Loading...
2007 - May 7 ~6CO'~.Jd Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 7 May 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker Commissioner Bonina Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session: (1) FINDINGS OF RESEARCH REGARDING STEALTH CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Commission members considered information presented by Staff and provided areas of study for the Wireless Facilities Ordinance. INRE: INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 407-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1775-06 - WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN). LOCATION: NS ofWimbleton Court & 200 ft East of Old Chapman Road RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the item to a Planning Commission meeting to be determined. Chair Imboden made a motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05 and Negative Declaration to a date to be determined. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Imboden, Whitaker, Steiner & Merino None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2007. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 2, 2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (4) APP NO. 0516-07 - APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF DRC NO. 4126-06, MNSP NO. 0464-06 & AA 0134-07 - MACMILLAN RESIDENCE & DETACHED GARAGE An appeal of the Design Review Committee's approval of a proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence with an attached garage in order to construct a new 4,839 square foot single-family residence with a 943 square foot attached garage, and a 2,385 square foot detached garage. The DRC action also approved garage doors in excess of the standard eight-foot maximum height and an encroachment of three feet into the required front yard setback for the detached garage. LOCATION: 7736 East Sandberg Lane RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion on appeal No. 0516-07. Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview. She explained that when this project previously came before the Commission, it included a conditional use permit request for additional interior plumbing. The currently submitted plans do not reflect this as being part of the project. The Commission heard this project originally on March 5 and they had five questions. Staff was asked to look into the following: · Research whether OP A should be involved in making project determinations. If so, then staff would provide an understanding of the process to ensure that if their review was requested that it did occur. In this case OP A would only have had purview and certain procedures for the review would have been followed if the CUP portion of the application still applied. That part of the application had been withdrawn. . Allow additional time for the applicant to prepare a more accurate, more easily readable graphic representation of the project so the setbacks could be seen. · Issues of bulk and mass were raised and these were revisited by the Design Review Committee meeting of March 21. Page 2 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 . Give the applicant an opportunity to attempt to contact the holder of easements that affect the property and to obtain clarification of a deed restriction related to a fifty foot setback. . Give staff the opportunity to work with the applicant on possibly restoring a horse arena. Staff realizes OP A community is an equestrian oriented community, however, the original proposal with a horse arena included several retaining walls in close proximity to each other and would have resulted in 18 feet of retaining wall exposed to Sandberg Lane. Staff felt this was inappropriate and in conflict with the infill residential guidelines. After the March 5 meeting, the Commission requested a continuance for staff to look into these items, the applicant made a decision to withdraw a portion of their application and they went back to the DRC to get their final approval action. Since that time, the project was appealed and the appellant is claiming that sections of the zoning code were improperly applied and that OP A should have still been consulted about the project because the bulk, mass, scale and setbacks are inconsistent with the neighborhood and the findings by the DRC do not support the approval that they granted. Staff believed the intent of the regulations regarding additional interior plumbing was to preclude unlawful habitation. Ms. Fox mentioned a letter from Tom Davidson of OP A in which he understood that the project was no longer under OP A purview and they had no concerns with the project. The bulk and mass issue was revisited by the DRC and conditions were added. The findings that were adopted by the DRC in support of the minor site plan review and Administrative Adjustment could be found in the March 21 DRC staff report. Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Fox about the additional conditions by the DRC. One had to do with reducing the mass of the garage and he wanted to know if there was a drawing to show that. Ms. Fox indicated there was not another color rendering. Mel Vernon, appellant, address on file, came forward to address the Commission. He currently lives within 300' of the residence being discussed. He addressed the following Issues: · Plumbing issues. The detached garage had been back and forth with plumbing fixtures and then all the fixtures were removed except the utility sink and the RV dump port. The zoning code allows for a utility sink but no other plumbing fixtures. · Septic system/leach field. He was concerned with certain chemicals that interfere with the normal biological process that on-site systems use. In 2004 a permit was issued for a leach field but there was no indication what the perk rate was, what condition that field was in, why they needed to abandon the old one, there was no documentation from the civil engineer as to what the capacity of the system was, what the depth, length and width of the leach lines were and could they handle the chemicals in RV waste. He quoted the EPA which states the chemicals are a safety hazard. · His property is 300' from the project and at a lower elevation so if the fluid runs off it will run into a drainage ditch that runs through his property. · Staff made an assertion that a RV is not a dwelling unit but the IRS considers an RV that has cooking, eating and sleeping facilities a dwelling unit. An RV dump requires a CUP and OP A should be involved. Page 3 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 · He referenced a letter dated August 24 in which staff indicated that ifthere was a RV port, that a CUP would be required. · Photographs he submitted compare the bulk and mass of the surrounding areas. It's a ranch style neighborhood and the homes are setback 50' to 100' from Sandberg Lane and there are no examples of a 22' accessory structure in the setback area by Sandberg Lane. All except one home is one story. This project does not meet design infill guidelines. · Garage door heights. At the DRC meeting they are shown as 13' 6". A fire station on Santiago Canyon has 12' high doors. The proposed structure is twice the size of the fire station. The mass and scale of the project has not been reduced. . Construction was originally started without a permit including the grading. . There are no geology and civil engineering reports. . The property has been draining into the road. . Staff should be required to go with a surveyor and identify the survey markers. . A CUP requires OP A notification. · Permits were issued in error. The information provided by the applicant would not allow a building permit to be issued correctly. The site plan was incorrect. It required a CUP for the plumbing structures. The Commission can deny the project because OP A was not able to review the plans. · The existing home is 3,000 sq. ft. and a structure can not be built 50% more than that and this one is proposed at 2,500 sq. ft. Staff approved the plans in error due to incorrect plans. . He read an August 24 letter. . Mistakes have been made in the project. · Garage doors could be reoriented toward the street. It should be moved back 3' so it wouldn't require a Variance. Commissioner Merino confirmed with Mr. Vemon that the one page appeal form was what he provided. Commissioner Merino stated that Mr. Vernon's concern with the toxins were not on his appeal. Ian MacMillan, property owner, addressed the Commission with some answers III response to Mr. Vernon's concerns: · Existing structure on the property is a little over 3,500 sq. ft. · Neighbor has a New England style home and is 6,500 sq. ft. · The door height of the detached garage has never changed, only the shape of the garage has changed to accommodate the setback issue. · They have had two surveys - one originally and then one at the request of staff showing existing locations of the footings that had been permitted by the City. . Septic system was permitted. · RV chemicals - there are biological chemicals made today that are septic system friendly . The applicant had met with Mr. Vernon and Mr. MacMillan expressed his willingness to change the shape and design of the garage but Mr. Vernon's proposal contradicted the 1933 deed that all doors face the public roadway. · The original structure was oriented in the same manner as the new proposed Page 4 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 structure - turned 10 degrees. . Three revisions were made to the plans before a permit was issued. Commissioner Steiner had a concern with the bulk and mass and wanted to know if there was a way to lower the height of the building so there could be some more open space. Mr. MacMillan showed the original plan which had all pipe fencing but staff wanted to carry the roof line to be consistent with the home. Chair Imboden asked what the height of the structure was from grade to the bottom of the railing and he was told approximately fifteen feet. Chair Imboden asked if this proposal was lower why are the doors so much higher now. Mr. MacMillan stated the actual roof line hasn't changed and the only thing that has changed is the fayade on the front of the tile roof. He verified that the doors are 12' and that's the minimum height needed for the RV. The public hearing was opened. Scott Richmond, neighbor, address on file, supported the project and was opposed to the appeal. If there ever was a seepage problem, it would not affect Mr. Vernon or his property because they are on the other side ofthe gully. He has talked to other neighbors in the area and they agree it's a fine project. Commissioner Whitaker asked Ms. Fox wouldn't the infill guidelines allow a corral on top of the garage since it is in an equestrian area. Ms. Fox stated the actual height of the plate line for the garage is at 16' which has remained the same from the beginning, the garage doors have been at 12' and the only portion that may exceed that is because in this go around they tried to incorporate the arches so there was some relationship with the main building and that may have been represented as 13' 6". When staff reviewed the original proj ect a Variance would have been required for the sequence of retaining walls spaced so closely together and would have added up to 18' of exposed retaining wall height facing back on Sandberg Lane. That is in conflict with the adopted infill guidelines. This property is an upward sloping lot which many of the properties in the area are typically in the lower flat lands of OP A. Staff is not opposed to a riding arena but had concerns for the location of the arena and the retaining walls that would be necessary to support it. Ms. Fox stated they have already put in a new septic system that had nothing to do with this project and removed the old one in 2004. Commissioner Merino confirmed that any new connections to the new septic system or any improvements made from this building would have to be to code and would address any concerns Mr. Vernon raised earlier. Ms. Fox was glad Mr. MacMillan was aware of alternatives for treating RV waste such as using enzyme based chemicals. If there were a sewage spill there would be an investigation made by Environmental Health of the County of Orange. Commissioner Merino confirmed the main issue is the massing. Commissioner Steiner asked Ms. Fox about the roof top arena and whether it's not suitable or just that it's more desirable to have the roof lines consistent. Ms. Fox stated Page 5 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 the portion staff had a concern with was where it moves off the roof and goes to the other portion of the property because the presentation on Sandberg Lane was of multiple stacked retaining walls. Staff had no concerns with the idea of an arena, it was only the design of it. Chair Imboden stated there were some comments on the pattern of development, existing setbacks along Sandberg Lane and applying the infill guidelines. Ms. Fox explained as far as setbacks go in relationship to the primary residents out there, most of the properties do have a sufficient setback from the street and this project proposes the same. The pattern for accessory structures out there is mixed. Chair Imboden asked what would be the next closest structure to Sandberg Lane and Ms. Fox indicated that had not been measured. Chair Imboden could not find the door height on the plans and it needed to be included before it came back to the Commission for determination. He thought the accessory structure was being built prior to the house itself and Ms. Fox said no, that it did start before the house but that had been stopped. He does agree with Mr. Vernon concerning plumbing in accessory structures in that the code does allow a utility sink only and anything beyond that requires a CUP. Chair Imboden needed justification for the Administrative Adjustment asking why this had to come into the setback and was there no alternative. Ms. Fox said yes but it would be a redesign. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, raised the issue of a letter presented by the MacMillan's attorney regarding the 50' easement. James Lundquist, attorney, addressed the grant deed and the issue of the public street. He stated that Sandberg Lane has always been a private road and so this cannot be the road the setback restrictions refers to. In closing Mr. Vernon stated: · April 2 letter addressed the item of the utility sink and RV dump along with the chemicals in the sewer connection. · Page 8 refers to a letter from an expert on RV holding tanks and what chemicals will be used. · Concern with groundwater contamination. · Drainage ditch does go under his property with visible erosion. · 6' retaining wall is outside 50' of the road. · The architect at the DRC meeting said the height of the doors were 13' 6". · What is the height of the doors? · He had shown applicant alternative designs. · Can't find permit documents, civil engineering documents or structural engineering documents. · December13, 2006 letter from their architect reducing retaining walls states the detached garage had been revised so it did not encroach into the easement but it does. · Flat roof would not be safe for riders. · Too many errors have been made. Page 6 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 . OP A has not had an opportunity to review it. . No human person to scale on plans. Chair Imboden questioned the owner concerning the justification for an Administrative Adjustment regarding the setbacks. Mr. MacMillan responded that they realized that they had encroached on the setback when they started construction so they redesigned the garage to comply with the 15' feet and then later told it was 20' so this required the AA. Mr. Vernon stated there was no question about the 20' setback but maybe there was about the ultimate right away from the Orange County Flood Control District who obtained an easement of 15' for public street purposes. The public hearing was closed. Chair Imboden had questions for City Staff regarding the height of the garage doors. Ms. Fox asked the Commission to look at Exhibit A and by adding the dimensions it does equal 12' for the detached garage and 14' on the plans was because of the arch. The height increase to 16' in the plans was triggered by the cornice and matching roof style. Commissioner Whitaker stated that the setback was not a large issue. The error came when nobody looked at the easement and set the 20' back from that. He doesn't think the dump port requires a CUP and he was ok with structures hiding RVs from sight. The infill guidelines are not really applicable to OPA in this way and there should be more specific guidelines by neighborhood. He would be ok with the project if the doors were dropped down to 12' and the building down to a 16' height with a flat roof with landscaping or a corral. There was much less impact on the neighborhood with a flat roof building. Commissioner Merino confirmed that the utility sink for the RV wasn't an issue and the septic system issue was subsequent to the appeal. OP A stated they didn't need to review. Bulk and mass would not be an issue if the retaining walls were used. He empathized with the neighbors in seeing this project completed. The question was with the mass and bulk and how it fits into the hillside. He wondered if the original design may have been better. Commissioner Steiner asked Gary Sheatz how to proceed. Mr. Sheatz stated this would have to go back through the process and he feared they were trying to redesign the project from the dias and it would still have to go through a DRC process. Chair Imboden asked if they could deny the appeal without prejudice so the applicant could come back without paying fees and start the process again. Mr. Sheatz said to ask the applicant ifhe was interested in a redesign. Chair Imboden agreed with his fellow Commissioners that he would like to see the project closer to the original vision. He was not happy about the Administrative Adjustment but did not have trouble finding justification for a Variance for unique site conditions for the retaining walls. The code is very clear that a utility sink is the only plumbing feature that is allowed in an accessory structure without a CUP. He'd like to see it come back with a CUP. He didn't feel he had the authority to go beyond what the Page 7 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 ordinance allows unless that was being requested. When a contained living unit is pulled inside a building and hooked up to the sewer he was concerned with it being potentially used as a living space. If the Commission was going to send this back through then they should reconsider if there was something other than a utility sink and require a CUP. Commissioner Merino stated that as a Commission they have the ability to exercise discretion and wouldn't this be one of those cases because it's a gray area. Mr. Sheatz answered that in a way it was within their discretion in the way the appeal was filed. Another reason cited in the appeal was the bulk, mass, scale and setback distance of the detached garage so if that's the direction of the Planning Commission, he was starting to see, based on the points that were cited in the appeal application, that it would be more appropriate to uphold the appeal, cite the specific reasons and allow the applicant to go back through the process. Chair Imboden wanted to include the letter from Mr. Davidson which states they were ok with the project but the letter, as he reads it, states that as long the project complies with the regulations of the City, they are in support of it. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Sheatz would a CUP automatically trigger OP A review and Mr. Sheatz said it appears that it would. Mr. Knight stated that the procedures read that a CUP requires OP A review but OP A would not be looking at this project in its entirety. The CUP would be for the plumbing in the garage. Commissioner Steiner agreed with Chair Imboden in that if the language was not included for a particular fixture, it might trigger a need to review it and consider a CUP. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to uphold Appeal 0516-07 with instructions that it be returned to the DRC incorporating the suggestions in respect to the roof top arena, reducing the mass of the structure and the necessity of a CUP concerning the garage fixtures. Mr. Knight clarified that the DRC would not be reviewing the sewer clean out. Commissioner Whitaker was uncomfortable with the mandate on the plumbing issue because not all requests require a CUP. It's in the Commission's discretion for them to interpret that. Commissioner Steiner then modified his motion that the DRC reevaluate the new plan and his motion was on the table. Mr. Sheatz stated if there was a design presented tonight by the applicant showing what he had originally submitted and the Commission liked it and the reason they didn't like what was already presented was because of the reasons in the appeal then it would be appropriate to uphold the appeal based on those reasons and refer it back to the DRC and have the applicant come through again with the original proposal. Commissioner Whitaker stated that since there wasn't a second on Commissioner Steiner's motion, he thought what he could support was a motion to uphold the appeal with respect to item #2, bulk and mass, with making specific findings that they did not find facts necessary to uphold the appeal on the others and it would be without prejudice Page 8 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 so the applicant would not have to pay the fees again. The applicant could submit new plans to the DRC addressing the bulk and mass issue. Commissioner Merino was comfortable with that. Chair Imboden's questioned whether they wanted to bring up every hose bib in a garage for a washer and dryer. In his opinion, this was not a hose bib because this gets closer to allowing living accommodations inside this space. Commissioner Steiner was in agreement with this. Chair Imboden asked the applicant if they had an interest in going back and reexploring the original vision, considering they may have to apply for a Variance on the retaining walls and potentially a CUP for the plumbing. He, however, was not saying that what was brought back to the Commission would guarantee approval. The applicant agreed. Chair Imboden added to Commissionr Steiner's motion that it was being provided without prejudice so there would be no time delay in returning back to the City and fees would be waived for what has already been paid. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to uphold the appeal on points #1 and #2 but not on #3 or #4. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED (5) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1786-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2647-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4214-07 - TOYOTA OF ORANGE 52-BAY SERVICE FACILITY A proposal to remodel an existing commercial structure and its related site improvements to create a 52-bay service facility as an ancillary use to an existing Toyota automotive sales business. LOCATION: 1485 North Tustin Street RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 17-07, adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1786-07 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2647-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4214-07. Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview. The proposed property request occurs on the property referred to as the east lot. All the projects in the past have occurred on the west lot. Staff discovered that the last CUP approval in 2001 appeared to have had some errors that affected how the calculation for the total required parking spaces were made. First, the count for the total number of service bays was shorted by 17 Page 9 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 which resulted in too Iowa number for the calculations of parking required in support of those service bays. The other error affected how the car sales parking ratio was applied. This resulted in an over calculation of the parking required in support of the sales use of the property which resulted in the need for 23 more parking spaces. These spaces can be absorbed into the east and west lots without affecting the environmental analysis prepared in support of the project. She further explained that in June 2006 an expansion project on the east lot came before the Commission who felt a categorical exemption was adequate for the environmental determination and the project was approved. That project was appealed and Toyota withdrew those plans. A new project was then submitted with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comments that were submitted from the public were before the Commission. Comments included fault with the environmental analysis based upon four areas. Staff found no merit in any of these claims that would require an EIR be prepared. Staff summarized the response to the comments received which were outlined in greater detail in the supplemental staff report that the Commission already had before them. The public hearing was opened. Casev Griffin, applicant, stated they had brought a number of people to help answer any questions. Jeff Oderman, attorney for applicant from Rutan & Tucker, LLP, stated that this same project was approved by the Commission in 2006 and at that time it was categorically exempt from review under CEQA.. When the project was appealed to the City Council in 2006, Toyota of Orange had to make a determination to go forward with that or be absolutely safe and do an environmental review even though it was felt that the staff and the Commission's position at that time was justifiable. The City engaged a very reputable environmental firm, Jones & Stokes, in which thorough, independent reports were done to evaluate traffic, parking, noise and air quality. The project was then slightly modified which improved it. The consultants found it had no significant environmental impacts so they recommended a Negative Declaration. The objections made by those opposed to the project were unwarranted. He thanked the staff on behalf of the applicant. Those opposed to the project: Patrick Perrv, address on file, an attorney representing GVD who owns the property on the south side of the project. · Referring to condition #32 in the draft resolution which provides that the use of the subject site must be ancillary to the primary automotive sales and related service activities on the west side, it was not clear what was meant by an ancillary use. The concern was this may not be a use that is consistent with the applicable zoning. The project description in the MND describes it only as service stalls and doesn't indicate what that means. It appears it could be a major facility that could accommodate major repairs which is not consistent with applicable zoning with adjacent residential uses. They didn't feel it was a stand alone use. · There is a parking problem in the neighborhood. Employees of Toyota of Orange dealership are parking on the GVD parking lot. Not sure parking can be accommodated on the site and conditions need to be reviewed. Page 10 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 Craig Neustadter, registered traffic engineer, address on file, was concerned with the following: . Traffic study is flawed regarding the trip generation analysis of the project. . The year of project build out was stated as 2008 but this was contradicted at several points in the report. There was no accumulative analysis of related projects in the area and this is necessary. · The intersection analysis was incomplete. There is a threshold of significance that is established at .02 and the traffic study shows at peak hours this threshold was exceeded when comparing existing conditions with year of project build out and it should be mitigated. The fair share analysis should be completed showing what the project responsibilities are to mitigate that impact. Stephen Miles, address on file, stated the following: · Regarding classification of categorically exemption I in CEQA, Mr. Oderman was not providing the standard of law. 52 service bays are being added to an existing 42 service bays and the prior Commission determined it was a negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. · Mr. Oderman is stating there appears to be a misstatement of the facts about a minor repair facility as opposed to a major repair facility. It is stated in the traffic impact study in the MND that roughly 50% of the bays in the new service center are expected to be used for major service jobs. . In terms ofthe traffic analysis, the ICU threshold has been exceeded. This ended those who were opposed to the project. Serine Ciandella. with Kimley, Horn & Associates, address on file, prepared the traffic study in support ofthe Negative Declaration. · Provided detail response regarding trip generation on what was available in the ITE resource and how they went about penciling out how the traffic would come to and from the site and compared that. The ITE rate was greater and so they went with the ITE rate. The .02 threshold applies if the project impact is a .02 impact and it causes deficient conditions or results in a deficient condition at an intersection that was not deficient before the project came along. The project has a .03 and a .028 impact in the morning and evening peak hours at the Van Owen intersection and there is no need to mitigate that impact. At other intersections the project's impact is less than a .01. · The reference to the opening year being 2008 but shown as 2007 was a typo, the headings should have read 2008 because that is what was analyzed. · Would only need a fair share analysis if the project's impact was significant. · Detailed analysis of the trip generation was provided in response to comments. There is a comment about the fact that the project includes expansion of the new car sales activity on the site as well. That was not part of the project description and the applicant has no intention of expanding car sales and if they did that would have been part of the trip generation analysis. Page I I of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Fox on clarification as to whether all required parking was to be provided on site and Ms. Fox said yes. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1786-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 2647-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4214- 07. Chair Imboden commended the City staff on this project. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2646-07, VARIANCE NO. 2171-07, MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 506-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4210-07 - EVANS' SECOND STORY ADDITION A proposal to allow the construction of a 42 I sq. ft. second-story addition over the existing two-car garage and a 126 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the one-story, non- contributing residence within the Old Towne Historic District. LOCATION: 305 North Clark (Old Towne Historic District) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC No. 22-07, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2646-07, Variance 2171-07, and Design Review Committee No. 4210-07 for the construction of a second-story addition to a one-story, single-family residence. Historic Preservation Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview. He explained that unfortunately a building permit was mistakenly issued and the project was under construction at the time and a stop work order was issued. The applicant was then requested to process an application for approval of the second story development within the Historic District and apply for a Variance. The applicant was not charged for the processing of the application and certain items were allowed to be completed on the interior of the building. The DRC approved the project. Privacy issue was not a concern because windows on the second story are only on the street sides. Matching vinyl windows are proposed for the addition. The glass block windows are installed but not indicated on the plans. Commissioner Whitaker asked why the permits were originally issued without review. Mr. Ryan stated that one of the contract planners signed the project off in error. The project was then called back for a plan check issue and Mr. Ryan then caught the error. Page 12 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 The public hearing was opened. MariIyn Evans, owner of the property, addressed the Commission. She had just one additional items she would like to request and that was to install metal roll up doors on the garage for the long term ease and maintenance of the door. Michael Williams, address on file, would speak only if needed. Jeff Frankel, address on file, speaking on behalf of the Old Towne Preservation Association stated that this project as a noncontributing residence has minimal impact on surrounding historic resources. Their concern was that the project was approved and progressed to the point near completion without going through the DRC process and requiring a CUP and Variance hearing by the Planning Commission. They were under the impression that all addresses in Old Towne were flagged in the City system. This was discussed five years ago and it was assumed it was in place. It seems identifying properties within the district is an ongoing problem. He wanted to know if there was any system in place available to staff at the counter or otherwise to readily identify projects within the district. Chair Imboden stated he wasn't real excited about a metal door on the garage because it portrays a more contemporary feel to the house. He believed in the past with other projects within Old Towne they have requested wood doors which are consistent with the original period of the house. Commissioner Merino asked if there was a door that was lower maintenance for the home owner. Mr. Ryan said that quite often applicants look at the cost of a wood sectional roll up or sometimes they have gone to a slab door that has finishes typical of the period and that's ok too and that would save quite a bit of money and is appropriate. Commissioner Steiner noticed in the conditions of approval it stated that the applicant was to provide a wood panel rollup garage door so it couldn't be a slab. He wanted to know if there was an accommodation that they could make to allow a material other than wood that would have a 1960's period styling on it, be that aluminum or vinyl. Mr. Ryan stated that the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary Interior Standards calls for like for like material and the DRC has been consistent with that application. Commissioner Whitaker asked why the project was not mandating aluminum windows and Mr. Ryan explained that half of the windows were changed out before from metal to vinyl and so now applicant is matching what was there. Chair Imboden asserted again that the DRC continues to require the applicants to use materials that are most appropriate for the original period of construction. This is a non contributing structure and a little more freedom is granted in creating changes than contributing, historic structures. The applicant had shown other metal doors in the area but Chair Imboden didn't know if they were permitted so if they are nonpermitted what the applicant would be asking the Commission to do was what other people did illegally and that's not something the Commission can do. Page 13 of I 5 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 2007 Commissioner Merino wanted to clarify that the applicant can do a sectional roll up as long as it's make out of wood. The public hearing was closed. Chair Imboden stated in regard to the Variance requested he was not going to challenge that at all because the addition to the lower level that bumps it up to the 500 sq. ft. threshold was really not habitable space. He felt Mr. Frankel brought up an important point of flagging Old Towne projects. Mr. Knight responded that the department is working on a couple of things with GIS maps which identify the districts in Old Towne and CRW software which is used in tracking projects with recent upgrades to integrate the GIS mapping system. Also looking into integrating Old Towne addresses directly into the CRW software. It's been made clear to the staff to refer to the GIS maps at the counter to avoid mistakes. Once identified, the project would be referred to Mr. Ryan. Chair Imboden stated that this should be a strong warning of how disastrous this situation could have been if it had impacted any historic resources. He encouraged staff to make changes. Commissioner Merino wanted to clarify that nothing was currently in place. Chair Imboden recalled sitting in meetings several years ago where senior members of the planning staff indicated there was something in place and now he thinks this isn't the case. Commissioner Whitaker said this was a beautiful project and he wished more people with non conforming houses in the Old Towne section would do this to improve the property. He was sorry the system did not work properly for the applicant. He felt non conforming houses should have a lot more freedom. Even though he would like to grant the request for a door of a different material other than wood, the standards are clear and they have been enforced consistently throughout the years. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2646-07, Variance No. 2171-07, Minor Site Plan No. 506-07 and Design Review Committee No. 42 I 0-07 with the deletion of the words "panel rollup" and amend the proposal to state per the satisfaction of the historic planner regarding the garage door changes. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, May 21,2007. Page 14 of 15 Pages Planning Commission Minutes SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Bonina 7 May 2007 MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:45 P.M. Page 15 of I 5 Pages