2013 - June 17Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2013
Minutes
Planning Commission APPR OVED June 17, 2013
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mark Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL: All Commissioners present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS:
Chair Steiner stated that agenda item 4.4 will not be heard tonight, but will be
continued at a later date.
PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:
Planning Manager Roseberry stated there was nothing additional to report.
PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO RAYMOND GRANGOFF:
Chair Steiner presented Ray Grangoff with a resolution for his exceptional service
to the City of Orange Planning Commission.
APPEAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
Chair Steiner reviewed the appeal process.
Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
June 17, 2013
1.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 20, 2013.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the
May 20, 2013 Planning Commission meeting as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Correa
MOTION CARRIED
Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2013
2. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
2.1 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Principal Planner Pehoushek presented the Progress Report for submission and
acceptance by the Commission. Commissioner Gladson made a motion to receive
the report.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting
3. NEW HEARINGS:
June 17, 2013
3.1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — DEVELOPMENT STREAMLINING
An Ordinance to streamline the City's design review process for certain
development applications, and establish sign regulations for the City's mixed use
zoning districts. Revisions to the City's Tustin Street Design Standards, Design
Guidelines for the Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and
Infill Residential Design Guidelines are also proposed in conjunction with the
ordinance.
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 25 -13
recommending City Council approval to streamline the
design review process for certain development applications
and establish sign regulations for mixed use zoning
districts.
Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report on this item.
Chair Steiner opened the floor to speakers from the public. There were none.
Several commissioners lauded the resolution, and felt it would be good for the
City and applicants in the future.
Commissioner Gladson motioned to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 25-
13 recommending City Council approval to streamline the design review process
for certain development applications and establish sign regulations for mixed use
zoning districts.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
3.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2884-12, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4658 -12 AND MINOR SITE PLAN 0712 -12 —
YAGHI RESIDENCE
The applicant proposes to relocate an existing one -car garage, add 198 SF to an
existing contributing 1920 Bungalow home and construct a new two -story 1,301
SF detached second unit with an enclosed 248 SF garage. The property is zoned
R -4 and the General Plan Land Use Designation is Medium Density Residential.
LOCATION: 437 S. Olive Street (Old Towne Historic District)
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class
3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures)
because the proposal includes the construction of a second
dwelling unit in a residential zone, Section 15331 (Class 31
— Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) consists of
projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization,
rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or
reconstruction of historical resources in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Building, and Section 15332 (Class 32 — In -Fill
Development Projects) because the project proposal
includes the construction and addition of an existing unit as
well as the construction of a new unit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 27 -13 allowing the
relocation of an existing one -car garage, the construction of
a new 198 SF addition to a contributing 1920 Bungalow
home and the construction of a two -story 1,301 SF
detached second unit with an enclosed two -car garage.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry presented a project overview
consistent with the Staff Report on this item.
Commissioner Gladson asked whether the applicant was a Mills Act recipient.
Planning Manager Roseberry said she would look that up and include it in all
future communications regarding the item.
Jon Califf, address on file, the architect for the project, spoke as the applicant. He
mentioned that the paneling would not be real wood, but manufactured Hardie
material, since the real wood available today isn't the same quality as what was
used originally, and real wood installed now wouldn't last very long. The Hardie
Page 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
material will take paint and otherwise look like wood, and will last a very long
time.
There were no other speakers.
Commissioner Buttress motioned to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 27-
13 allowing the relocation of an existing one -car garage, the construction of a new
198 SF addition to a contributing 1920 Bungalow home and the construction of a
two -story 1,301 SF detached second unit with an enclosed two -car garage, subject
to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Gladson praised the applicant, architect, and the plans for being
very well thought out and thorough.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
3.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2894 -13, VARIANCE NO. 2224-
13, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4667 -13, AND MINOR
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0721 -13 — STARBUCKS COFFEE
COMPANY
The applicant proposes to construct a new 24 -hour, 890SF Starbucks coffee
shop consisting of a drive -thru, walk -up service window, and a 200 SF outdoor
seating area on a vacant lot. There is no indoor seating at this location.
LOCATION: 1630 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 15303 (Class
3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures)
because the project consists of a new building with less
than 10,000 SF of floor area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26 -13 approving
the allowance of a new 24 -hour Starbucks coffee shop with
a drive -thru and walk -up service window on a vacant lot.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report on this item.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if the revised landscape plan had been approved
by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Garcia stated that the revised plan was
approved at the June 5th meeting of the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Correa asked if the police had approved the plan, since having a
24 -hour outside seating area could potentially pose problems. Mr. Garcia stated
that the police had approved the plan, on the condition that the landscaping not
be more than 3 feet tall from the Chapman Ave side so visibility from the street
could be maintained. Commissioner Correa also asked if the City Traffic
Engineer had approved the plan, since it looked like several cars might be
making left -hand turns into the property from Tustin Ave, which might clog up
traffic on that street. Mr. Garcia stated that the Traffic Engineer had approved
the plan.
Chair Steiner opened the item to public hearing.
Terry Matz, address on file, spoke as applicant and introduced Slade Blanchard,
Micah Body, Selena Delgado, Greg Denson, Rob Dupratt, and Rob Kean,
addresses on file, to answer questions. Mr. Matz stated that he thought the
process has been done well by the applicants and the City so far, and appreciates
the concerns mentioned by the Design Review Committee throughout the
process.
Page 7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
Mr. Blanchard stated that he was excited about the project because it could
relieve some of the crowds from the Starbuck's stores around it during peak
hours. He also stated he believes that Starbucks has learned a lot from their
previous drive -thru locations, and has incorporated much of what they have
learned into the design of this location.
Commissioner Buttress asked how many employees would be on site for each
shift. Mr. Blanchard stated that the plan was for 4 employees per shift to be on
the property. He also stated that the deliveries would mostly be happening in
the middle of the night, not during the peak operating hours, which should
eliminate any potential traffic problems from long customer lines existing while
delivery trucks were trying to get to the site.
Commissioner Gladson asked how the timing of the store was going to work.
Mr. Blanchard stated that the goal for the flow rate was 45 seconds per
customer, which means that each new spot in line comes to the order window
within 45 seconds, and each order is fulfilled within 45 seconds of the previous
order being fulfilled. He also mentioned that as far as departing traffic, the
prevailing flow would be toward the 55 freeway, which customers can easily get
to when leaving the location.
Commissioner Correa asked how loitering would be discouraged and how the
restrooms would keep from being used as shelters by homeless people. Mr.
Blanchard stated that the employees have been used to self - policing these things
at similar locations and that the restrooms would have a keyed entry, so people
couldn't just walk up and go into the restrooms.
Mr. Kean spoke on the traffic flow situation. He stated that Starbucks had
recorded traffic flows at similar locations, including asking customers whether
they were making a separate trip to Starbucks or whether their trip was on the
way to something else. This data was used to determine that for drive -thru only
locations, the maximum queue was 8 cars or less 100% of the time on
weekdays, and a 9 car queue on the weekends for 5 minutes only. For full
service locations with walk -up and drive -thru, the queue reached 10 cars one
time for 5 minutes at each of two locations studied. Other than that, the queue
was 9 or less. This data was taken during peak hours. As a result of this study,
the employees have been encouraged to park in the two spots most likely to be
blocked by a long queue of over 8 cars.
Commissioner Correa stated he was concerned based on the queue he sees at the
17 Street Starbucks drive -thru window, which often spills out into the street
during peak hours. He also stated that he was concerned about the volume of
cars turning left off of northbound Tustin Ave. and whether that would back
traffic up on Tustin Ave. during busy times. Mr. Kean mentioned that people
can turn left there currently, and traffic doesn't seem to be a problem. He also
mentioned that a left turn there is legal, and even if there are a lot of cars
Page 8
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
making that turn, they should have opportunities as traffic clears to make those
turns in a timely manner.
Mr. Blanchard mentioned that the previously referenced store on 17 Street in
Santa Ana has outdated technology, which will be upgraded soon to reduce the
backup. Technology upgrades planned include revising the interior layout and
updating the exterior sound system.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Matz if all 48 conditions in the Staff Report were
accepted by Starbucks. Mr. Matz stated that they were.
Commissioner Buttress motioned to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26-
13 approving the allowance of a new 24 -hour Starbucks coffee shop with a
drive -thru and walk -up service window on a vacant lot, subject to the conditions
contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Steiner mentioned that item 4.4 has been removed from the agenda for
this meeting and will be placed back on the agenda at a future meeting.
Chair Steiner called a five - minute recess at 8:05 to set up the presentation for
the next item.
Chair Steiner re- convened the meeting at 8:12.
Page 9
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
3.4 TRACT MAP 28 -11 AND 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 is.
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.
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 on this item. She also mentioned that staff is asking the Commission
to approve, deny, or continue the item for further discussion.
Commissioner Gladson asked if there was an incomplete application from the
applicant. Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct, and that staff is asking if the
Planning Commission will consider the concept of what is proposed before all the
final documents and reports are completed and filed. Commissioner Gladson
asked if this was then a conceptual discussion on the easement question itself.
Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Commissioner Gladson then asked Assistant
City Attorney Sheatz if there was any legal direction the Planning Commission
should be cautious of in discussing this item. Mr. Sheatz said "don't mess up,"
meaning that this is likely the first time this type of question has come up, and this
Planning Commission's recommendation should go to the City Council for
approval. Commissioner Gladson said that the land use question was the main
reason this was coming before the Planning Commission. Chair Steiner asked
whether the county was willing to quitclaim their easement as part of this
proposal, and Ms. Nguyen stated that they seemed willing to do so.
Robert VonEsh spoke as applicant showing maps of the area under discussion and
explained the proposal for the city to consider. The Colony is the housing
Page
10
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
association next to the property in question. He explained that he was asking for
the trails to be moved onto the public easements, which he believed was the
original intent for these easements. The trails would be moved over about 15 feet,
and the land they would be moved onto is undevelopable land. He stated that this
proposal would put very little burden on the city, and that the developer would be
willing to bear most of the costs for this proposal. He also stated that he had
reached out to The Colony's President Art Bass (although he said they have not
connected) and discussed the liability issues with Mr. Sheatz as well. He
believes the members of the equestrian community would benefit from this
proposal as well, as it allows existing trails to be in a better position to connect to
future trails as well, without 90 degree turns in the path. Mr. VonEsh stated that
the Orange Park Association (OPA) approved the plan with 2 conditions: put up
temporary trails while these are being modified, and conform to City standards.
He stated that he would be willing to meet both of those conditions. He also
stated he believes the easement land was originally designed to be used as a horse
trail, and isn't suitable for any other use anyway. Mr. VonEsh stated that this
proposal would allow homeowners to make full use of their yards, which they
can't do now because of the setback requirements associated with the trails. This
use is simply what other homeowners have done with similar properties around
the area as well. Also, the proposal will have only a negligible financial impact
on the City. He stated that he feels this is a small thing to ask of the City, and it
will have a tremendous benefit to the homeowners.
Commissioner Cathcart asked how many homes this proposal would have an
impact on. Mr. VonEsh stated that at least the 3 home lots adjoining the trails
would benefit from the proposal and that most of the homes in the proposal have
had residents living there for years rather than months.
Commissioner Buttress stated that any property deed would have disclosed that
there was an easement on the property. Mr. VonEsh stated that the deed wasn't
clear that the result was that owners wouldn't be able to do what they wanted with
their property.
Commissioner Gladson asked if the owners of the six lots affected by this
proposed change, who will be responsible for bearing the cost of this change,
knew what the actual cost was going to be. Mr. VonEsh clarified that the
developer, LSUN, would pay to move the trails, and the ongoing maintenance of
the easement would be the Rossiter Ranch Homeowner's Association.
Commissioner Gladson asked if the lots were an acre in size, and also how far the
setback from the easement would be. Mr. VonEsh confirmed that the lots were an
acre in size, and explained that the minimum distance to put up, for example, a
masonry wall, would be 5 feet away from the easement. Commissioner Gladson
stated that it looked like the photo of the lots showed that they appeared to be
large enough to do many of the things Mr. VonEsh is stating that the homeowners
are claiming they are unable to do with the current situation. Mr. VonEsh agreed
that it looks that way, but that many of the Rossiter Ranch homeowners, once they
start looking into those choices, find that many of them don't fit where it looked
like they would have fit.
Page
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
Commissioner Buttress asked how far into Lot 2 the horse trail went into. Mr.
VonEsh showed on the map how far it went.
Commissioner Cathcart expressed that the homeowners knew what they were
getting into (or should have known), and wondered why the City should have to
take action to help them.
Mr. VonEsh explained that Martin vs. VanBerg is a case in Paso Robles where a
homeowner bought a piece of land with a defined fence border, and when they
tried to improve it, they did a survey, and the courts found that they were entitled
to more property than they thought they had originally purchased. Mr. VonEsh
stated that this was an example of someone buying property and getting
something different from what they thought they were getting. He also explained
that these homeowners are genuinely surprised by the effect of these easements.
Commissioner Cathcart explained that it was unusual that the problem was simply
that residents couldn't put their pools where they wanted.
Mr. VonEsh explained that it was indeed unusual, and explained that he was
really asking for compassion from the Planning Commission, and argued that
moving the trails wasn't going to hurt any other citizens. The Planning
Commission, specifically Commissioner Cathcart, seemed to indicate that people
with this amount of money don't need compassion from the city. Mr. VonEsh
said that should be irrelevant, and that this was a genuine surprise to the
homeowners, which should be the only criteria.
Chair Steiner stated that written correspondence from two citizens, Dan Zettler,
and Ken Kriebel, was put into the record as well.
The floor was opened to public speakers.
Bob Myers, Colony resident, stated his thanks to the Planning Commission for the
Staff Report, and stated that there was no way that the easement's effect could
have been a surprise to the homeowners. He felt that the removal of the horse
trail would simply be to benefit the homeowners and increase their lot size. He
also stated that he suspects the developer told the potential homeowners that they
would have room to do what they wanted with their property prior to the sale.
The horse trail was originally located off the property line, and years ago the City
had to ask them to move it back on to the property line. The trails were in place
before any of the Rossiter Ranch properties were built. Also, moving the horse
trail would force elimination of historic eucalyptus trees, and/or would completely
change the look of the properties in The Colony. The dead end for the horse trail
was put in by the developers just a few months ago. He also asserted that there is
no reason to put the burden for this on the City or other property owners when this
was a known challenge prior to the Rossiter Ranch homeowners purchasing their
properties.
Page
12
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
Jackie Fortier, 37 -year resident near the entrance to The Colony, stated that she
loved the pastoral look of the area, and that the proposed change would ruin the
look and feel of the area, and harm her property value.
Michael Granek, a Rossiter Ranch resident and owner of Lot 4, admitted that he
knew there was an easement when he bought the property, but didn't know that
the result of that easement was that he wasn't going to be able to build a wall
along the edge of his property.
Art Bass, president of The Colony Homeowner's Association, stated that he had
not been contacted by anyone from Rossiter Ranch regarding this issue. The
fence for the horse trail goes all the way back to 1975, while the fence where the
trail dead ends is a recent development. Mr. Bass pointed out that the horse trail
is the back end of the Rossiter Ranch homes, but is the front end of The Colony
homes—he stated that the Rossiter Ranch developers didn't seem to care what it
looked like, and that they had done a poor job of installing the fence they put up at
the trail's dead end. He also stated that the developer's claims that the Rossiter
Ranch Homeowner's Association will bear the costs and liability for this project
means that they will need to enter into an agreement with The Colony
Homeowner's Association in perpetuity regarding these arrangements. He stated
that it looked like the developer was under duress at this point to accommodate
the homeowners, and that they were trying to shift the responsibility onto the City
to help them deal with that duress.
Tom Davidson thanked the City staff, and stated that this matter goes back a long
way. He also said this is a multi -use trail, not just an equestrian trail. This is an
open trail, even though it may not look like it. This is an important link, and
should connect to the Santiago Oaks Canyon trails at some point. Mr. Davidson
said he was against a "do- over" where any trails are established and subsequently
then re- established to impact different homeowners at a later date.
Greg Raab, resident of The Colony, presented a petition signed by all 28 residents
of The Colony, who oppose the proposal to move the horse trail. He submitted
the original signed proposal to the Planning Commission. He also stated that he
feels the developer likely told them they could do things that they are now finding
out they can't do because of the easement.
Barry Evans, 23 -year resident of The Colony, thanked the City staff, and stated
that he thinks this proposal is simply a land grab, and that the Rossiter Ranch
homeowners and developer either knew or should have known about the easement
and its effect on development. He also stated that moving the horse trails would
almost certainly harm the 100 - year -old eucalyptus trees next to them.
Laura Thomas, resident of Orange Park Acres and Orange Park Association
President, stated that the OPA's position is not to have any burden or liability put
on The Colony. OPA supports the connection of trails, and the property values
have increased because of the trails and parks in Orange. She also stated that in
real estate transactions, homeowners are always apprised of everything about their
Page
13
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2013
property, including something like an easement. She suspects that any changes
the Rossiter Ranch Homeowner's Association may agree to now could potentially
be changed at a later date.
Steve Reed, resident to the south side of Rossiter Ranch, stated that Lot 2 already
has block walls and a swimming pool. He expressed his concern over the liability
issues if the trails are moved to adjoin to his property.
Ann Myers, 26 -year resident of The Colony, expressed concern that the 100 -year-
old eucalyptus trees and other very old oak trees would be damaged or moved in
the process of moving the trail.
Mr. VonEsh explained that these concerns are not a surprise to him. He stated
that change brings fear of the unknown, which he feels is a lot of what he is
hearing. The easements are supposed to provide some reassurances about the
future and provide a means of redress of grievances if things don't happen as
planned. Mr. VonEsh also handed Mr. Bass a copy of the letter he said he sent to
Mr. Bass. Upon looking at the letter, Mr. Bass responded that it was the wrong
address, which explained why the two parties hadn't come together prior to the
meeting. Mr. VonEsh explained that he and his firm also like trees, and recognize
their importance to home values. He also explained that people who are smart
and sophisticated, like the Rossiter Ranch homeowners, were surprised by the
effects of the easements, which weren't on any documents they would have
signed upon purchasing the lots.
Commissioner Correa stated that the proposal seems to affect only one or two
properties, and finds it odd that this only became an issue in the last 10 years,
even though the easements were established decades ago. Also, he stated that
moving the trails would destroy 100 - year -old trees and other natural habitat
features, which he doesn't feel good about supporting.
Commissioner Gladson stated that this issue was a technical headache, and she
was leaning toward option `B" at the beginning of the evening, but that after the
meeting she now supports option "A" to deny the application. She expressed
disappointment that the developer's solution to the problem was to shift the
responsibility back to the City.
Commissioner Gladson motioned to adopt option "A" as described in the analysis
section of the Staff Report, which is to recommend to the City Council to deny the
application.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page
14
Planning Commission Meeting
4. ADJOURNMENT:
June 17, 2013
Commissioner Buttress motioned to adjourn until the next regularly scheduled
meeting on Monday, July 1, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Correa, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page
15