2012 - May 7Planning Commission Meeting APPROVED May 7, 2012
Page 1 of 19
Minutes
Planning Commission May 7, 2012
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Grangoff and Steiner
ABSENT: Commissioner Gladson
STAFF
PRESENT: Alice Angus, Director
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
Chair Steiner opened the Administration Session of the Planning Commission Meeting at
6:55 p.m.
Commissioner Cathcart stated there were only two items on the evening's Agenda that he
would be able to hear, those were the items for the Shaffer Residence and Florio
Residence, all other items he would be recused from.
Chair Steiner asked if there was anything additional to report from Staff? Senior Planner,
Chad Ortlieb, stated there was nothing further to report.
Commissioner Grangoff asked if Staff was prepared to respond to the opposition letters
that had been received on the Santa Fe Depot Agenda item? Senior Planner, Anna
Pehoushek, stated she was prepared to respond.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:58 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
REGULAR SESSION
Chair Steiner opened the regular Session of the Planning Commission Meeting with a
review of the City's appeal process.
Planning Commission Meeting
Consent Calendar:
May 7, 2012
Page 2 of 19
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2012
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of April 2, 2012 as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Gladson
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
NEW HEARINGS:
May 7, 2012
Page 3 of 19
(2) SANTA FE DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE — ORDINANCE NO. 8 -12
AND NO. 9 -12; ZONE CHANGE NO. 1255 -09 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 1820 -09
The proposed Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Update represents the first update to the
original 1993 Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan. The update expands the size of the 1993
Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan planning area by approximately 60 acres, from 42.8 to
101.6 acres.
The proposed Specific Plan Update sets forth updated zoning, along with refreshed
programs for circulation and parking, urban design, infrastructure, and design guidelines
for historic buildings. It builds upon those elements of the 1993 Specific Plan that were
successfully implemented, and charts a proactive and strategic course for accommodating
property transitions and context - sensitive growth in a manner that establishes the Depot
District as a distinctive Old Towne neighborhood, while also improving its integration
with the larger historic district.
LOCATION: The approximate 101 -acre proposed area is irregular in
shape, but is generally bounded by Walnut Avenue to the
north, Palmyra Avenue to the south, Olive Street to the east
and Parker Street to the west.
NOTE: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared
for the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Update in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public
review period for the Draft EIR started on December 12, 2011 and
ended on February 1, 2012. A total of six comment letters were
received during the public review period. The letters and City
responses are presented in Exhibit B.
Commissioner Cathcart stated he would recuse himself from the item's presentation due
to his client, Chapman University, having a lot of property in the area of the proposed
Specific Plan.
Chair Steiner stated the Commissioners had been provided a great deal of information
with regard to the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan and they had the public review draft of
the Specific Plan from October of 2011 and the most recent document from April 2012.
They had the Santa Fe Depot Update and each Commissioner had met with Staff for a
briefing.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 4 of 19
Commissioner Grangoff asked on the zoning, going from multi - family to single family
residential or R -1. There had been discussions at the City Council level to address
possible grandfathering in of multi -use properties. Was the Specific Plan Update
remaining consistent with that situation?
Ms. Pehoushek stated there were some different situations. At the time the City Council
adopted the 2010 -2011 Plan Update there was concern about creating legal non-
conforming situations. The City Council adopted an amendment ordinance that provided
for greater flexibility for the continuation of non - conforming uses that were caused by
Zone Changes. There was an item going before the City Council on Tuesday night that
brought them a little further. Council had provided direction to Staff regarding concerns
that when the Zoning General Plan consistency went through for specific quadrants that
there would be several multi- family properties that would become legal non - conforming
as a result of zoning changes from R -3 or R -4 to R -1. Per the City Council's request
Staff prepared an Ordinance Amendment that recognized existing legally established
multi - family developments as legal permitted uses. The goal of that was to minimize any
unintended consequences that property owners might run into.
Commissioner Grangoff stated on the Urban Design requirements on private properties,
he asked if Mrs. Pehoushek could explain what responsibility a private property owner
would have in regard to Urban Design?
Ms. Pehoushek stated there were components in the Specific Plan Update that
encouraged the incorporation of areas, such as outdoor dining or other amenities and the
interaction of those spaces to people walking down the street; for restaurants that
provided outdoor dining they would speak with them to discuss ideas for those types of
spaces.
Commissioner Grangoff asked if that was a requirement.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in terms of the fundamental design features of a building those
would be consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. Staff would continue to
encourage an open type store front.
Commissioner Grangoff stated on the in lieu parking, that was something the Specific
Plan encouraged but had not approved?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the City would need to take a more detailed study to put that in
place.
Commissioner Buttress stated there was a lot of information provided and she wanted to
emphasize that the Specific Plan Update was to implement the General Plan. There had
been community meetings to solicit input.
Ms. Pehoushek stated not only would the Specific Plan implement the General Plan Land
Use designations, but also goals and policies of the Circulation Element, Cultural
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 5 of 19
Resources and Historic Preservation Element, and Natural Resources Element; it was
more than just the Land Use component of the General Plan.
Chair Steiner stated Ms. Pehoushek had made reference to the communication received
by Mr. Gonzales and there had been additional opposition comments received, he asked
if those were additional written or verbal comments.
Ms. Pehoushek stated those were verbal, one individual had come to the public counter
and the other was via a phone call.
Chair Steiner asked if there had been any additional communication received on the
item? There was none. He opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Paul Guzman, address on file, representing the Orange Bario Historical Society, stated he
commended the Staff and Planning Department, as they had worked a lot of years with
them. They recommended the overall approval of the Specific Plan. There were some
concerns, and specifically the parking. In the past they had understood that parking
would be out front in one of the areas and there would be a parking structure on Lemon
Street and Palm and that the existing parking across the railroad tracks would be
maintained. They had concerns for the infrastructure, as he had worked construction for
over 50 years, and he had come to the conclusion that people had to pay for what was
built, if there was no fee on some of the properties that were built and if the public was
not told what was really needed cost wise they would fail, they needed to be able to fund
what they had talked about.
Craig Wheeler, address on file, stated he was an architect in Orange and also a member of
the Design Review Committee. The DRC was going to have the opportunity to review
the Plan, however, due to a lack of a quorum based on conflicts he had not had the
opportunity to do that and he had a few things he wanted to discuss. He wanted to
encourage people who were going to make changes to historic structures to provide some
type of historic documentation and provide that information to the Public Library. He had
not seen any discussion in the report on what would occur with properties in a historic
area that were non - historic, but architecturally significant and how to protect those types
of structures. On Page 44 of the Urban Design framework it spoke about placing utility
wires underground; but at one time overhead wires were a significant feature of historic
Orange; and maybe they should not all be underground. He had a question on the street
lighting and he wondered if it wouldn't be better to consider a more simple industrial
type light to preserve the industrial look. He also suggested that some sites use historic
evocative sculptures and especially Chapman University that had a program that
encouraged sculptures for buildings that were being restored; and he suggested a
playground sculpture for the old school building that was being turned into a Law School
building. On Page 79 under treatment of additions there was mention that an addition
may be clearly contemporary in design or to reproduce motifs from the historic building
and it was a real bane of his existence as he was not sure contemporary buildings would
be appropriate, as the whole fabric of Old Towne was historic. Adding a contemporary
building amongst historic buildings would be like adding an aluminum window in the
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 6 of 19
fagade of a historic building. He hoped that the statement be nuanced and made clear that
some contemporary forms were acceptable in Old Towne, but others could be clearly
inappropriate and should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they were in agreement that
the Depot Specific Plan was in need of an update and supported most of the plan. They
had some concerns and the OTPA had participated in all of the meetings and had
provided input. They appreciated Staff just recently meeting with them to discuss their
concerns and they had provided additional information to them. First of all they had an
issue with the scope and size of the Specific Plan area, it went from 43 acres to 100 acres
and was that too large an area? Had the proposal for low density residential along
Cypress, Lemon and Olive belonged in the plan? The OTPA believed they had not
related to the adjacent industrial elements in the area. They had discussed height limits;
the current plan was for a 25' maximum; the Update limit was 28' with an overlay zone
allowing 42% they were told the 42' was to accommodate the proposed density in the area
and maybe the proposed density was too high. A 42' height was not necessary for a 3
story development as they could see at the Depot Maple Walk and the housing project in
that area that was completed at 32'. He believed the maximum height limit could be
lowered or a portion of a building could be built below grade. Another issue was that the
plan stated there was a conflict with the Old Towne Design Standards and the Specific
Plan. The Plan Update stated that there was a conflict with the Old Towne Design
Standards and the Specific Plan standards prevailed. He would disagree, as he felt that
the Old Town Design Standards addressed industrial buildings and adaptive reuse, along
with interior spaces and those were components incorporated in the Ordinance.
Additionally, the Old Town Design Standards were in the process of being updated and
why not add language to address the unique characteristics of that portion of the District,
similar to the Plaza area. He also found a conflict in the Plan, on page 91, the statement
"future closure or vacation of any street shall not be permitted "; which the OTPA agreed
with, but on page 35, the Plan discussed closure of Atchison Street. They also needed to
keep in mind that the National Registered District was the cultural resource and included
everything that contributed to it; not only the buildings but also the trees, landscape,
street, sidewalks, lighting, etc. They needed to ensure that proposals in the Plan would
not adversely impact any of the contributing components of the District.
Chair Steiner asked Mrs. Pehoushek if she could respond to the Public Comments?
Ms. Pehoushek stated in terms of the zoning designation on the existing surface parking
lot adjacent to the Lemon Street parking lot and the parking near the tracks; mixed used
zoning that was being proposed allowed for not only parking to be built but also if a
project came forward that was wrapped with some other types of uses the mixed use
zoning would accommodate that. The mixed use zoning would not preclude the creation
of parking; it provided for a better manner of developing a parking facility that would
blend in better with surrounding neighborhoods that would be more integrated. Having
stated that, it was not to say that the parking structure that might move forward for Metro
Link parking may not be developed with mixed use; it would not require a mixed use
development, but it was an option. On the issue of infrastructure funding and with recent
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 7 of 19
demise in development, the City would be looking at other funding sources, it might be
that there would be infrastructure projects paid for through capital improvements and
there would be potential as developments moved forward for identification of areas that
needed infrastructure development to pursue other funding sources.
Chair Steiner asked if there were any current infrastructure projects and what their
funding sources were?
Ms. Pehoushek stated there was a current Southern California Edison project and she
deferred that question to the engineer consultant.
Frank Sun, City Engineer, stated for the upcoming fiscal year there would not be any
funding from the redevelopment agency, but there was a project that they were working
on with Southern California Edison to underground some of the street utilities.
Commissioner Buttress stated just to clarify there was a portion of the area that they were
discussing that would contain a utility underground district.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in reference to comments regarding historic documentation, the
Commission could make that recommendation to City Council. For the issue of street
lighting that was suggested in using a more industrial design, as the Specific Plan came
together they would rely on what already existed in Old Towne and keep things simple
with a familiar palette. There was no proposal for anything new. With respect for
protection of non - historic, but significant architecture in the area, that was something that
would fall under the provisions of the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of
Interior Standards. There was information for such structures. On the comment regarding
contemporary forms she would defer to one of the consultants from the Arroyo Group.
Simran Malhotra stated the Secretary of Interior Standards spoke to additions to buildings
that would clearly demarcate the historic and the new. The guidelines provided that there
would be clearly visible demarcation and different from what was there. That there be
new construction and not fake historic; to be able to tell what was new and what was old
and that was what the guidelines would address.
Chair Steiner stated he understood that Ms. Pehoushek had met with Mr. Frankel and
asked if she could respond to some of the items he had brought up during Public
Comment?
Ms. Pehoushek in terms of the size of the planning area, the original Specific Plan area
was a very concentrated, isolated area, around the Depot. In reviewing the Depot area as
a larger district, and with the boundaries of the 1992 plan, there was no information on
how that area connected with the business to the north and neighborhoods to the south.
At that time there was no Metrolink service. Now with the success of Metrolink and the
vitality in the downtown district, they wanted to take an opportunity in better integrating
the neighborhoods, University and down town areas with the Depot area. The Specific
Plan boundaries were expanded to look at it as a larger more cohesive district. Among
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 8 of 19
the functions of the Specific Plan were streetscape improvements and infrastructure and
by casting the net a bit further they were able to capture the Cypress Barrio area and the
neighborhoods south of Almond on Olive, Lemon and Cypress to integrate the
neighborhoods into being a more cohesive part of the Old Towne area. It would allow
for improvements in the more concentrated industrial areas. The boundaries would
weave the larger neighborhoods and business districts into the Depot; and with all the
transit services they wanted commuters to have a pleasant experience in a larger area.
Ms. Pehoushek stated in regard to the height limit increase the rational was that in the
historic district there could be a 1 1 /2 story and have that in a residential quadrant with a 1
%2 story at 28', and there could actually be a house that would end up taller than an
industrial building. They wanted to reconcile that. With respect to the 3 story overlay,
much of the Specific Plan had a mixed use zoning with a lower density of 15 units per
acre. The General Plan density allowed for 24 units per acre. With the possibility of
having less concentrated areas with additional height, and they reviewed the Block,
railway corridor, Second Harvest Food Bank and other buildings that were already
industrial. The area of south Pixley was a reasonable place for a 3 story overlay and
already had a lot of constraints. For the issue of density, 24 units per acre were allowed
for in the General Plan, they needed to provide for some predictability for property
owners of that area. In terms of the Specific Plan overriding the Old Towne Design
Standards there were areas where there were differences in setbacks and height
limitation. The Design Guidelines and there were many clear references to the Old
Towne Design Standards and Secretary of Interior Standards and the content was not
intended to undermine anything about either of the two. In terms of industrial guidance,
the Old Town Design Standards had not provided very much guidance. The Secretary of
Interior Standards had a bit more. In terms of the updates to the Old Towne Design
Standards, it was something that was being worked on and it would be nice if they could
be completed during the same time frame, but that was not the case. She was currently
working on those updates along with Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, and they
would be including more direction in those standards, and height would be one
component that would be addressed.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that the closure of Atchison was presented in a conceptual layout
graphic for the Depot courtyard. There had been a lot of discussion of whether to close
or not close Atchison. It was not something that was a hard and fast component, but
more of a conceptual idea for that street. It might be something that the City may or may
not choose to do.
Chair Steiner stated there was one more speaker for Public Comment.
Rosalina Comacho, address on file, stated she was present to discuss the south Cypress
re- zoning that she was opposed to. She lived in Orange all of her life and her family had
lived in Orange over 50 years and she loved that it was a historic City. One of her
concerns was that her area was proposed to be re -zoned from an R -4 to an R -1. In
walking that street most of the street are apartment buildings and multi -use duplexes and
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 9 of 19
it is an area that they had lived in a long time. One of her concerns was that if the area
was re -zoned her house was the only one that had not built units in the back and it was
not because they had not wanted to. Her brother already had one design for them.
Everything around them had been built up and the area was no longer historic. There
were a lot of college students that needed places to rent and that would be good income
for her parents when they retired. Her concern was that there would be re- zoning to R -1,
but across the street there were houses that had businesses. She wanted to voice her
concern and she would be present at all of the meetings as her parents had not spoken
good English. She would hope that future meetings would be available in other
languages. There were people in her neighborhood who were renters and had been there
for over 40 years and there were people who would rent from them. She had spoken
with Ms. Pehoushek about the fact that when lighting was done through redevelopment it
was done all over Cypress except for her street and it was very dark and one of the
concerns was for the drunkenness in public that had been occurring.
Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for
action or further discussion.
Commissioner Grangoff asked Ms. Pehoushek in response to Ms. Comacho's comments;
would that property owner be allowed to be grandfathered in to build multi -use units?
Ms. Pehoushek stated if there were properties that were single family residences and the
zoning changed to R -1 there would not be the ability to add units to the building, other
than an accessory second unit.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 21 -12, PC
Resolution No. 19 -12, PC Resolution No. 20 -12, recommending approval to City Council
of Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Update, Ordinance No. 8 -12 and No. 9 -12, Zone Change
No. 1255 -09 and EIR No. 1820 -09, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff
Report, and for No. 4 to provide direction at the property owner's request at 130 S.
Lemon to remain consistent with their other property; and at the discretion of the
Commission to add direction that for all the Public Comment that was received to
forward those comments to the City Council with Staff s responses.
Commissioner Buttress stated for the last speaker, Ms. Comacho, the item would move
forward to the City Council and she had every right to be present at that meeting to voice
her concerns and to continue her dialogue with City Staff.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Gladson
RECUSED:
Commissioner Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
May 7, 2012
Page 10 of 19
(3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4554 -11— GLOS BARN
The applicant proposes to relocate an existing two -story barn/garage approximately five
feet from the east property line and convert the second floor area to an accessory unit.
LOCATION: 816 E Culver, 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) and Section 15331 (Class 31 —
Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation) which consists
of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization,
rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation
reconstruction of historical resources.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 04 -12 approving the
relocation and conversion of a contributing two -story barn/garage
into parking with a new accessory second unit on the second floor.
Commissioner Cathcart was recused from the items presentation as he was a member of
the DRC when the project went before that Committee.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Rebecca Glos, address on file, stated she was available for questions.
Michael Williams, address on file, stated he was a general contractor helping to protect,
reconstruct and preserve historic properties. He was involved in historic preservation
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA stated the proposed project was the
only existing barn of its type in Old Towne, a big red barn, and it was important to
maintain the structure. The Secretary of Interior Standards would not recommend the
relocation of historic structures as it changed the relationship to the site and other existing
structures on the site. Changes to elevations were also not recommended; but sometimes
to adaptively re -use a structure it might be necessary to relocate it. The proposal had that
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 11 of 19
situation, although the OTPA recommended that it not be moved at all, the property
would still maintain its relationship to the main structure. We understand that the
structure needed to be moved to maintain the required set back and the OTPA was
pleased that the building height would be maintained. In reviewing the plan, the
applicant, was using in kind materials throughout the project. A major concern was that
the property be properly shored up to prevent collapse. It was quite a large building and
in light of the recent porch collapse on north Cleveland. The DRC's recommendation
was supported.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commissioner for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 04 -12 approving DRC
No. 4554- 11 -Glos Barn, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting
the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Gladson
RECUSED:
Commissioner Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 12 of 19
(4) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4567 -11— PLAZA BIBLE CHURCH
The applicant proposes new fagade, signage and parking lot improvements for a non-
contributing commercial building within the Plaza Historic District. All fagade changes in
the Plaza Historic District require Design Review Committee and Planning Commission
review and approval.
LOCATION: 240 W Chapman, 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 15301 (Class I — Existing Facilities)
that consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of
existing private structures, exterior alterations and/or topographical
features.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 03 -12 approving fagade
modifications, signage, and parking lot improvements on a non-
contributing commercial building in the spoke street corridor of the
Old Towne Orange Historic District.
Commissioner Cathcart was recused from the items presentation as he was a member of
the DRC when the project went before that Committee.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Grangoff asked on the tree issue, was that something that Staff felt looked
nice and that they recommended to be added, or was it something that was required and it
would be an added cost to the applicant?
Mr. Ryan stated there had been a lengthy discussion about that and they decided that
street trees would be a good screening element for the site. It was brought up at the DRC
meeting and agreed upon by the applicant.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Craig Wheeler, address on file, stated he was the architect for the project and was
available for any questions.
Mark Lebsack, address on file, stated he was present to answer any questions.
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 13 of 19
Wes Hayes, address on file, stated he had lived in the City of Orange for 40 years and
served on the local Fire Department for 12 years and he was well aware of the down town
area and the dynamics that went with it. In regard to the tree issue he thought it was
important to go along with the City's recommendation of 3 trees and they placed one on
the wrong side of the parking lot and if it became an issue they would put in the trees as
requested.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 04 -12, approving DRC
No. 4554 -11 -Plaza Bible Church, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report,
and with the additional note that there was not an expectation to install the tree. The item
was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Buttress stated she would second the motion and stated she had reviewed
the plans and it would be a lovely improvement.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Gladson
RECUSED:
Commissioner Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 14 of 19
(5) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4576 -11— SHAFFER RESIDENCE
The applicant proposes to remove a small open porch landing and construct a 23'5" x
12'0 ", 285 square foot addition to the rear of the 1919 Craftsman Bungalow. The rear
addition will consist of a new bedroom and service porch/laundry.
LOCATION: 247 N Cleveland, 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) and Section 15331 (Class 31 —
Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation) that 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 Buildings.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 01 -12 approving
construction of a new 285 square foot addition for a contributing
residence.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the project was a sympathetic
addition and it was out of public view. The OTPA supported the DRC's
recommendation. In regard to the demolished porch, the Secretary of Interior Standards
required a structure to be supported when work was being done and it had not happened
in the case of the project before them and much of the original materials had been lost.
He suggested that the applicant refer to the Secretary of Interior Standards in using in
kind materials to match the roof and use of original missing elements and materials.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 7, 2012
Page 15 of 19
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 01 -12, approving DRC
No. 4576 -11- Shaffer Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report,
noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND:
Commissioner Cathcart
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Gladson
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
May 7, 2012
Page 16 of 19
(6) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4578 -11— FLORIO RESIDENCE
The applicant proposes to obtain approval of an unpermitted 356 square foot, one story
addition to the rear of a 1955 non - contributing Post War styled residence. The floor area
of the original construction (1,009 square feet) plus the addition (356 square feet) will
increase the floor area to 1,365 square feet, which is over 20% of the existing area
requiring approval by the City's Planning Commission.
LOCATION: 445 N Harwood, 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).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 02 -12 approving a 356
square foot addition for a non - contributing residence.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Cecelia Florio, address on file, stated she was available to answer any questions.
Michael Williams, address on file, stated he was present to answer any questions.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 02 -12, approving DRC
No. 4578 -11- Florio Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report,
noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Gladson
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 17 of 19
(7) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4594 -11— ARCHITECTS ORANGE
The applicant proposes new front and rear fagade and signage improvements for a non-
contributing commercial building (former Glen Johnson model shop) within the Plaza
Historic District. All fagade changes in the Plaza Historic District require Design Review
Committee and Planning Commission review and approval.
LOCATION: 321 W Chapman, 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 15301 (Class 1 — Existing
Facilities) that consist of the repair, maintenance, or minor
alteration of existing private structures, exterior alterations and/or
topographical features.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18 -12 approving fagade
changes on a commercial building in the spoke street corridor of
the Old Towne Orange Historic District.
Commission Cathcart stated he would be recused from the item's presentation as he was
a member of the DRC when the item went before that Committee.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with
the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Darrel Hebenstreit, address on file, stated he was available for questions.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Hebenstreit if he had read through the 26 Conditions of Approval
for his application and was he in agreement with the conditions.
Mr. Hebenstreit stated he was in agreement.
Chair Steiner opened the item for Public Comment.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated aluminum framing for the
windows was inappropriate and not permitted in the Plaza area. There were buildings in
the area that had aluminum frame windows, but those were placed there prior to having
design standards in place. The building's windows had been wood framed windows.
All the previous changes had met the standards. The aluminum frame windows were
Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2012
Page 18 of 19
currently in place and not appropriate materials. Although the building had been altered
and had not been recognized as a contributing structure, moving forward with aluminum
frame windows was inconsistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. Instead of
moving in that direction, to moving in the direction of restoration and maybe in some
point in time the building could be re- categorized as a contributing building for the
district. As far as the signage the DRC conditioned that, the use of plastic was prohibited
in the District. Approved materials were aluminum, metal or wood. The aluminum
windows that were currently installed should be replaced with wood on the north and
south elevations. The OTPA agreed with all the other conditions as proposed.
Mr. Hebenstreit stated they were aware of the request to have the aluminum frames
replaced and they would be replacing those with wood. The main issue on the project
was that they were attempting to expedite getting approximately 25 employees moved
and into the new building and they were able to do that with a great amount of assistance
from the Building Department. They installed a store front. The signage would contain
aluminum letters.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 18 -12, approving DRC
No. 4594 -11- Architects Orange, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report,
noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Gladson
RECUSED:
Commissioner Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
(8) ADJOURNMENT:
May 7, 2012
Page 19 of 19
Adjournment to the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday, May 21
2012.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, May 21, 2012.
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart and Gladson
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 8:55 p.m.