Loading...
2016 - September 7 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 Minutes Planning Commission September 7, 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 Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation Judy Eguez, Contract Staff Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Simpson 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 All other Commissioners were present. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: Ms. Roseberry formally thanked the Planning Commission for the past 13 years she has worked with them. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2016. Motion was made to approve the minutes as amended: MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, and Glasgow NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Willits ABSTAIN: Commissioner Simpson MOTION CARRIED. 1 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 3. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4872 -16 AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0872 -16 — HOIKE RESIDENCE The applicant proposes to relocate & reconstruct an existing barn and construct an addition; to construct a new detached two -car garage; and to construct a new 1Y2 story additional housing unit with attached garage on a parcel that contains a one -story SFR. The SFR is a contributor to the local Old Towne Historic District. The barn is considered a non - contributor to the historic district. The applicant proposes to take access to the new housing units from a new driveway at the southwest corner of the property at N. Clark Street. LOCATION: 730 WEST PALM AVENUE NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 (Class 2 — Replacement or Reconstruction) 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion or Small Structures and 15331. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 17 -16 approving the construction of 2 residential units and a detached two -car garage on property containing an existing single family residence. Discussion: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. She explained that the project was initially entitled in 2013 and those entitlements had expired. This current project was requesting the same 2013 entitlements except for the treatment of the barn structure on the property. The Commission asked staff if the driveway on Palm Avenue was being eliminated; if the new two -car garage could be configured so the existing driveway could be used and why wasn't this attempted; confirmed the barn in 2013 was to be relocated and that it required a demolition permit; asked what criteria was used to determine the barn required dismantling; questioned the 26 sq. ft. addition on Page 7 of the staff report because the letter from Airalea Newman stated it was 50 sq. ft.; asked for clarification about the density since this project was adding two additional dwelling units on the property; asked if there were options in the future to address demolition of structures without permits; confirmed the new proposed structures and the driveway on Clark Avenue were the same as proposed in 2013; concerned with the time lapse and no penalties being imposed; and asked if there had been any communication with OTPA. Chair Gladson acknowledged receiving correspondence from Brad Gentry who raised a number of issues about the project. Ms. Moshier indicated that the parking issue had been taken into consideration and it did meet the off - street parking requirement. The applicants who spoke on behalf of the project were Rick Fox and Airalea Newman. 2 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 Rick Fox, architect for the project, stated he had worked closely with City staff since 2013. He explained the reasons why this was a strong project for Old Towne. He said the current proposal included all the conditions and issues raised in 2013 except the current condition of the barn. He explained how there had been delays in the preparation of the construction drawings which were submitted in May 2016. He verified that there were no plans to subdivide the property. The Commission asked Mr. Fox who made the decision that the infrastructure of the barn was compromised if the applicant had informed him about the dismantling of the barn; clarified that since the entitlements had expired it would delay the plan check; asked why an extension had not been requested; had raised concerns in 2013 as to whether or not the barn was a non - contributor and now it was gone; concerned that the barn had not been relocated but dismantled and the conditions of approval had been totally ignored; asked if the 450 sq. ft. of the proposed studio included the mezzanine; concerned with having two driveways and asked that a new design with just one driveway be considered; confirmed the parking space for the auxiliary unit was an open space; asked since the barn had been removed, had there been alternative options for relocating units so there would be no access from N. Clark; and asked why the property could not be subdivided. Public Hearing was opened. Airalea Newman, Hoike LP, addressed the demolition of the barn and said it was a miscommunication with her counterpart. She explained how the barn had been dismantled. The Commission asked if Ms. Newman knew the barn was to be taken down in panels and if she was aware of that condition of approval; stated the conditions of approval are not guidelines; confirmed that Ms. Newman knew the conditions of approval; thought some type of restitution should be considered; noted that this barn was built with 2x12s with no studs in between and there were no walls to take down to reuse as a 2x4 framed wall; and noted since she was involved with the project since 2013, she had read the planning report and was aware a demolition permit was required for the barn. Public Hearing was closed. Vice Chair Correa had a problem with the barn demolition because the conditions of approval were not guidelines; noted if this project was approved, they would be saying it was alright to demolish an existing building without City approval; noted the entrance for the residents in the back was more for convenience; noted this property was big enough to design a new site plan that would have only one street access; and concerned it would set a precedence for future projects demolishing structures without permits. Commissioner Glasgow did not think the Palm Avenue access from the house to the property line was big enough to reconfigure and had no problem with the entry off of Clark Avenue; concerned with the demolition without talking to the City and getting a permit; wanted to see the barn material put on the new garage since it has a view from the front; concerned that the studio had a loft and it could be used as a second bedroom; noted the barn was a non - contributing structure and the applicants were reusing the boards; and noted that until a severe penalty has been established, demolition without a permit will continue in the future. 3 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 Commissioner Simpson thought the required findings for the DRC and for a minor site plan in the staff report had been met. He did not think the applicant should be penalized because there are no mechanisms to deal with these situations and more clear guidelines should be established. Chair Gladson stated she could see both perspectives on this project. She had voted no on the project in 2013 because of her concerns on the significance of the barn but now that was gone. She was happy there was a plan to save the boards. She was concerned with more than two units on the property but they met the parking requirements, the development standards, and the findings. She would want to eliminate one of the units to comply with the Old Towne Standards. Mr. Sheatz said there has been some teeth in the illegal demolitions in the form of requiring a redesign and it had affected property owners. He stated there is an ordinance that addresses demolitions but it has not been updated in some time. The change to the ordinance would be driven by the City Council. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -16 approving Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16 and Design Review No. 4872 -16 for construction of two residential units and a detached two -car garage on property containing an existing single family residence located at 730 W. Palm Avenue, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA: MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson NOES: Commissioners Correa and Gladson ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION FAILED. Motion was made to continue the project when all five Commissioners would be present with no changes to the design of the project: MOTION: Commissioner Simpson SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson NOES: Commissioners Correa and Gladson ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION FAILED. Motion was made to continue the item to allow the applicant to redesign the project related to reducing the density and finding the N. Clark Street driveway access might not be needed: MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa and Gladson NOES: Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION FAILED. The applicant was informed that this item could be appealed to City Council. 4 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 4. NEW HEARINGS: 4.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2988 -15; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0830 -15; DESIGN REVIEW 4822 -15 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 0231 -16 — ENCORE PROSPECT SENIOR APARTMENTS The applicant proposes to construct 28 senior apartments and associated site improvements. LOCATION: 184 NORTH PROSPECT STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Class 32 — In -fill Development Projects) because the project meets the following criteria: • The project is consistent with the existing General Plan designations, General Plan policies and applicable zoning designations and regulations. • The project is in the City on a site less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. • The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. • The project has been evaluated for significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality and no significant effects have been identified. • The site would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 13 -16 allowing the construction of 28 age- restricted (senior) apartments named Encore Prospect Senior Apartments. Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. He explained the four issues in the staff report which included the senior apartment use at this location, the building height, the drive aisle, and the parking space reduction. The Commission asked staff if the entitlements for the previous project had expired; about the potential parking management plan; and about the number of carports and garages. The applicant who spoke on behalf of the project was Roger Hobbs. He indicated it was a similar project to their Encore Hewes Senior Apartments. He said they are building these because they believe in active senior resident homes. He stated the City staff has embraced the concept and have worked with them on the parking requirements. He said construction was scheduled to start soon. The Commission asked if the applicant would be opposed to a condition for a parking management plan to ensure everything would get well communicated by making sure the residents knew the garages were for vehicles and providing an understanding of the guest parking. 5 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 Public Hearing was opened. Shirley Hunt said that she resides at the Stonegate Senior Villas next to the property and the residents are excited about the project. She had emailed her concerns to Mr. Ortlieb. She had questions regarding the blue tile and if it would be saved; concerned about exhaust fumes from the cars and if there would be landscaping between the two apartments; concerned if a manager would be on site; hoped the layout of the project would have a good evacuation plan; and that her neighbor was concerned with the three -story portion of the apartment casting a shadow into her bedroom and any bright lights shining into her bedroom. Mr. Hobbs explained that they would have extensive landscaping; the parking lot lights would face down; there would be an on -site manager at this apartment; they would be addressing the stray cats and rodents during demolition; and that management would arrange annual fire drills. The Commission assured Ms. Hunt that the plans had been reviewed by the Police Department and the Fire Department. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission noted this project would improve the neighborhood and it was a perfect location; liked the design; did not have a problem with the additional height of the roof line or the parking; appreciated the active senior population being taken into consideration; thanked staff for a great job on the review and comments; and disappointed that the old project fell through because it had an affordable component. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 13 -16 approving Conditional Use Permit 2988 -15, Major Site Plan Review 0830 -15, Design Review 4822 -15, and Administrative Adjustment 0231 -16 for the construction of 28 age- restricted (senior) apartments named Encore Prospect Senior Apartments located at 184 N. Prospect Street, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA: MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION CARRIED. 6 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 4.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2997 -15 - 7 ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE The applicant is requesting to modify their existing Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer & Wine) License to allow the sale of single alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption. LOCATION: 615 S. TUSTIN STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing establishment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 15 -16 denying the request to modify the existing ABC Type 20 license approved under Resolution No. 12 -12. Discussion: Judy Eguez, Contract Staff Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. The applicant who spoke on behalf of the project was Rassol Effekharian, owner of the 7- Eleven. He explained how the alcohol beverages sold in packages are damaged by customers wanting one container and that the damaged packages could not be resold. The Commission asked the applicant if the damaged packages had been reported to the Police; asked about the improvements made to the gas station and convenience store; and how they were having a hard time justifying selling singles. Detective Chris Moten, Orange Police Department, explained how there are a few gas stations selling single alcohol containers but those preexisted the CUPs. He said there are no new amendments to any CUPs to allow single servings of alcohol. He said that any write offs of damaged packages would be made according to company policy. He explained that there was always an issue with the single sell of alcohol because the consumer can drink on the site or drink it in the car while driving. He stated they have to draw the line because other businesses will want to sell single servings. The Police decision was based on calls for service, experience, and citizen's phone calls. Public Hearing was opened. There were no speakers. Public Hearing was closed. Vice Chair Correa agreed with staff and the Police Department in that the selling of single serving alcohol would increase the likeability of petty theft and create more demand on the 7 Planning Commission September 7, 2016 WUttaMMOt Police Department by increasing crime and attracting loitering. Commissioner Simpson offered a different perspective in that it penalizes business owners for the bad decisions consumers make and it denies them the ability to compete with their competitors. Commissioner Glasgow said how easy it was to get a single beer and put it in a paper bag and either walk down the street or get in the car to drink. Also he noted this business was in a high crime area. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 15 -16 denying modification of a Conditional Use Permit for a State of California, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Type 20 License (off -sale beer & wine) to allow the sale of single alcoholic beverages on property located at 615 S. Tustin Street: MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, and Glasgow NOES: Commissioner Simpson ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION CARRIED. 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Monday, September 19, 2016. MOTION: Commissioner Simpson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. 8