Loading...
2013 - September 16Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16th, 2013 Planning Commission September 16, 2013 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Marissa Moshier, Contract Planner, Historic Preservation Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mark Schwartz, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1. OPENING: Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Correa led the flag salute. ROLL CALL: All Commissioners present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None PLANNING MANAGER REPORT: Planning Manager Roseberry stated there was nothing additional to report. APPEAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Chair Steiner reviewed the appeal process. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: September 16th, 2013 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 2013. Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the August 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting as written. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, and Gladson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Steiner ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 2.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2013 Commissioner Gladson made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the August 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting as written. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 2 Planning Commission Meeting 3. COMMISSION BUSINESS: September 16th, 2013 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4685-13 AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0705-12 — PALM AVENUE HOUSING The applicant proposes to relocate and reconstruct an existing barn and construct an addition, a new detached two -car garage, and a new 1' /2 story additional housing unit with attached garage on a parcel that contains a one -story single family residence. The single family residence 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 North Clark Street. LOCATION: 730 W. Palm Avenue NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2 — Replacement or Reconstruction) and Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31 -13 approving the relocation and reconstructing of a non - contributing barn as an accessory housing unit, construction of a two car garage and construction of one additional housing unit. Historic Preservation Planner Marissa Moshier presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The house at 730 W. Palm Avenue is a contributing structure, but the barn on the property is not. Commissioner Correa asked if the house was a contributing structure. Ms. Moshier stated it was. He also asked about the nature of the craftsman home, and whether they typically had their garages all the way at the back of the property. Ms. Moshier said that was typical. Commissioner Correa said he felt strongly that the garage should be moved back 10 feet to be consistent with the craftsman style and the neighborhood. Commissioner Correa referenced page A -2, where the materials for the project are described as vinyl and plastic in some parts. He would like to see all the materials be wood. For the barn roof, he sees that the plan calls for corrugated, even though the original was asphalt. He would like to see it kept consistent with the roof on the house. Commissioner Gladson asked if there were 3 units proposed, and why the use would be under the purview of the Planning Commission. Ms. Moshier explained that the plan proposes 2 housing units plus the barn used as an accessory unit, which is allowed since 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 the property is zoned R -2. Commissioner Gladson also asked for clarification on why this project is before the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz explained that this project was taken from the purview of the Design Review Committee and placed under the Planning Commission. There were some irregularities in the process of the project going before the Design Review Committee, so the project was shifted to the Planning Commission to head off any due process challenges from either the City or the applicant. The project would have come back to the Planning Commission anyway, and the only difference is that the project will not now be vetted through the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Gladson asked if that meant the Design Review Committee was still an entity that the project could be sent back to. Mr. Sheatz said it was, but that would bring up all the potential due process problems that they were attempting to avoid. He would prefer that the project not be sent back to the Design Review Committee for that reason. Chair Steiner noted that 2 items were presented and entered into the record: a letter from Raymond Chen, Structural Engineering and the Historic Resource Assessment. Rick Fox, address on file, the architect for the project, spoke as applicant. He concurs with the findings in the staff report and is prepared to accept the conditions in the report. He feels this project makes a strong positive contribution to the neighborhood, both on Palm and Clark streets. He clarified some of the details in the report, specifically regarding the relocation of the barn. The original Historic Resource Assessment was prepared in December of 2012 and at that time there were still several possible development options. After that report, the staff asked for additional details on the 7 aspects of integrity. Section 3.1.3 of the report shows the details that have been added as a result, specifically regarding the aspects of integrity. The May 1st Design Review Committee report also provides information on integrity on page 6. The 2 aspects of integrity that this barn retains are the aspects of feeling and design. The relocation honors and retains those two aspects, providing the same orientation as the original as well as the same materials when the originals are salvageable. Also, the original window and door patterns are retained. Various other details of the building are retained, such as the painted fruit and the sliding door. The materials being replaced were chosen so as not to create a false sense of history and make it seem as if the remodeled building is original. Regarding the infill construction issue, the garage has been set back 8 feet from the porch rather than being flush with the porch. The placement of the garage right now allows for multiple open spaces for the different residents to use. There is a very mature orange tree located right behind the garage, and that will be retained with the proposed garage placement. The two different vehicular entrances to the property help mitigate any negative impact on Palm Ave. Pushing the garage farther back will reduce the useable open space behind the garage. Sherry and Guy Alexander were given the opportunity to speak, but they deferred their right to speak to a later time. 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Jeff Frankel, address on file, spoke and pooled the minutes of himself, Steven Brennan, Sandy Quinn, and Sue Vares to get 12 minutes to speak. He was concerned about the lack of Design Review Committee input and thought a final review of the project by the Design Review Committee would have been very beneficial. He has discussed the project with the applicants, architect, and staff and still has some concern regarding the design. The OTPA applauds the applicants for their great job rehabilitating an historic bungalow, but said he knew, and everyone in the project knew, this was going to be a difficult and controversial project. He reviewed the consultant's report from May 2013 as well as the staff report. The consultant's report mentions that the barn was built on an historic site, and the loss of its surroundings has no bearing on its contributing status. There were many small barns not associated with orchards that were built in Orange historically, and some of them still exist. The report mentions an earlier survey that determines that the barn is non- contributing, but the OTPA is not aware of any such survey. Rather the barn was simply not mentioned, which doesn't mean it isn't a contributing structure. Past inventories haven't necessarily listed garages, barns, and other accessory structures. There are many structures like this that have been restored and treated as historic buildings, and they form an important part of the historic fabric of Old Towne Orange. The OTPA disagrees with the claim that the barn is a non - contributing structure, so CEQA guidelines should apply. The Secretary of the Interior Standards do not recommend moving historic buildings unless it is absolutely necessary for the project to go forward. Those that have been moved have been moved in a very sensitive fashion, keeping a minimal distance and keeping the same relationship to the primary structure, and were conditioned not to be dismantled. This is not the situation in the current project. Also, in -kind resources are to be used on historic resources, and the Old Design Standards strongly encourage the use on infill projects, and the OTPA encourages that for this infill project as well. The new garage will be using in -kind materials, as it should. The OTPA also believes the barn should use in -kind materials, specifically for the windows and doors. Aluminum framed windows, for example, are an inappropriate material. The OTPA also questions the choice of roofing materials, since the original material would have likely been asphalt composition shingles, which is not the material being proposed. He would disagree that it creates a false sense of history, as that is what is currently on the building. One of the OTPA's biggest issues is the location of the infill garage. This location does not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards, since it doesn't continue historic relationships on the site. The proposed location of the garage is inconsistent with traditional building patterns in the district. When traveling through the historic district, one does not see any garages in this location relative to the historic building, unless they were built before the designation of the historic district and, therefore, aren't subject to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Approval for this location would set a dangerous precedent, as all previous projects that involved moving a building have been done with minimal distance and a preserved relationship to the original site. Future applicants may use this as an opportunity to propose putting garages farther forward on the sites, which would damage the historic relationships in the district. Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 There are two larger issues that the OTPA believes are incompatible with the historic standards; the OTPA is willing to compromise on the many others. First, the location of the garage; this should be moved back 20 feet, thus keeping the historic relationship. Second, the use of materials on the barn; aluminum frame windows and roofing materials different from the originals should not be used. The OTPA requests that the Planning Commission condition any approval of the plan on the moving of the garage back and the use of in -kind materials on the barn. Robert Imboden spoke, not representing the Design Review Committee, or commenting on design, but on the Historic Resource Assessment prepared for the project. He is not opposed to the project per se, and believes it could happen if done properly. However, he feels the project is not there yet, and doesn't conform to all the required standards, specifically regarding the assessment of the building and its compliance with CEQA. He reviewed his credentials to speak on this matter, including his work in historic preservation, his time spent on the Planning Commission, and his time spent on the Design Review Committee. He also has experience working with a barn-like structure in terms of assessing its historic significance. The earlier project was not determined to be historic, but for vastly different reasons than those that apply to the current project. He doesn't automatically believe that every old building needs to be preserved. In the case in front of the Commission, the primary areas that have been referenced in terms of the assessment are the integrity and setting. The report does not provide an executive summary, which made it hard to understand the findings in the report. The report mentioned that the building isn't contributing based on the National Historic Standards and the State Historic Standards. He doesn't see why the National Standards would be relevant in a discussion of CEQA. In order for a building to be listed in the State Register of Historic Structures, it doesn't need to meet all 7 listed criteria for integrity. There is no evidence, for example, that the garage had ever been moved outside of the period of significance, and therefore lost its historic claim. Also, the type or method of construction is not a way that anyone reviews workmanship. The use of single -wall construction doesn't prove or disprove the historic nature of the building. Also, the paving that was done to the barn subsequent to its construction should not disqualify it as an historic structure either. There are 4 historic aerial photos that show this building in place. These barns were not limited to the use of citrus- growing properties, so the absence of a citrus grove also does not disqualify it from historic status. Any modifications that might have been made to the structure are easily fixable in the restoration process. Lack of identification of the barn as a contributing structure in several of the inventories cited in the report is simply because it wasn't a primary structure, and the inventories only recorded primary structures. CEQA guidelines state that just because a property isn't listed as historic in an inventory, that doesn't mean it isn't historic. The logic used to conclude that this structure is not historic is therefore faulty. In summary, he stated that everyone in the community has a responsibility to be good stewards of the historic materials here, and that he is concerned about the precedent that 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 approving such a project might set. He finished by asking the Commission to question staff about how the project would be impacted if the building were to be deemed historic, and whether the project could still happen. His issue is not with the design of the project, but with the inaccurate information and logic in the report. Chair Steiner asked for questions from the committee members, then asked for Mr. Fox to come back up to respond to the comments from the public. Mr. Fox came back and tried to summarize the 3 main issues; 1 is the window framing material on all new constructions; 2 is the roofing material of the barn; and 3 the setback of the garage. Commissioner Buttress said the other issue was the evidence for whether the barn was a contributing structure or not. Mr. Fox said there are sections of the report that deal with CEQA criteria for the project and each of those criteria are discussed in some detail. He said he understands that just because a structure wasn't listed on a survey, that doesn't mean it isn't a contributing structure. That's precisely why this report was commissioned. People might come to different conclusions on different parts of the report, but he disputes that the report is either incomplete or inaccurate. Even if the barn is contributing, that would only affect the types of materials used on the windows and roof. Chair Steiner said it was unfortunate that the writers of the report couldn't be at the meeting tonight. Mr. Fox then addressed the issue of the material types and location of the garage. The window and barn materials could be changed if needed. The advent of the two -car garage is fairly recent in the history of architecture. The single -car garage was often an accessory. He would be willing to change the location if that would be part of a compromise. Commissioner Correa mentioned the sense of false history, and he doesn't see any false history here. Once the decision to save the barn was made, all the other steps should logically follow, and there is a responsibility to save it correctly. Some single - family homes did have barns, so the materials should be as original as possible. He has some reservations about moving the barn, but is willing to accept that in order to help the project move forward. He feels in order to preserve the historic fabric, the windows should be wood and the roof should not be done with corrugated material or other more modern materials. The house originally had a single -car garage. A two -car garage is going to be very imposing on that property, but he is willing to compromise and require the garage to only be moved back 10 feet rather than 20, and 5 feet on the east side to comply with the setback requirement. He asked on page A -7, what kind of garage door is being used, and why does it appear that there are two different kinds of designs on the garage doors? 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Mr. Fox said the desire was to be a barn look, and the material itself would be painted metal. Commissioner Correa said he was fine with there being two different garage doors, but thought the materials should be uniform for all the buildings, and the garage should be pushed back 10 feet. Chair Steiner clarified that the garage is already 8 feet back, and asked Mr. Fox to elaborate. Mr. Fox said the garage was 8 feet from the front of the existing building. He asked if the proposal would be to push it back another 10 feet. Commissioner Correa clarified that it would be another 2 feet so that the total setback was 10 feet. Mr. Fox said that wouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Buttress asked if that would allow for the tree directly behind the garage to be kept. Mr. Fox said he wasn't an arborist, and couldn't say for sure. Commissioner Gladson said she doesn't feel she has enough credible information from the materials presented to her to make an informed decision, especially a specific decision on whether it's acceptable to move the barn or not based on whether it is or isn't a contributing structure. She said she was concerned about the precedent of moving a potentially contributing structure. If there was clear evidence that it wasn't contributing, it would be fine to move it. The exceptions to the CEQA guidelines only apply if this isn't a contributing structure, and we just don't know that for sure. Mr. Fox clarified that the existing site plan does show the current and proposed locations of all buildings, even though they are sometimes called different things. Chair Steiner said the originally proposed design shown to the Design Review Committee had a Plan A and Plan B option, with Plan A being to demolish the barn and Plan B being to move it. Mr. Fox said that Plan B had received the most support, and even if the garage isn't contributing, it is clearly something that the community would like to keep. He also felt that demolition by neglect should not be an option. Commissioner Gladson said the missing ingredient in the proof is the Sanborn maps, which aren't included. 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Mr. Fox explained that the Sanborn maps fell short of this particular property, so those couldn't be used to get a definitive answer. Chair Steiner said that there could be an argument either way on the evidence for whether the barn is contributing. He said he didn't feel a strong opposition to the project, and wanted to see if a compromise could be reached without a definitive answer to the question of whether the structure is contributing. Ms. Moshier said she doesn't think there is locatable definitive evidence regarding whether this is a contributing structure. The Sanborn maps didn't extend this far west, so aerial photographs are the main evidence. Commissioner Gladson asked if they were likely to find additional evidence in the future. Ms. Moshier said it was unlikely that she would be able to find more evidence to clarify the issue. Commissioner Gladson asked if it made sense to reconsider all the different criteria on the property. Ms. Moshier said the main question is whether the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance as an agriculture- related resource. So the question is whether there is enough historic material there. There have been alterations to the roof framing structural, and the internal structural system, and to the openings in the buildings, so there have been losses to integrity. Commissioner Gladson said that doesn't necessarily preclude it from not qualifying. Ms. Moshier clarified that there are 2 criteria for whether the structure qualifies: the first is whether it is significant, and whether it is associated with an historical event or person, and this property meets that criteria; the second is whether it retains enough of the original material to convey that historic significance. Commissioner Gladson said the report stated that the building has 60% of its historic material, which is more than half. Commissioner Correa said he wished to err on the side of safety. Chair Steiner asked what specifically he meant by that. Commissioner Correa said if the applicant is willing to make the changes brought up so far, he would be fine with that. Chair Steiner asked how the applicant would feel about moving the garage back an additional 12 feet (20 feet total). 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Sherry Alexander said she would love to save the big orange tree, but she would be open to moving it wherever the Commission wanted it. Mr. Fox said the existing orange tree is about 6 -8 feet from the back of the garage. Moving it back that additional 12 feet would mean that the garage would end about 7 feet from the rear proposed structure. Placing the garage where it is was originally proposed was designed to help preserve a larger piece of open space that would therefore be more useable to the residents. Commissioner Buttress asked if moving it back 12 feet would require removing the orange tree. Mr. Fox stated that 12 feet back would mean the tree cannot be retained. Commissioner Buttress asked if moving it back 4 -6 feet would allow the tree to be saved. Chair Steiner said the question of whether to save the orange tree should be second to whether the historic fabric is going to be preserved. Commissioner Correa asked how old the orange tree was. Mr. Fox said it appears to be original to the site. Commissioner Buttress asked about the houses around this property. They seemed to have garages that were right up near the front of the property. She doesn't understand why this is such a large concern. Commissioner Gladson said the relationship in the historic period was to have the garages moved back as far as possible on the property. Commissioner Correa added that the garages were pushed back in order for the craftsman houses to shine. Commissioner Buttress said having the open space that's larger and useable is a good thing. Commissioner Gladson said that putting 3 units on a 14,000 square foot lot means there will be some tradeoffs regarding how much open space is available. This is more dense than it was, so people should expect to lose some of the open space. Mr. Fox said if moving the garage back 20 feet was what it would take to approve, the applicants would be open to that. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry stated that the garage was 31 feet long and would only need to be 20 feet long, so that might help move things back as well. 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Ms. Alexander said the plan was to have a 31 foot garage so the garage would be more useable in terms of storage for bikes and other equipment. Commissioner Correa moved to accept the proposed site plan with the following conditions: • The materials used would be of the same nature as typically are used in a craftsman home, including the roof. • The garage would be moved 20 feet back, with a 5 foot side yard setback. SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, and Steiner NOES: Commissioner Gladson ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 11 Planning Commission Meeting 4. NEW HEARINGS: September 16th, 2013 4.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28 -11 & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16405 — ROSSITER RANCH TRAILS MODIFICATION The applicant is requesting that the City exercise its easement rights to allow the construction of off -site trails to replace those required by the original Rossiter Ranch entitlements. The applicant proposes to vacate the existing west and south trails within the development and replace them with trails on adjacent City and County trail easements. The eastern trail alignment within the Rossiter Ranch development would remain as it. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the concept of the subject application to determine if the proposal to exercise the City's trail easement rights is a proposal that the City is willing to consider. This item was originally heard at the June 17, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. LOCATION: Jack Pine and Nicky Way NOTE: If the proposal is supported, the applicant will provide the necessary information to determine compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDED ACTION: A resolution will be provided at a future hearing date based on the Planning Commission action. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council by choosing one of the options described in the Analysis Section. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. This is a new hearing based on the possibility of procedural challenges to the earlier hearing. Chair Steiner asked if there was any more communication that the staff had received in addition to the materials presented to the commissioners. Ms. Roseberry said there wasn't any. Brian Brennan spoke as the applicant. He opened by thanking the staff, especially Ms. Nguyen. The Rossiter Ranch HOA would request that the Commission consider separating the two trail proposals of relocation and focus strictly on the western section of the trail at the meeting today. When the Rossiter Ranch development first started construction, the developer secured a maintenance agreement with The Colony HOA for Lot B in exchange for a utility easement on the other side of Lot B. 12 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 At that time, the existence of an easement for the trail system along Lot B was unknown to the Rossiter Ranch developer. The developer has spent a lot of money over the years on irrigation, landscaping, water meters, planting, and repairing all these features, and has discovered that the general public continually tramples this area, thwarting the developers attempt to make and keep the area beautiful. This is due to the ending of the trail on Lot B, so when people use the trail, they don't know where to go, and they end up walking on the landscaping in Lot B. The City has an easement to allow for the moving of the trail. The Rossiter Ranch developers have a maintenance agreement for the property, and the relocation of the trail will be done with no added expense to the taxpayer. Also, the Orange Park Association (OPA) has submitted a letter signed by the OPA president acknowledging their agreement with this plan to relocate the trail. The end result of this proposal will be an enhanced trail system, which everyone can enjoy. He mentioned some questions that the Commission should consider: • Does the City favor trail expansion and maintenance, especially when it can be had with no expense to the taxpayer? • Does the City agree with trail connectivity? • Does the City want a single HOA to bear an undue burden of cost due to the City not allowing a trail to be constructed when they have all the pieces of the puzzle to do so? All the City needs to do is green light the trail relocation, and the City trail system will be that much closer to being complete. Chair Steiner called for members of the public to speak on this issue. Tom Davidson spoke, saying that the trail has been guided into The Colony's easement, closing off the trails that would provide an option for people to use. The trail cannot just be moved over to the property of someone not willing to do that. The association would be willing to work with specific neighbors in the Rossiter Ranch development who have a challenge with the current easement. Ann Myers of The Colony spoke, saying the trees would be in danger if the trails were moved. There are oak and eucalyptus trees, some of which are over 100 years old, and moving the trail would likely require them to be taken out. Bob Myers spoke against the proposal. The easements are not a genuine surprise to the Rossiter Ranch developer, and the trails were in place before any of the Rossiter Ranch properties were developed. He finds it interesting that the developer is here asking for the proposal to be accepted, rather than the residents. It seems ridiculous to discuss allowing them to abandon the trail in an equestrian community. The damage to the landscaping has forced trail users onto The Colony's property. The oak trees and hillside would be altered by moving the trail. The county has not been contacted regarding this proposal. 13 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Greg Raab spoke against the proposal, presenting a petition signed by The Colony HOA members against the proposal. The petition was submitted to the Commission. His biggest issue is the width of the trail currently required by the City, and moving the trail will encroach on The Colony's greenbelt. Barry Evans spoke against the proposal. He believes the Rossiter Ranch owners should have known what they were getting into, and that their lots are big enough to do what they would want to do regardless of the easement requirement. He provided pictures to all the commissioners which showed that this plan would result in the removal of several large older trees. This would be a tragedy. Art Bass spoke against the proposal. Horses are trampling the trail, but only because the ending was closed off by the Rossiter Ranch developer and trail users are now guided onto Lot B as a result. Also, Mr. Brennanstated that the Rossiter Ranch developer has a right to use the trail as part of the easement. In actuality, part of the easement granted to them specifically denied them the right to put in a horse trail on that property. The Colony's HOA voted on this in 2006, before the easement was drawn up, and Mr. Bass has a document with the signature of Mr. Brennan's brother saying that they would not be pursuing the placement of a trail on The Colony's easement property. In 1975, The Colony and the City came to an agreement whereby the City was granted an 8 foot easement. The developers' easement is now 12 feet, which was a variance that was granted. In order to move the trail, the requirement is now 14 feet, which is the width that would be required for the new trail. Much of the foliage on The Colony's property would need to be removed if the trail is moved, and that foliage provides shade and privacy to The Colony's residents. The fence is also not properly maintained. Mr. Bass said when he asked them about the fence, they said it was in that condition because it was temporary, indicating that they intended for the City to move it, even though that was never approved. His final concern is that the Rossiter Ranch developer will himself be a resident there, and the challenging confrontation going on right now would undoubtedly sour the relationship between the two HOA's in the future. Laura Thomas of OPA spoke against the proposal. Nothing has changed since the last hearing on this proposal in June, and OPA hasn't changed its mind at all. OPA supports expanding trail connectivity, but The Colony and other homeowners should not have to bear any cost or burden for this project. Also, OPA is concerned that there would be future demands regarding this trail as well. Impact to The Colony was not apparent at the time the letter from OPA was signed, and the letter no longer represents the beliefs of OPA. The OPA board is always open to sitting down and discussing these kinds of issues. People bought property in Rossiter Ranch because of the rural feel, and now they want to change that feel, not recognizing the consequences of moving the trail. David Hillman spoke against the proposal. He trains horses for a living. Ever since the Rossiter Ranch trail was put in, it's been one of his favorite rides because of a beautiful large oak tree in the middle of it. The trail has had good placement and was 14 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 workable until last spring when the end of the trail was fenced off. The trail now leads to a thicket of trees and an irrigation system, which makes it necessary to get off the horse and walk him through the area. He was told by the developer that the trail would never be reopened, even after the most recent Planning Commission vote against moving the trail. Dan Zettler owns property on Morada Drive where the easement would be. He opposes taking any foliage down, including cutting down any trees. He has witnessed the dead ending of the horse trail, and thinks that moving the trail onto other people's property will be a fight, since it will require taking more space than just the easement. He believes that people who bought their property would have known there were easements. His property has an easement, and he has never considered having things moved off of his easement due to the impact that that would have on the neighboring properties. He doesn't want to change the rules after the fact. Ken Kribel lives on Morada Drive. His property runs all the way down to the easement at the bottom of the hill. This proposal will encroach on some of his property. He opposes the trail, since he will need to lose a big beautiful tree if this is approved. He would rather have a view of a tree than of a bare hillside and his neighbor's backyard. He is also concerned about the liability of having a horse trail on his property: if horses get some speed, they may miss the 90 degree turn on his property. Chair Steiner asked Ms. Nguyen about which trees will need to be removed. Ms. Nguyen responded that this a preliminary decision on moving the trail, and if the City decided to use its easement rights, the developer would then be allowed to go and study the impact of moving the trail in terms of which trees would need to be removed. Mr. Brennan answered, stating that the view wouldn't be affected by this proposal, and people will still see the horse trail when they drive into The Colony. The proposed trail has been staked, and several of the speakers tonight have had a chance to walk the trail to see what it would look like. Also, the block wall is not part of the easement. If there's a problem with a 90 degree turn in the trail system, then the current trail shouldn't be allowed to remain either. There are no regional trails anymore, so the original Planning Commission finding is not relevant anymore. The dead - ending of the trail was recommended by the City as a way to keep horses off Jamestown Street. The trampling of the landscaping on Lot B has been going on since the inception of Rossiter Ranch. No matter where the trail is located, anyone using it will have to cross Lot B, unless they want to turn around and go back the way they came. The original intent of the trail system is to allow access to Lot C, which is a big open space in The Colony. The Rossiter Ranch developer has offered to add shrubs and other greenery as part of the trail moving process to help beautify the area and offset any loss of foliage. These offers have fallen on deaf ears, and now it is up to the city to decide on the future of this trail. 15 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 Chair Steiner asked Mr. Brennan about whether the relaxing of the 15 foot setback from the easement would help any of the Rossiter Ranch residents if the trail isn't moved. Mr. Brennan said that issue only affects one or two individual property owners. What affects the entire HOA is the cost of maintaining Lot B, and that's the bigger issue at play. He is looking to find an equitable solution to that issue, and one that provides better connectivity and gives people options when using the trail. Mr. Myers wished to address the commission again. In his discussions with county officials, he has not heard anyone say they have been approached about moving this trail. He has heard that if the City would like to take over the county easement, they would deed that over to the City without any problem. However, none of the 3 homeowners potentially affected would like to see the trail moved up the hillside. Moving the trail would remove the pastoral look that has been part of this area for 30 years. He believes at least one Rossiter Ranch resident was sold a bill of goods regarding how much space he would have in his back yard, and as a result nothing has been constructed as he awaits an anticipated change in the easement to gain additional space. Lot B is unbuildable, and it helps guarantee the pastoral look of the area. All residents knew what they were getting into, and knew the easement was there. Mr. Brennan responded, saying the project doesn't discuss the south side of the trail, but rather the western side. The question in front of the commission is whether they will help Rossiter Ranch residents manage the costs associated with maintaining the easement, and expand the trail. Commissioner Correa asked whether the OPA opposed this project. Chair Steiner confirmed that that's what they said. Commissioner Correa said he didn't understand why this was such a problem now if the trail's been around. All homeowners are constrained by the size of their property, and cannot move their lot lines back to encroach on their surrounding properties. If the backyards in Rossiter Ranch are built with all the room they were promised by the developer, the existing trees would likely encroach on those newly built features, and the City would be asked to maintain those trees or knock them down. Neither of those options seems desirable. He also asked Ms. Roseberry to check with code enforcement on the blocking of the trail with the block wall. Ms. Roseberry said that after this matter is settled, we can talk about going back to some of those things. Both associations oppose this, so he does too. Commissioner Buttress moved to accept option A, which is no support for modifications or for the City to exercise easement rights. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 16 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 4.2 VARIANCE 2229 -13 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4669 -12 - EIDENMULLER The applicant is requesting to construct a 2- story, 21'4" freestanding elevator tower to address access requirements for an existing medical office building in the Old Towne Orange Historic District. LOCATION: 615 E. 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) as the project involves rehabilitation of a damaged structure and the installation of an elevator to meet current ADA standards. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 30 -13 approving the construction of a 2- story, 21'4" freestanding elevator tower to address access requirements for an existing medical office. Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Doug Ely spoke as applicant. He reviewed the issues outlined in the staff report and stated that some helpful changes have been made since the project appeared before the Design Review Committee. There were attempts to place the elevator inside the building, but it wasn't workable to have the building be useable with the elevator located inside. Commissioner Buttress motioned to accept the resolution. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 17 Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013 4.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2906-13 — CASA DE DIOS The applicant, Casa de Dios, is proposing to locate a church at an existing industrial complex and requesting shared parking. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the church use and shared parking within the industrial district. LOCATION: 1060 N. Batavia #F 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 includes no expansion of the existing building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 32 -13 approving the allowance of church use and shared parking in the industrial zone. Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Omar Bueno spoke as applicant. He feels like his church expanding into Orange helps give them a chance to help the community here. Commissioner Gladson motioned to accept the resolution, with a small wording change so that condition #2 reads "10:00 PM on weekdays." SECOND: Commissioner Buttress AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 18 Planning Commission Meeting 5. ADJOURNMENT: September 16th, 2013 Commissioner Buttress motioned to adjourn until the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, September 30, 2013. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner NOES: None Meeting adjourned at 9:25pm MOTION CARRIED 19