2007 - March 5
(!. aO 00- (;.;) <:3
FINAL Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
5 March 2007
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(1) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, MINOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 407-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1775-06 -
WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN).
A request to subdivide a 1.57 acres parcel into four parcels for the future construction of
4 single-family dwellings with access from Wimbleton Road (a private street) to Old
Chapman Road (a public street). This item was continued from the December 4,2006,
January 15, 2007 and February 5, 2007 meetings.
LOCATION: The site is located at the north side ofWimbleton Court and 200 feet east
of Old Chapman Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Item is being continued to the March 19, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting.
Chair Bonina made a motion to approve continuance of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-
248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05 and Negative Declaration No. 1775-06.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
(2)
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
There were no minutes available for review at this meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2610-06, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4126-06 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0464-06 -
IAN AND MICHELLE MACMILLAN
A request 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 2,500 square foot detached garage. The applicant proposes to
include additional interior plumbing facilities and garage doors in excess of eight feet in
height in order to accommodate recreational vehicle storage.
LOCATION: The site is located at 7736 East Sandberg Lane.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 -
Exemptions).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 08-07 recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2610-06, Design Review Committee No. 4126-
06, Minor Site Plan Review No. 0464-06 and Administrative Adjustment No. 0134-07.
Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview.
Commissioner Merino asked if the homeowner had started any construction prior to the
issuance of the errant building permit. Ms. Fox responded that she did not know;
however, she elaborated that when the main house plans were received was when City
Staff noticed the building permit was issued in error.
Commissioner Steiner asked ifthe homeowner abided by the stop work order when it was
issued. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the Commission had received two pieces of
correspondence requesting the Commission move to continue this project based on an
issue with a deed restriction and he asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz if it was
within the purview of the City to enforce private party deed restrictions. Mr. Sheatz
responded it was not within the City's purview to enforce the private party deed
restrictions. Mr. Sheatz stated the Grant Deed was provided to the City by an adjacent
property owner as well as received via an attachment to a letter from an attorney for the
property owner. Mr. Sheatz stated he has spoken with the attorney for the property
owner and it is his opinion that the burden of meeting the conditions in the deed is not
clearly conveyed.
Given that the City now has the knowledge of the existence of the Grant Deed and some
of the restrictions contained therein, (whether they are determined to be valid or not)
Page 2 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
Commissioner Bonina asked if the City should take those into consideration and
incorporate them into the decision process i.e. is it a 30' setback or 50' setback. Mr.
Sheatz cited another hearing with a similar issue and how it was addressed. He then
made it clear that:
. The City was not ignoring the content of the Grant Deed.
. Every attempt is being made to evaluate it the best way possible i.e. its restrictions and
the status of the property.
. Ultimately, from a City standpoint the evaluation criteria is: does it meet the City
standards and is the City a party to any of the restrictions. At this time the City believes
it is not a party to it.
. The attorney that wrote the letter stating the City's authority to grant an encroachment
into the setback area is prohibited by the deed was asked to provide some authority and it
was not available at the time. Mr. Sheatz noted he is willing to consider anything they
might have and he has not yet received a response.
Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Fox to elaborate on the setback and how the
measurement was done. Ms. Fox responded that a lot of time and research has been done
to ascertain what was applicable at the site. There are many instruments recorded against
this property in various forms and by various groups, agencies, individuals with different
benefactors, including one to the Orange County Flood Control District. There is a 30'
private street (known as Sandberg Lane). There was a 15' easement conveyed to the
Orange County Flood Control District; however, it has never been formally accepted or
improved. As it was conveyed to a public agency it would need to be abandoned or
relinquished and that has not been done either. The applicant was therefore asked to
modify their garage plans to deal with the curve on Sandberg Lane to account for the
additional 15' easement. The City code requires the measurement of the setback from
behind that since the easement's purpose is for a road. The garage still encroaches into
the front yard setback, which is why there is an Administrative Adjustment. From the
private street it is 32' back. Ms. Fox stated the 15% reduction in the front yard setback
for a relatively small portion of the project does not compromise the intent of the Zoning
Code as the remaining portions of the project either meet or exceed the required standard
for front yard setback.
Commissioner Bonina stated that he was under the impression that the applicant's
architect was responsible to go surface all the issues on the underlying property,
including the easements. He asked Ms. Fox if that was accurate and if in fact the
architect did not surface the easement requirement. Ms. Fox responded that the current
architect for the project is not the same individual that submitted the plans for issuance of
the building permit for the detached garage. Commissioner Bonina stated the initial
application therefore was faulty as it didn't surface the easement issue or the deed and
these two items were void of the application so the City granted the building permit
without having a complete package. Ms. Fox agreed and stated it was based on the plans
presented assuming they were correct. Ms. Fox stated that ultimately the City's
definition of where you measure the 20' setback from comes in to play and where you
measure it from is clear on the Orange County Flood Control District easement
information. It has been surveyed and from there the City applied its Code. The
information is unclear on the 50' requirement. Mr. Sheatz read each of the four different
covenants of the Grant Deed and reiterated the City's position that the Grant Deed is not
Page 3 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
being ignored.
Commissioner Merino asked Ms. Fox if the original set of documents prepared identified
a setback that was believed at the time to be compliant with the City's requirement and
perhaps as other factors were revealed it was deemed to be incorrect i.e. did the initial
design professional just make a mistake? Ms. Fox responded that for the detached garage
she didn't believe there was an architect; she believes a contractor submitted them so they
were not the same caliber drawings that are being presented currently. Ms. Fox stated
there were a whole host of errors in those initial drawings.
Chair Imboden asked Ms. Fox to explain the justification for the AA. Ms. Fox referred to
Page 7 of the Staff Report, which states there are two findings required to be made in
considering an AA approval:
(1) The reduction in standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare of persons residing or working on the subject property or in the
vicinity.
(2) The issuance of the permit does not compromise the intent ofthe Zoning Code.
Chair Imboden stated the garage does a jogging step setback and he asked Ms. Fox if that
was a change to the original permitted concept. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively;
however, it still did not get it entirely out of the setback.
Chair Imboden asked Ms. Fox to confirm that the Commissioners information packages
did not contain a site plan that shows the location of the building in relationship to the
setbacks and how much of that building is specifically into the setback. For this
information they would only have to rely on the Staff Report. Ms. Fox responded that
was correct and that Staff had measured it and they know it is being proposed at IT.
(Ms. Fox pointed out that a drawing was posted on the wall behind the Commissioners
seating area that highlighted this information.)
Commissioner Whitaker stated he had visited the site and asked why the massing of the
project and the roofline is considerably higher than the 12' doors. Ms. Fox responded she
believes it comes to 16' but it is beyond the setback (with the exception of the portion
subject to the AA); the detached garage more than meets the setbacks and could actually
be built to 32' in height. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the site plan review only deals
with the height of the door, not the height of the building itself. Ms. Fox responded
"correct, the DRC obviously reviewed the appearance of the detached structure and its
corresponding appearance with the primary residence."
Commissioner Merino asked for an explanation of the railed portion of the roof. Ms. Fox
stated she believed that was to prevent someone from falling off.
Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Fox to explain the reason for Condition 5 in the
Conditions of Approval. Ms. Fox stated that is a requirement because the size of the
existing residence is insufficient to support the construction of a detached garage of 2500
sq. ft. They either have to be built concurrently or the single-family residence must be
built first.
Page 4 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
The applicant, Mr. Ian MacMillan stated that:
. The plans drawn by the original contractor were not submitted to the City as a decision
had been made to terminate their relationship with the contractor. Instead they walked in
to the counter and reviewed the drawings prepared by the contractor with the counter
staff.
. The counter staff told Mrs. MacMillan there was absolutely no way they could go
forward.
. The counter staff questioned the size of the existing residence which was not large
enough to support the detached garage.
. The counter staff told them exactly what they needed to do to resubmit the plans.
. Approx. I year later they resubmitted with what was requested previously.
. They paid for their building permit.
. They were provided revisions and the appropriate changes were made.
. The building permit was issued.
. They began construction in June 2006.
. In August they were notified by Ms. Fox that there might be a problem.
. A stop work order was issued in August.
. Ms. Fox explained there was a problem with the setback.
. A new survey was done.
. A new set of plans were drawn and several modifications were made as requested.
. They attended a DRC review and thought they were ready to go forward.
Commissioner Merino asked why there were railings on the garage and what they
planned to do with that area on the top of the garage. Mr. MacMillan stated they had
originally planned on having a riding arena; however, due to further discussions with the
City they have done away with that flat area. Further, since the garage is built back into
the hillside they were asked to install the railings to prevent someone from falling that
may be walking up there.
Commissioner Whitaker noted that some of the neighbors might be concerned with the
massing and asked if there was a reason to have the structure at 16' instead of 12' where
the doors will be. Mr. MacMillan stated there needs to be a header above the door to
support the roof structure and it is a specially designed roof to carry the weight. The roof
structure is designed to be consistent with the house structure.
Mr. MacMillan stated they have had an opportunity to visit all their neighbors and none
of them that live on their street are opposed to the project.
Commissioner Merino asked Mr. MacMillan if he would be willing to lower the roof
height if the structural engineer confirmed it was possible. Mr. MacMillan stated that
there would be cost involved; however, if it were possible and necessary they would
absolutely be willing to do so.
Public input was provided as follows:
Tom Davidson. address on file stated:
. He was President of the OP A.
. He was contacted on Saturday and asked to look for the 1934 deed.
Page 5 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
. He is concerned with easements as he thinks the City is/should be.
. Caution should be exercised even if the deeds are private. What good are deeds if they
are not enforceable?
. Where does the 30' road easement come from when the road is only 10' wide?
. OP A is a different area.
. Where is Flood Control? They don't appear to have representation at the meeting.
. He would like to talk about things that really aren't pertinent i.e. the 50% roof rule.
. He is quite upset to find out that the City has determined there can't be more grading for
horse facilities and doesn't understand why amenities can't be considered by the City to
include people that want to move into OP A where horses are allowed and encouraged.
. The City encouraged the OP A Board of Directors to be the real estate committee, (an
adhoc committee for the City) and the OP A was not notified of this project.
. He didn't know how this project got before the DRC and did not come to the OPA real
estate committee. This is something that should be reconsidered.
Mel Vernon. address on file stated:
. His attorney's letter is on file; however his attorney was not available to attend this
meeting.
. He doesn't think it is appropriate for the City to grant an encroachment in an easement
or allow that to occur when it creates an impact on other properties. That is a dangerous
precedence.
. He was not notified about the DRC when he asked at a high staff level to be notified.
. The mass and scale of the building is considerable.
. It could easily be described as a fire station/fire house.
. It can still be redesigned in a rectangular shape and hidden in such a way that it would
be softened from the front elevation.
. Garage entrances on the side should be considered.
. The landform could be restored.
. By moving the garage doors to the side it would allow safer movement on the street.
. It isn't appropriate to have 6 or 7 plumbing fixtures in an accessory structure.
. He had additional notes that could be part of the record.
Chair Imboden stated he could leave them.
Mr. Davidson was asked to return to the speaker's podium.
Commissioner Merino stated it was his understanding having been at the Council meeting
that the OP A Board is basically the reviewing authority for OP A projects and he asked
Mr. Davidson if that was his understanding as well. Mr. Davidson stated that was
correct. Commissioner Merino asked Mr. Davidson if he would have expected this
project to come through that committee. Mr. Davidson replied that not only would he
have expected it but also he would be sending a letter to Council asking why it wasn't
sent to them. Furthermore, his recollection was the City's directive was any project over
$200K would be reviewed.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Knight if he was aware of the process and the
committee Mr. Davidson spoke of as being a review body for OP A projects. Mr. Knight
responded he was not entirely aware of how the process went on before. He understood
the committee itself was formerly a city committee where Staff would prepare agendas,
Page 6 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
present projects and receive recommendations used by the City. That committee was
eliminated and the OP A Board of Directors resumed the responsibility although he was
not aware that the OP A Board of Directors ever became a City Staff committee where
City Staff would bring projects to it. Instead, his opinion was it would be the
responsibility of the property owners to take their projects before that committee without
any City Staff intervention.
Commissioner Merino asked if there wasn't a formalized process on how to interact with
the OP A Board. Mr. Knight responded that was correct.
Commissioner Merino asked the applicant if they would accept a continuance to enable
them to work with the OP A folks to come up with a reasonable compromise that
addressed a lot of the concerns raised. The applicant responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Sheatz and City Staff to discuss the feasibility of
bifurcating the project to enable the homeowner to move forward. Ms. Fox reviewed
each element of the project (the AA, the CUP and the MNSP) and concluded by stating
with the removal of the plumbing the project would not need to come before the PC. The
discussion continued with the Commission acknowledging if the project scope remains as
presented, the elements are integral.
It was summarized that a project continuance would accomplish the following:
1. Provide Staff an opportunity to do research as to whether OP A should be involved in
making project determinations and if they are, then Staff would provide an
understanding of the process to ensure that occurs.
2. Allow time for preparation of an accurate graphic representation of where the
setbacks are in relation to the buildings.
3. Allow the applicant to give consideration to the opposition to the proposed bulk and
mass.
4. Give the applicant an opportunity to make an attempt to contact the holder of the
easements to obtain clarification for the Commission that the plans are approved with
encroachments.
5. Give City Staff an opportunity to work with the applicant on restoring the horse
arena, which would have lower profile.
Commissioner Bonina requested minutes of the OP A meeting interaction if it was found
to be applicable.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to continue the project to April 2, 2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Cornmissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 7 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2617-06 - THE RAYMOND
COMPANY
A request to permit the interior expansion of an existing one-story, 9,600 square foot
industrial building, so as to provide for additional office space in excess of 25% of the
building's gross floor area.
LOCATION: The site is located at 520 West Walnut Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 03-07 recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2617-06.
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview.
Commissioner Bonina stated it appeared that this project was an addition to the main
building and he asked for clarification it was currently one building and there wasn't a
plan to add additional space on to the existing structure. Ms. Thakur responded it was all
one building and the improvements/modifications are all being made to the interior.
Chair Imboden asked for clarification that this is simply an allocation of space that is
being addressed. Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Merino asked if the office trailer is being used presently and will be
moved upon completion of the construction. Ms. Thakur stated the applicant basically
acted prematurely in having the trailer brought on the premises. She has advised them
they should have waited for Planning Commission project approval prior to having the
trailer moved on-site. Furthermore, they are to remove the trailer immediately upon
completion.
The applicant stated:
. There are a lot of people crowded in the building and they need the space to grow.
. The trailer was under a separate application as they weren't aware of the process to
follow.
. The trailer will be moved off-site as soon as possible.
Recognizing this is a multiple story building Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Thakur if
there are any additional requirements with regard to ingress/egress, stairs, ADA, etc.
Ms. Thakur responded "not that she is aware of'; however, the Fire Department will
verify the installation of sprinklers during plan check.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of CEQA,
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 2617-
06 with the conditions stated in the Staff Report.
Page 8 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Irnboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-60 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2334-06 - DALEO PROPERTIES 1 (QUAN'S RESTAURANT)
A Public Hearing to review the existing CUP No. 90-60 allowing a Type 47 (On-Sale
General) alcohol license, and CUP No. 2334-00 permitting the operation of an
entertainment establishment (includes dancing, karaoke, amusement devices, video
games, and billiards) within an existing restaurant. In light of the numerous, repeated
violations of the CUP conditions of approval, the Planning Commission will hear
evidence presented by staff supporting and recommending the revocation of the above
referenced CUPs to the City Council.
LOCATION:
The site is located at 1107 North Tustin Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 06-07 recommending that the
City Council approves the Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-60 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2334-00.
As City Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz had been actively involved with City Staff
in many aspects of the subject review he recused himself from the meeting.
Chair Imboden stated that Ben Kaufmann had joined the Commission at the dais.
Mr. Kaufmann introduced himself as the Chief Assistant City Attorney for the City of
Santa Ana. He stated he was appearing for this project to provide legal advice to the
Planning Commission in the absence of Mr. Sheatz. Mr. Kaufmann stated further:
. He had not been involved in this case substantively.
. He had not spoken with anyone from the Orange City Attorney's office with respect to
the substance of this case so consequently there would be a complete separation between
the items that were going to be presented by the City Attorney's Office who is essentially
the applicant for the revocation.
. He proposed a process to get through the hearing that he believed was fair to both sides
and had been agreed to by both sides.
City Staff members Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight and Assistant Planner Sonal
Thakur provided an overview of the Planning Department's history on this filing.
Page 9 of 10 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
5 March 2007
Orange Assistant City Attorney, Wayne Winthers provided the City's evidence of
continuous violations of multiple conditions in the Conditional Use Permits under which
the applicant was operating.
Eleven public speakers spoke in favor of revocation of the Conditional Use Permits and
three public speakers spoke in opposition of the revocation.
A court reporter transcript of this hearing can be obtained from the Orange City Clerk's
office.
Chair Imboden made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 06-07 recommending that the
City Council approves the Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-60 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2334-00.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on
Monday, March 19,2007.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner, Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11:38 p.m.
Page 10 of 10 Pages