Loading...
2016 - October 3 Planning Commission October 3, 2016 Minutes Planning Commission October 3, 2016 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson and Willits ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Chad Ortlieb, Senior 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 Correa led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: Commissioner Simpson was absent at this time. All other Commissioners were present. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 2.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 SEPTEMBER 19, 2016. Motion was made to approve the minutes as written: MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson ABSTAIN: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. 1 Planning Commission October 3, 2016 3. NEW HEARINGS: 3.1 VARIANCE NO. 2238-16 — SANDFORD RESIDENCE The applicant seeks approval for a constructed storm water gutter diversion structure attached to a residence. The structure also serves as a shade structure that projects into the required front yard setback. LOCATION: 1536 EAST ROSE AVENUE NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because of the setback Variance for the proposed structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 19 -16 approving a request for a storm water diversion and shade structure attached to the front of the residence to encroach into the front yard setback such that the approved structure is no closer than 13 feet and 6 inches to the front property line. Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. Commissioner Simpson arrived to the meeting during Mr. Ortlieb's presentation. The Commission asked staff if the structure was already in place; if a permit would be required; if there was any community feedback on the project; if the complaint was from the City or outside the organization; if the code had provisions for this type of porch; if a contractor had been involved with the construction or if it had been done by an owner/builder; if the request was for a 6Y2 foot deviation in the setback; and if the applicant had given a reason for not obtaining a permit. The applicant who spoke on behalf of the project was Paul Sandford. He explained that the reason why a permit was not obtained was because it was intended simply to be a rain gutter. He had no idea a permit would be required and it had been built with his son in the garage. Public Hearing was opened. John Klima, address on file, spoke in favor of the Variance. He thought the applicant was an asset to the neighborhood by increasing the property value due to the renovation of the home. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission thought, in this case, that it was an honest mistake and it should not be penalized; that it could not be seen from the cul -de -sac; that the homeowners do not always know 2 Planning Commission October 3, 2016 the regulations for setbacks; that it looks great; and the required findings were met because of the shape of the lot. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 19 -16 approving a request for a storm water diversion and shade structure attached to the front of the residence at 1536 East Rose Avenue to encroach into the front yard setback such that the approved structure is no closer than 13 feet and 6 inches to the front property line, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA: MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. 3 Planning Commission October 3, 2016 3.2 ZONE CHANGE 1282 -16 — WITNESS INTERNATIONAL The applicant proposes to change existing site zoning from Office Professional (O -P) to General Business (C -2) consistent with the existing General Commercial (Max 1.0 FAR) (GC) General Plan designation of the sites. LOCATION: 2050 & 2140 WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1815 -09 for the Comprehensive General plan Update was certified on March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) allows the use of a previously - certified Program EIR to cover "later activities" subject to the following findings: • The project would not have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR; and • No new significant impacts (or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact) would occur and no new mitigation measures are required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 20 -16 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 1282 -16 to change the zone of property located at 2050 and 2140 West Chapman Avenue from Office Professional (O -P) to General Business (C -2) consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial (Max 1.0 FAR) (GC). Discussion: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director, explained that the information contained in the Commissioners' hot file pertained to behavioral activity in the neighborhood and property maintenance issues which would be separate from the discussion of the zoning designation and land use issue. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. He explained that changing the zoning from Office Professional (O -P) to General Business (C -2) would be consistent with the General Plan. The Commission asked staff about a potential impact on traffic on Chapman Avenue; if there was a vision plan for the West Chapman corridor; concerned that there had not been enough time to review the memos given to the Commissioners just prior to the meeting and asked staff to brief them on the correspondence; asked what the difference was between permitted and conditionally permitted uses; asked if what was contained in the memos may not be pertinent to land use issues; and asked if there was a certain number of cars that could be on the site for retail and wholesale sales. The applicant who spoke on behalf of the project was Tommy Lin, part owner and building manager. He explained the renovations being done to the inside and outside of the two buildings. 4 Planning Commission October 3, 2016 He said they currently have 90% occupancy but the parking lot is only half utilized. He stated they planned to bring in higher level retail businesses. Public Hearing was opened. Scott Montgomery, address on file, was in opposition to the zone change. He has resided behind these buildings since 1984. He was concerned that all the trees on the property had been removed which increased the noise from Chapman Avenue; that current businesses have not been following the existing codes; that the complex is full of auto broker signs and the property has become a used car lot; that generators and pressure washers are being used to wash cars; that cars are being delivered at midnight; that there is a gym being operated from a location that is supposed to be a one -on -one personal trainer; and thought the rules would be skirted more if the property was zoned commercial. Diane Montgomery, address on file, was also in opposition to the zone change. She voiced concern with the quality of life in the community and noted the applicants were currently not following the rules such as washing cars running generators early in the morning and allowing loud music. Mr. Lin returned to respond to Mr. and Mrs. Montgomery's concerns. He explained that the sycamore trees were removed and replaced with palm trees due to complaints by the neighbors about dropping leaves, and they had sent notices to the auto dealers to stop washing cars in the parking lot. The Commission asked the applicant if they had done any community outreach regarding the zone change; what the reason for changing the zoning was; if there were any retailers interested in the site; and if they were interested in upgrading the tenants by way of retail business, how was that going to happen. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission noted their purview was focused on the land use component and the secondary issue concerned code compliance, and that the finding would be based on its consistency with the General Plan and City ordinances. It was confirmed that auto detailing was not permitted in either the O -P or the C -2 zones, and suggested the applicant reach out to the neighbors. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20 -16 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 1282 -16 to change the zone of property located at 2050 and 2140 West Chapman Avenue from Office Professional (O -P) to General Business (C -2) consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial (Max 1.0 FAR) (GC): MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None MOTION CARRIED. 5 Planning Commission October 3, 2016 4. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to a study session reviewing meeting procedures at 6:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room and the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 17, 2016. MOTION: Commissioner Simpson SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m. 6