2015 - September 9Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
September 9, 2015
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Willits
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Anna Pehoushek, Acting Assistant Community Development Director
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Glasgow 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1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None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 Ms. Roseberry announced that the City Council
had appointed a fifth Commissioner that would be attending the next Planning
Commission meeting and informed the Commission that the next meeting may be a
lengthy one.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 2015
Motion was made to approve the minutes as written:
MOTION:
Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND:
Commissioner Correa
AYES:
Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
3. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
3.1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4794 -15 — SCHAAL ACCESSORY UNIT
The applicant proposes to construct a 565 SF accessory second unit behind an existing
single family residence in the Old Towne Historic District. The single family residence
is a contributor to the Historic District. Because the proposal includes relocation of the
existing one -car garage which is also a contributing building, final approval by the
Planning Commission is required.
LOCATION: 311 N. CAMBRIDGE
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Historical Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation) because the project is limited to
construction of an accessory second unit on a property already
developed with a single family residence in conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and with the Old Towne Design Standards.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26 -15 approving the
construction of an accessory second unit and relocation of an
historic garage.
Discussion: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a
project overview consistent with the staff report.
Commissioner Correa wanted to be sure the garage was structurally sound to be moved
without causing any damage to it. Ms. Moshier explained that a review of the structural
integrity of the building would be reviewed by a structural engineer prior to any
relocation. He asked what steps would be taken if the structural engineer found the
structure was not sound and could not be moved. Ms. Moshier stated at that point the
project would come back to the Design Review Committee and the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Gladson questioned the action of the DRC in removing one of the two
parking stalls. Ms. Moshier stated the DRC recommended removing one of the stalls in
order to reduce the amount of paving.
Public Hearing was opened. There were no speakers.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26 -15 approving
Design Review No. 4794 -15, for the construction of an accessory second unit and
relocation of a historic garage:
4
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
MOTION:
Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND:
Commissioner Correa
AYES:
Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
4. NEW HEARINGS:
4.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2980-15 - WOODY'S DINER
The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 47 License (General
On -Sale Alcohol — Eating Place) to serve alcoholic beverages at a new restaurant.
Outdoor patio dining is proposed as part of this application.
LOCATION: 2145 W. CHAPMAN AVENUE
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 private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 24 -15 approving the sale
of alcoholic beverages under a Type 47 license.
Discussion: Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent
with the staff report. She explained that the applicant was requesting a happy hour and it
has been the Police Department's practice to oppose happy hours as part of ABC license
cups.
Public Hearing was opened.
Erik Johnson, applicant, explained that it was a family style diner with various locations
in Southern California and he stated the happy hour was a convenience for the parents
when they came with their children.
Speakers
The following persons were concerned with the happy hour, the late closing hours on the
weekends, the serving of spirits, parking, the noise on the weekends due to the late
hours, increased traffic and DUIs:
Melanie Diederich
Dave Frazer
Tammara Tagaloa
Annie Cruz
Mr. Johnson respected the opinions of the public speakers. He explained that breakfast
and lunch were the busiest times on the weekends and this diner had more parking than
their other restaurants. He stated that their other diners with alcohol licenses have never
had any complaints during the last 29 years.
4
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
Ms. Ribuffo explained that since this was formally a restaurant, it did not trigger a
review of the parking.
Ms. Roseberry stated that staff did not work with restaurants to determine their hours of
operation, that was just a business choice, and the sale of alcohol is run by ABC. If the
Commission wanted to change the hours, it would need to be tied to the impact of the
sale of the alcohol.
The Commissioners had further questions about the parking, and concern with it being a
family diner with late hours and serving hard liquor.
Ms. Ribuffo explained that there were only 2 other locations within 600 feet that had
alcohol licenses and the Police Department had found there was not an
overconcentration of licenses in the area based on on -sale and off -sale types.
Public Hearing was closed.
The Commissioners further discussed the long hours, the Type 47 license, the
applicant's other restaurants in Orange County that have not had any problems, and the
Police Department not being opposed to the Type 47 license request.
The Commissioners disagreed on allowing the happy hour. It was stated that if there
was a problem in the future, it could come back to the Planning Commission and the
CUP could be revoked.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 24 -15 approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2980 -15 authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverage
(Type 47 license- General on -sale alcohol) and removing Condition #21:
MOTION:
Commissioner Correa
SECOND:
Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Correa and Gladson
NOES:
Commissioners Glasgow and Willits
ABSENT:
None
QPrnnd VntP
MOTION FAILED.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 24 -15 approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2980 -15 authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverage
(Type 47 license- General on -sale alcohol) and removing Condition #21:
MOTION:
Commissioner Gladson
SECOND:
Commissioner Willits
AYES:
Commissioners Correa, Gladson, and Willits
NOES:
Commissioner Glasgow
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED.
R
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
4.2 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CODE CLEAN-
UP
An ordinance to clarify City standards for residential accessory structure setbacks.
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 27 -15 recommending
City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the
Orange Municipal Code to clarify City standards for residential
accessory structure setbacks.
Discussion: Anna Pehoushek, Acting Assistant Community Development Director,
presented a project overview consistent with the staff report.
Public Hearing was opened. There were no speakers
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 27 -15 recommending
City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal
Code to clarify City Standards for residential accessory structure setbacks:
MOTION: Commissioner Willits
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Willits
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
6
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
4.3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 0036 -15 (17645), WASHINGTON HAMLIN TRACT
(THE OLSON COMPANY)
The applicant proposes a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes. A single lot
with public utility and access easements would result. No specific number of units, site
plan, floor plans, or building elevations are associated with the proposal. No site plan
or design review components are associated with the proposal.
LOCATION: South of East Washington Avenue and South Hamlin Street
Intersection
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines 15315 (Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 28 -15 approving TTM
0036 -15 (17645) for residential purposes.
Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with
the staff report. He explained to the Commission that the proposed Resolution did
outline findings that had been made and he read those 13 characteristics.
Commissioners Glasgow and Willits disclosed they had an informational meeting with
the Olson Company. Commissioners Gladson and Correa had not met with the
applicant.
Public Hearing was opened.
Doris Nguyen, Olson Company, explained they are both the applicant and the owner of
the land. She thanked the staff for their time and effort in processing the application.
The Planning Commission had the following comments, concerns, and questions:
• How did they know if there were going to be adequate services if they didn't
know what they were going to build. Mr. Ortlieb explained that they made a
projection siting the General Plan maximum.
• Concerned with 60 units on the property and the need for more information.
• Asked if staff looked at the potential impact of 60 units and how it would impact
that area. Mr. Ortlieb stated they are not assuming a full 60 units but are relying
on this project coming back under a Major Site Plan Review.
• Questioned the single -story overlay on the zoning. Mr. Ortlieb stated that the
property is zoned R -3 -A and it means single story.
• Asked why the proposed project was separated from the tentative tract map
request. John Reekstin, Olson Company, stated there were two primary reasons.
7
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
First, the Olson Company wanted to show good will to the neighborhood and
introduce the map to them. Secondly, he stated they have owned the property for
2 years and are trying to keep their options by either developing the property or
selling it.
• Concerned with the potential sale of the property.
• Asked if the applicant had used this procedure before in any other of their
developments and it seemed to raise more questions than it gave answers. Mr.
Reekstin said they have not requested this before and clarified that this request
did not give any rights to build anything on the property.
• Unsure about entry access from the streets. Mr. Reekstin showed how the access
was delineated on the map.
• Questioned how this would be bifurcated from a CEQA perspective.
• Asked what would cause the applicant to sell the land. Mr. Reekstin said it
would be an economic incentive and would be a decision made by their Board of
Directors.
• Concerned that no general plan was before the Commission.
• Questioned what the fire and safety plans would be.
Mr. Reekstin stated that if the map was not going to be approved, that the Commission
make their specific findings under the California Government Code as to the reason for
their objections.
Speakers
Kimberly Johnson address on file, wanted the lot developed in a way that was
appropriate, responsible, and within the existing zoning code. She stated that at a
previous community meeting, the applicant was proposing a development with 34 units
with lofts. She was opposed to the lofts which would be a second floor and since the
property sits higher than the surrounding properties, the windows would look down into
the neighboring homes creating a privacy issue.
George Gallardo address on file, was concerned with increased traffic and parking in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Roy Spencer address on file, was concerned with the impact on the Orange Lakes
Refuge. He also wanted to see what the applicant was proposing to do with the property.
Vivian Maxwell address on file, did not object to the property being developed but there
were issues that could not be resolved including traffic, size of the property, chain link
fence by the drainage ditch, and parking.
Mr. Reekstin returned to address the issues which were raised by the speakers. He
explained they were aware of all the issues and concerns raised by the neighborhood.
He stated that the map before the Commission was not dealing with any of these issues
and they would be discussed at the appropriate time.
Public Hearing was closed.
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
Mr. Sheatz clarified that the Commission had a recommendation from staff and if they
agreed with that, they could adopt the resolution and it would move on to City Council.
If they did not agree with that, then the Commission needed to state what their
disagreement was with the findings and then staff would come back with a
recommendation of denial to the City Council with the appropriate findings.
Commissioner Correa was concerned there was no comprehensive plan; with the impact
on the Orange Lakes Refuge; with parking issues; with ingress and egress; with the
health and safety of the community; with the privacy issue regarding the lofts; with the
property if it was sold; and he needed more information to ensure it would not be
overdeveloped.
Commissioner Glasgow understood there were a lot of unknowns but those would come
back to the Commission at a later date and be vetted.
Commissioner Willits thought it asked more questions than it answered. He wasn't sure
why the applicant was trying this approach for the first time. Mr. Reekstin stated that
the Olson Company had never closed on a piece of property and then gone through the
entitlement process.
Commissioner Gladson had concerns with some of the findings which stated the
subdivision complied with the development standards including setback and height,
parking requirements, and other development requirements. She could not say this map
complied with those because she did not have that data.
Motion was made to send the Tentative Tract Map back to staff to receive more
information from the Olson Company with a tract map and the number of units
that could be placed on the property and bring it back to the Planning Commission
so they could make a better decision including the number of units and a site plan.
MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND: Commissioner Willits
Mr. Ortlieb explained if that motion was to pass, the project would be at a point where
more CEQA analysis would be required along with a major site plan and it would no
longer be just the tract map. Mr. Reekstin preferred the Commission take affinitive
action one way or the other.
Commissioner Glasgow withdrew the motion.
Motion was made to deny the Tentative Tract Map and to have staff prepare a
resolution with appropriate findings related to the map findings and the General
Plan findings to deny the map based on some of the issues the Commission
discussed. The concerns included the lack of development standards which did not
afford the ability of the Commission to find that it complied with the Orange
Zoning Ordinance; if it was compatible within the existing residential designation
9
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
and neighborhood in the vicinity of the subject site; #4 had to be looked at in terms
of public welfare relating to adjacent land uses particularly the slope areas to the
east; look at #7, #10 and all of them to make the findings to approve the map.
Mr. Sheatz stated that there were a couple of findings pursuant to State law and if the
Commission could make any of the following findings, then the map should be denied.
These included the site not being physically suitable for the type of development; the
density; serious public health problems; and the environmental and physical suitability
for this type of development.
MOTION:
Commissioner Correa
SECOND:
Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Correa, Gladson, and Willits
NOES:
Commissioner Glasgow
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED.
10
Planning Commission
September 9, 2015
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, September
21, 2015.
MOTION:
Commissioner Gladson
SECOND:
Commissioner Correa
AYES:
Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, and Willits
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
Meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED.
11