Loading...
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.