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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: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