2012 - December 17Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission
City of Orange
December 17, 2012
Page 1 of 8
December 17, 2012
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
ABSENT: Commissioner Buttress
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Roll Call
Commissioner Buttress absent.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
►i`t.7T
PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was nothing additional to
report.
Minutes
Chair Steiner provided an overview of the City's appeal process.
Planning Commission Meeting
Consent Calendar:
December 17, 2012
Page 2 of 8
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2012.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the
December 3, 2012 Planning Commission meeting as written
SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Buttress
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
New Hearings:
December 17, 2012
Page 3 of 8
(2) VARIANCE NO. 2215 -12 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO.
4616 -12 — MICHA RESIDENCE
The applicant is proposing to develop a new detached accessory unit on the rear of the
property, relocate the existing one -car garage and provide access for two new open
parking spaces. The project requires final approval by the Planning Commission due to
the relocation of the historic garage and a Variance to allow one enclosed parking space
instead of two enclosed parking spaces as required.
LOCATION: 545 East Jefferson Avenue, Old Towne Orange 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 (New Construction), Section
15332 (In -fill Development Projects and Section 15331 (Historical
Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 17 -12 approving the
construction of a new detached accessory second unit, relocation of
an historic one -car garage and a Variance to allow one, rather than
two, enclosed parking spaces.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, provided a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Gladson asked Mr. Ryan if he could expand on the Variance request and
issues related to the findings. There were things they needed to be cautious about doing
and maybe the Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, could also chime in.
Mr. Ryan stated basically it was putting demolition of a historic structure in competition
with having a required enclosed 2 car garage; there was one standard fighting against the
other. In the twenty plus years he had been with the City, it was only the second case
where an historic 1 car garage was kept, due to the excellent quality of the structure, the
garage's contributing status and it was contrary to demolishing a structure which was not
the intent in the district. It served the applicant's needs while maintaining the historic
setting and accomplished the use of meeting all required parking on site.
Mr. Sheatz stated it was a situation that had not come up often. A long hard look was
taken at the application to see if it would fit in the context of the findings and it clearly fit
in the case before them. Mr. Ryan and the information contained in the Staff Report,
along with the findings, articulated the reasons why. From a legal standpoint, he was
Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2012
Page 4of8
comfortable in using a Variance as a method for approving the maintenance of the
garage.
Mr. Ryan stated the reason the proposed project was before the Planning Commission
was that the demolition also including moving a building; and being moved on the same
lot as the correct pattern for Old Towne, the Planning Commission was determining if
that was exempt.
Commissioner Gladson asked if it was fair to state that the retention of the historic
garage, which was the secondary structure, was to come before the Planning Commission
for a demolition that would be a more challenging issue to achieve vs. moving the
structure slightly back and going with a Variance.
Mr. Ryan stated that was correct, both due to its rarity in the District and the unique
design of the structure.
Chair Steiner stated he wanted to ensure the required findings were in the record, he read:
"Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance was found at the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and identical zone application ". Chair Steiner stated that was the first
required finding and would be part of the resolution. The second would be: "The
Variance shall be granted subject to such conditions that would ensure that the authorized
adjustment shall not constitute or grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property was located ".
Those were the two significant required findings.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing to Public Comment and invited the applicant to address
the Commission.
Doug Ely, address on file, stated he was the project architect. He thanked Mr. Ryan and
the Planning Staff for working with them through the process. The proposal had been
through two Design Review Committee meetings and the comments from the Committee
Members had been instrumental in refining the design and improving upon what became
the final solution. The proposal would require the removal of one big avocado tree in
the rear yard to accommodate the parking requirement for two additional parking spaces.
The proposal would move the garage back 22' and the accessory unit would be barely
visible from the street.
Commissioner Cathcart stated at the existing site the tree that was referred to is an
avocado tree and there was a call out for 4 new trees and he asked Mr. Ely what type of
trees would be planted?
Mr. Ely stated the tree species had not yet been determined and he would consult with
Committee Member McCormack or Commissioner Cathcart for their recommendations.
Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2012
Page 5 of 8
There was a member of the public who wanted to comment on the project; Chair Steiner
invited him to address the Commission.
Allan Hasson, address on file, stated he had lived in Orange for 35 years. He found it
interesting as a neighbor living on the street that none of the adjacent neighbors to the
proposed project site had been asked for their input or had been spoken to about an
increase to a property in their neighborhood.
Chair Steiner stated there were 92 property owners that received notification.
Mr. Hasson stated for the Planning Commission meeting, but not for the Design Review
Committee meeting and it should be required. His concerns were very specific: one the
fact that there was no involvement of the neighbors; and two, a purchaser should be
aware of what they were purchasing. The previous owners had not done anything
because they knew there were restrictions on the property. When the property was
bought, the owners would have been told there were restrictions on the property, because
that was required of the realtor. His concern was that another additional property, and the
property owners would not live at the site, they would rent out to Chapman students, who
were not the best neighbors. The students would not use the parking spaces; they would
be filling the garage and would not be doing anything for the street. In the evening there
was almost no parking left, because of all the Chapman University students jammed into
the houses with four or five cars. They would park on the street. That was reality and
not what was being said. If they were building housing for Chapman University students,
then let Chapman University come in and build houses. The ancillary property, all the
people coming in and buying land, which was free enterprise and they had the right, but
come to them and state they want to do this and that and screw the people that were there
already. He was opposed to the project because it was an area that was already impacted.
John Micha, address on file, stated he was a physician at St. Joseph's and when they had
bought the property 5 years ago it had two cottages on the lot. The people he bought the
property from were living in it at the time they bought the property. It was sold as a two
cottage property and he was surprised when they were red tagged for the back unit; it was
only 350 square feet which was undersized. They had gone through the whole process to
get back to having the two cottages that they had bought and they had accomplished that
in the most sensitive way that they could; a respectful way for Old Towne and the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Gladson asked how the property would be managed in reference to the
parking concerns that were raised.
Dr. Micha stated the intent was to rent out the properties to quiet and respectful residents
and they had not wanted to bring in Chapman University student problems. There might
be a relative living there and if not, they would find a good tenant. He had not wanted to
create any trouble for the neighbors.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the Design Review Committee
Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2012
Page 6 of 8
Meetings were public meetings, however, those were not noticed unless there was an
environmental document that went with it. The Planning Commission Meetings were
publicly noticed and may be the first time a neighbor heard about a project; and that was
found in the Orange Municipal Code.
Mr. Ryan stated Chapman University was concerned with the parking situation and they
policed the neighborhood and followed up with citations for students to ensure their
behavior was appropriate. Parking was an issue anywhere around the University.
Vicki Micah, address on file, stated she wanted to assure the Planning Commission that
the last thing she needed was problems with kids. As much as she loved her own, she
was the type of person who ran a tight ship and she was tuned into her neighbors. She
would not do anything to anyone that she would do to herself.
Commissioner Cathcart stated good luck. He had lived on Sycamore and now he lives in
Mayberry Ranch. Chapman University was trying their hardest to handle the out of
control students and they were proposing to build student housing near the railroad tracks
and they would be trying to push the students in that direction. He understood what Mr.
Hasson spoke to because there were many Saturday nights where there had been 300
students coming from just one house. He hoped that the property owner would give it a
good try and good luck.
Chair Steiner closed the meeting to public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Gladson stated the application before them was an exemplary project and
there was a lot to be proud of in terms of the process. She understood the concerns, but
could put those aside as the Planning Commission was asked to look at the Variance
request and the DRC actions that had come before them. It was the design and the
moving back of the garage. It was permissible to add an accessory 2 nd unit at the subject
property site and they could not tread into that particular question because it was allowed.
The design was well done and complimentary. Although she was reluctant to grant
Variances, the project before them was appropriate and she was o.k. with granting the
Variance as proposed. Demolishing the garage would be to lose a valuable resource.
The proposal was a good solution. She supported the project.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 17 -12, approving
Variance No. 2215 -12 and DRC No. 4616- 12 -Micha Residence, subject to the conditions
contained in the Staff Report, and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2012
Page 7 of 8
SECOND:
Commissioner Grangoff
AYES:
Commissioners Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Buttress
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2012
Page 8 of 8
(3) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Grangoff made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, January 7, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Buttress
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:25 p.m.