coming into his office; the
noise from the bouncing basketballs; the balls, cigarette butts, gum, food, and cups
coming over the fence; loud screaming; and explaining how the mailman doesn't like to
deliver mail there.
Mr. Wilson returned to address the issues raised by Mr. Berkowitz, noting he had only
7
Planning Commission March 21, 2016 I
been contacted once about the cigarette smoke. He was willing to address additional
issues being raised tonight.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission asked Mr. Garcia about the shape of the parcel and how close the
residential homes were to the east; asked if there could be masonry fencing on the
perimeter; and questioned the hours of operation which were shown ending at 9:00 p.m.
The Commission commented on the fact that this type of facility was needed in the
communities; suggested restricting the hours to 3:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m.; that there was no
perfect location and this was a good spot; requested more dialog take place between the
neighbors; that the conditions outlined in the resolution were to be taken seriously; stated
it could have an impact if it was not managed properly; wanted a conversation to take
place between the neighbors about creating a better separation between the properties;
and wanted clarification on the hours, not wanting the public thinking that they would be
closed by 4:00 p.m.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -16 approving
Conditional Use Permit 2992 -15 a request to allow a drug and alcohol recovery and
treatment center located at 315 -321 South Tustin Street.
MOTION: Commissioner Gladson
SECOND: Commissioner Correa
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
8
Planning Commission March 21, 2016
3.5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2995-15 — MARKET PLUS
The applicant is requesting an ABC Type 21 (Off -Sale General) License allowing the
sale of distilled spirits for off premises consumption. The applicant currently holds an
ABC Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer & Wine) License.
LOCATION: 1776 N. TUSTIN
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities)
because the project consists of licensing of an existing
establishment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 06 -16 to allow the sale of
distilled spirits for off -site consumption.
Discussion: Judy Eguez, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with
the staff report. She noted the letter of opposition received on March 14, 2016 from Jeff
Pine.
The Commission asked if the store operator fell under the same guidelines as a bar about
selling to intoxicated patrons and did they have the same obligation not to sell to them.
Ms. Eguez pointed out Conditions 28 and 30 that partially addressed that issue.
The applicants indicated they had owned this business for the last 18 years and did not
allow any on -site consumption of liquor. They have never had any incidents with the
Police Department.
The Commission felt the conditions were vague concerning the sale of liquor to
intoxicated patrons and wanted to know if the hours of operation would remain the same.
Public Hearing was opened.
Jeff Pine spoke in opposition to the request. He was concerned with lowering property
values, graffiti, and trash. He did not see a need for a third fully licensed liquor store in
the neighborhood.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commission noted the applicant already has an alcohol license to sell beer and wine
and they are just requesting an upgrade; the Police Department was in support of the
request and there has been no incidents reported; wanted a condition added that the
employees be trained to recognize intoxicated patrons and not allow sales to them; and
noted the hours of operation would not change.
9
Planning Commission March 21, 2016 I
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 06 -16 approving
Conditional Use Permit 2995 -15 establishing an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type
21 (Off -Sale General) License to allow the sale of distilled spirits for off -site
consumption on the property located at 1776 North Tustin Street with a sentence
added to Condition 30 to the effect of:
1. This training would include recognizing intoxicated individuals and not selling to
said intoxicated individuals.
MOTION: Commissioner Correa
SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
10
Planning Commission March 21, 2016
4. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting on Monday, April 4, 2016.
MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND: Commissioner Simpson
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
11