Loading...
_02052018-326Planning Commission February 5, 2018 1 Final Minutes Planning Commission February 5, 2018 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Simpson, Correa, Glasgow, Gladson and Willits ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bill Crouch, Community Development Director Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Glasgow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Correa led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 2.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 JANUARY 15, 2018. Motion was made to approve the minutes as written: MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Simpson MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission February 5, 2018 2 3. NEW HEARING: 3.1 APPEAL 0551-18 STECKLER RESIDENCE An appeal of the Community Development Director approval of Administrative Design Review No. 0093-17 and Minor Site Plan No. 0923-17, a proposal to construct a new single family residence and accessory dwelling unit on a vacant lot on N. Cambridge Street. LOCATION: 837-839 N. Cambridge Street NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Section 152303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The project consists of construction of one single family residence and a second dwelling unit, both of which are specified as exempt projects under this exemption classification. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposal and take the appropriate action. The Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the action that was appealed. The Commission may also make or substitute additional decisions or determinat ions as it finds warranted under the provisions of the Orange Municipal Code. Chairman Glasgow disclosed that he met with the owner of the property. He recused himself due to the fact that he owns property within 500 feet of the property in question and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Simpson. He then exited the chambers. Commissioner Gladson disclosed that she met with both of the appellants along with the Community Development Director, Bill Crouch and Associate Planner, Kelly Ribuffo. It was an informational meeting and she did not make any decisions. Commissioner Correa disclosed he met with staff and the Assistant City Attorney for informational purposes. Commissioners Willits and Simpson disclosed they met with staff for informational purposes. Vice Chair Simpson asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain staff’s extension of the filling period for the of the appeal. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney explained the project property owner's attorney raised an issue about the filing of the appeal several days after the technical close of the appeal period. He read the appeal process code provision into the record which is 15 calendar days after the action for which the Planning Commission February 5, 2018 3 appeal was made. The Code does not contain a provision that allows for an extended appeal. This particular appeal period expired on January 2, 2018. The majority of that appeal period occurred during the holidays and coincided with the City holiday closure. During that time, staff received three emails regarding the Community Development Director's decision asking for additional information and requesting project specific details. The appeal period ended on the day that the staff returned from the holiday break; therefore, Planning staff, the City Attorney's Office and the City Manager's Office took the holiday closure into consideration and decided to extend appeal period to the close of business on January 5. The number of days added to the appeal period coincided with the number of days that City Hall was closed between Christmas and New Year's, not including holidays and weekends. Should the Commission find that staff erred in extending the appeal period, the Commission could deny the appeal on those grounds; it could uphold the decision of the Community Development Director and both of those outcomes could be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Correa expressed his opinion that the application was not submitted in a timely manner as it should have been submitted on January 2 as further supported by the January 2 signature date on the appeal form. He did not believe that staff had the authority to extend the date and this could set precedence in the future. A motion was made to find the appeal filed timely. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Simpson, Gladson, and Willits NOES: Commissioner Correa ABSTAIN (RECUSE): Commissioner Simpson MOTION CARRIED. Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director introduced the item and stated the focus of the discussion should be issues related to the Minor Site Plan Review rather than land use. Mr. Crouch, reiterated that the project approval was his decision and it was based on consideration of the findings and analysis performed by staff. Ms. Ribuffo provided an explanation consistent with the staff report. Staff had not provided any recommended action on the appeal; the Planning Commission project had options to either affirm, reverse, or modify the action that was appealed. As part of the project review, staff considered all of the development standards for the R1 Zone including building height, floor area ratio, parking requirements, usable open space and setbacks and found that the proposed design met all of the development criteria for the zoning district. Based on that and review of the design of the project against the Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the Community Development Director approved the project. Ms. Ribuffo reviewed the grounds for the appeal consistent with the staff report including the concentration of student housing and impact on the surrounding residential property values, and concerns related to privacy she noted that the single-family home and the accessory dwelling unit are both land uses that permitted by right. Planning Commission February 5, 2018 4 Commissioner Correa asked if the local authority has any jurisdiction regarding accessory dwelling units. Mr.Sheatz, stated the City has very little authority as such units are it is governed by state legislation. Commissioner Gladson discussed the required findings for the Administrative Design Review Minor Site Plan Review. She asked staff for clarification on the site plan, floor area ratio, elevations, setback on the eastern property line, orientation of the home, height of the house and the accessory dwelling unit, dimensions of the access driveway, as well as how the circulation works in terms of dimensions. Ms. Ribuffo provided a detailed explanation of specific code requirements and dimensions of the site plan as requested by Commissioner Gladson. Vice Chair Simpson opened the public hearing. Stephen Colburn, the appellant, expressed his opposition to the project citing concerns about the proposed floor plan and likely occupancy by college students. Wendy Taylor, speaking with Mr. Colburn stated she is one of three neighbors affected by the backyard. She read a letter from another neighbor, who could not attend the meeting and expressed her own concerns about privacy, lighting from their property shining into her house, the possibility of up to 17 students living in a single-family residence, student occupants parking and late-night parties. She asked the Commission to consider the intent of the Code so that the structure would function as a single-family residence and to modify the building setbacks adjacent to her property line. Paula Meyer, Attorney, represented the project proponent .She stated the project was intended to be a single-family residence with no intention of making it into a boarding house for students. She noted that her client has already planted 196 trees in order to provide screening for privacy and noise reduction. Ms. Meyer also discussed the capacity for parking on the 175 foot long driveway; and they removed and repositioning of lights based on contact from the neighbor. She respectfully requested that the appeal be denied. Erick Strickland, 850 N. Waverly, expressed concerns about noise and parking Richard Kalman, resident, expressed his opinion that the project is not consistent with the spirit of zoning. The size scale and floorplan of the project seems excessive and out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Steve Philip, project architect, stated that he had tried to meet and exceed City Standards in the project design. The property is oriented inward and faces into a courtyard; not towards the neighbor's property. Commissioner Gladson asked Mr. Philip if he studied the Infill Design Guidelines and asked him to explain the vision for the eastern property line. Planning Commission February 5, 2018 5 Mr. Phillips reviewed the setback and building height conditions on surrounding properties. Tim Lamberth, contractor for the applicant described the efforts made to provide privacy for the the neighbors by focusing everything inward. There is no entertainment space to the east, north or south; they have installed costly air-conditioning equipment in order to keep the noise down and a block wall all around the property to prevent light infiltration on to the neighbors' property. Mr. Strickland questioned who would maintain the 196 trees that have been planted. He also asked who would be responsible for monitoring the use of the property if students lived there. There was a short recess from 8:25 until 8:30 Commissioner Willits explained his original concern was project density and mass; however after reviewing the development standards, that the Administrative Design Review and the Minor Site Plan review he found meets all of the standards; therefore, he cannot support the appellant. Commissioner Gladson stated she reviewed the required findings. Struggling with finding number two in the Administrative Design Review section. She did not find that the proposal of the project is laid out in compliance with the Infill Residential Development Guidelines; she did not find that the building has articulation with adjacencies to the eastern two property lines; or is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The windows on the one-story home are out of character with the partially two-story accessory dwelling unit. Secondly, she cannot find compliance with finding number three that the project is to provide safe and adequate vehicular circulation, both on and off-site. Her biggest concern was that the eastern property line setback is 5 feet to a structure that is 18 feet at the fascia. She agreed the General Plan goals and the Zoning Code requirements have been met; however, she cannot make the findings for adequate vehicle safety as listed in the Infill Design Guidelines. Commissioner Willits stated he was originally concerned about the vehicular circulation, but he has been on the site numerous times and found there is plenty of room to turn vehicles around. Commissioner Correa asked staff if there had been any requests for variances or conditional use permits and asked if it met all of the Zoning requirements. Ms. Pehoushek, responded that it complies with all of the Zoning requirements. Commissioner Correa stated he understands Chapman students are not good neighbors. He added that boarding houses are not permitted; therefore, the City could monitor the use. After reviewing the project several times and meeting with staff he could not find any reason to deny the project as it meets all of the Zoning and development standards. Commission and staff discussed the setback interpretation of the Infill Standard Guidelines. Ms. Ribuffo stated this property is uniquely situated as a flag lot however; Code does not require additional setbacks or offset. As for the parking circulation, Code requires 25 foot clear back up area which is what is being provided. Planning Commission February 5, 2018 6 Vice Chair Simpson asked for a motion. A motion was made to deny the appeal and approve the site plan and incorporate a condition that the bushes be maintained high enough and dense enough in order to provide privacy to both sides of the property. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Correa, Simpson and Willits NOES: Commissioner Gladson ABSTAIN (RECUSE): Commissioner Glasgow MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Glasgow reentered the chambers. 4. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn at 9:05 PM. The next regular meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:00 PM. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Simpson, Correa, Gladson, Glasgow and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.