Loading...
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 All other Commissioners were present. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 2.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