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1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None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