Loading...
2007 - January 3 ca5m.Gr'~0 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: 3 January 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, 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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4172-06 - SWIFT AND SWIFT A proposal to install new signage on a commercial fayade within the Plaza. LOCATION: The site is located at 10 Plaza Square. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I _ Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4172-06. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve the consent calendar. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: INRE: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker None None MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED HEARINGS: None. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 INRE: NEW BUSINESS: (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4174-06 - THE VAULT FINE ANTIQUES A proposal to install a new awning and signage on a commercial fayade within the Plaza. LOCATION: The site is located at 75 Plaza Square. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Class 31). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4174-06. Commissioner Imboden pulled this project from the consent calendar for discussion. Commissioner Steiner recused himself from hearing this project due to a conflict in interest. Senior Plan Dan Ryan provided a project overview and highlighted the recommendations relative to the awning which are that the awning be angled, the top of the awning be the same height as the other awnings but the length can be adjusted a little less or more than the existing awning, it has at least a I' valance, the valance has a straight edge rather than a scalloped edge and the lettering is limited to only the valance area and can only be 30% of the valance area---this includes the address and the name. Commissioner Imboden asked if the applicant was in agreement with this recommendation; however, the applicant was not present to respond. Mr. Ryan indicated he spoke with them earlier. Chair Bonina asked what the height was of the valance. Mr. Ryan responded it was between 9"-12" at the applicant's request and a clearance of at least 8' from the valance to the top of the sidewalk is required. Mr. Ryan stated the applicant is requesting to use a black color paint for the trim on the building and they have submitted a sample of the material and colors for the window sidings as well. Chair Bonina stated that if the Commission is all in accord, they could move forward with approval as the resolution is written, with the clarification that what they are approving is on Page A-2, the angled awning with a straight valance. Commissioner Imboden added "we could also recommend that there be a condition that plans come back to the Historic Planner prior to permit issuance." Public input was provided as follows: Jeff FrankeL OTPA stated: . They agree with Staff on the valance design. . They feel the angled canopy versus round would be more appropriate. Page 2 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 . It is nice to see a new quality antique store opening up in the Plaza since so many are going out of business. . It seems there was an issue on the black paint on an adjacent project next door and he wondered if that would be an issue on this project. He vaguely remembered (although he didn't go back and research it) that there was a problem with the color black paint on the entrance of Cafe Lucca but he wasn't sure. Mr. Ryan responded that the issue with the black paint had to do with the painting of the stucco surrounding the entrance for the second floor offices (Masonic Lodge); it did not have to do with the color of the trim paint around the window frames. Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4174- 06 with the recommendations made by Staff and also adding a recommendation that drawings be submitted to City Staff for approval prior to issuance of building permits. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Whitaker None None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. (4) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4092-06, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 479-06, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1771-06 - MINK RESIDENCE A proposal for a new detached replacement garage and demolition of the original garage as required under the City's Old Towne Design Standards. Additionally, the Planning Commission is reviewing an addition to the residence that exceeds 20% of the existing floor area ofthe primary residence. LOCATION: The site is located at 533 E. Jefferson Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1771-06 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City's Local CEQA Guidelines in the use of appropriate materials for additions and new in-fill construction within the City's Historic District. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Environmental: Adopt Resolution No. PC 59-06 approving Negative Declaration No. 1771-06 as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Project: Adopt Resolution No. PC 59-06 approving Design Review Committee No. 4092-06, and Minor Site Plan Review No. 479-06. Commissioner Whitaker recused himself from hearing this project due to a conflict in Page 3 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 interest. Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview and noted a few items requiring correction: (I) Negative Declaration No. 1771-06, Page 2, Par. 1, second sentence: This sentence should read: "The original garage appears to have been constructed at the same time as the residence and it appears not to be a contributing accessory structure to the site, as evidenced from a detailed inspection, review of applicant photographs, and review of Sanborn Insurance Maps. This correction makes it consistent with the findings in the rest of the document (reference Pages 6 and 7). (2) Draft Resolution No. PC 59-06, Section 2 - Environmental Review, Par. 2: Due to a change in the Fish and Game requirements effective January 1,2007, Staffis recommending adding the following sentence: "The project will have no affect on fish and game and wildlife. This will make it consistent with the findings. Jonathon and Audrey Mink introduced themselves and Mr. Mink stated: . They are excited at the prospect of moving forward as it has been a while since they first submitted their application. . In regards to the plans they have tried to make certain they are in step with what the Design Review Committee had asked them to do back in early December. . He thinks everything is noted on the plans. . They are looking forward to the Planning Commission feedback. Public input was provided as follows: Jeff FrankeL OTPA stated: . They concur with the Conditions of Approval placed on the project by the DRC and understand it has been sort of a long, drawn out process for the Minks. . Originally the Minks were receptive to keeping the existing garage and in light of the local CEQA Guidelines update that occurred about a year ago that address the evaluation of these structures, they had hoped the City would have developed some sort of guidelines/standards or some method to evaluate these structures in a consistent manner. . Although he has not personally viewed the garage, the Staff Report states the only character defining feature left on the structure is basically the siding. . He is not disputing the garage is probably in very poor condition; however, the photos depict additional defining features in tact i.e. slated, vented gables and the roof structure itself. . As we all know, much of the damage can be repaired. . We have seen garages that seemed in much worse condition that have been rehabilitated. . In a current project (which will be before the Commission soon) the applicant planned to use his garage as useable living space and the structure was considered contributing Page 4 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 but a change in plans required the demolition of the garage so now it is considered non- contributing. It is sort of the same thing that happened here. . They felt there is definitely a need for a structured method for the evaluation of contributing accessory structures. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: . She has been at all the meetings with the Minks. . She wanted to compliment City Staff and the Design Review Committee for coming up with a plan that will work for everybody so this young family can raise their kids in beautiful Old Towne. . She is very glad that the garage gable has been turned around to face the street, which is more typical of the area. Mr. Mink expressed appreciation to Mr. Ryan for helping them and stated that since he has been involved they have made some headway in moving things down the pike. Mr. Mink also stated he was grateful to Mr. Ryan for holding their hands and getting them through the process. Commissioner Imboden stated he didn't see or hear any mention of the purlines, the exposed rafter tails or the slated gables in the assessment of the structure so he asked Staff if they could elaborate on how they came to the determination of non-contributing. Mr. Ryan responded that in viewing the structure they looked at it in total, noting the condition of the building and also the changes made to the building over time. Furthermore he stated: . The rear of the building had basically had a shed addition that stuck out from the gable roof and expanded the garage. . All the original framing had been removed presumably to accommodate a newer vehicle that may have been longer in length. . The inside of the garage was dry walled so there was no way to take a look at the framing inside. . There were indications that the building had suffered a great deal from termite rot damage because it was basically built on grade. . The concrete slab had a large crack in it and the building was off set to one side and leaning to the northeast. . There was no garage door; instead there was a large piece of plywood framed in. . He believed the rafter tails were cut flush with the roof. . Other than the fact the siding was not new and visible on two sides of the building that was the only character-defining feature that was there. . He felt overall the building itself may have contributed to the site at one time because of the unity of the design and age of the garage and house but he felt that had been compromised due to the changes made to the building over time. . If you looked at it today there might be some question but looking at it overall it didn't qualify. . He concurred with the findings that there need to be some standards to reference and assist with making evaluations and having a checklist of things to look for. He wasn't sure if Staff was going to hire someone to do this or not; however, there have been discussions in the Department relative to the need. . The survey did not indicate the building was contributing and the applicant has Page 5 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 therefore been caught in limbo-land and it was felt a decision needed to be made to move the project forward without incurring additional expense by the applicant or the City. Recognizing that this may be a limbo area, Chair Bonina asked if by approving this type of criteria some sort of harmful precedent was being set. Mr. Ryan responded that any time an action is taken for the first time you question if you're making the correct determination and looking at everything but in the sense of identifying the quality features that may cause the building to be listed is where you ultimately start. If the integrity isn't there that is generally the first question. The building may have some remaining elements but overall does it still contribute may be assessed by a point system as you're making the determination. Chair Bonina asked for further clarity on what is being discussed internally relative to what will be done to accurately make assessments either by the City or an outside entity. Mr. Ryan responded that in the past Staff had developed a survey to deal with the context of a new development within the Historic District and Staff would also develop a checklist to be able to identify all the features and whether or not those attributes would be considered contributing features that would cause a structure to be listed. That would be included with a full reveal of the condition of the building surveyed. He added that the point raised about having consistency is a good, valid point and he believed it had been raised in the past. If the building would not stand on its own, it is easy to make the determination; however, there are some areas that could be gray so a checklist would be helpful. Assistant Planning Director Ed. Knight interjected that there were a few other aspects to be considered: . When the original application was submitted it was his understanding that none of the accessory structures were included with the applications as being contributing structures. . There is an inventory on all the structures in the Historic District. The inventory provides the year they were built, their history, their architectural style and whether or not they were contributing. . The issue that comes to mind is since the inventory did not include accessory structures that make up a large component of the Historic District, Staff assumes they may have potentially been contributing so they are reviewed on a case by case basis. . Staff is looking at some options that include requesting the applicants to hire a firm to evaluate the structure and provide the results of the evaluation to Staff. If Staff did the evaluation, the increase in workload would have to be taken into account and the time to go into the field to perform the evaluation. . Regarding the question relative to precedence, it was his opinion that frankly it would not be an issue, as they would probably follow the same type of procedure each time: have a Historic Planner go out and view the site, using his/her expertise to make an assessment ofthe structure. Chair Bonina stated that obviously there is a process that is being followed and how this would evolve would go along the same lines as what is being done today (to a great degree). Mr. Knight indicated that one of the challenges with accessory structures are they run the full gamut, as they're not like a main structure. Many times they are sheds or afterthoughts that haven't had an architectural style applied to them so that would Page 6 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 make it more difficult to evaluate. Commissioner Imboden stated: . The discussion illuminated further consideration that the City will have to address in the near future, as this will probably not be the last of this type of project to come forward. . He didn't necessarily have a problem with the proposal; however, he was uncomfortable with the assessment used. Moving ahead with the project based on that assessment and the reasons he would be using to make a decision in his opinion would become precedent. . He would not be comfortable in the next situation making that same determination based on the same criteria. . There is an addition to the rear of the garage which had not been discussed. Because this is in the Historic District, structures and developments that took place between 1888 and 1940 need to be considered as being historically significant. There needs to be an assessment made when this addition took place, regardless of whether it is original to the structure. . If an applicant were to come forward, needed this addition done to their garage and it was deemed as a contributing structure, this would still be considered an addition as it would preserve the garage and would have the least impact by adding that addition to the rear elevation. He was not sure he would deem this a non-contributing structure because ofthe addition. . It doesn't help that the door is missing to the garage but there are a lot of missing doors in town on contributing structures. This is not an element that has served as a detriment to the structure being nominated and placed on the National Register. It is an easy fix. . Condition doesn't usually come into play when assessing historic integrity. It comes into play when the determination is made as to whether it will be rehabilitated, restored or what method will be used to move forward. Historic integrity is either there or it isn't. . In his opinion, the fact that the garage matches the house in style does say something about the period it was built. It has the gable vents and purlines that match the house. The changes that have been made don't obscure these character-defining features. . He is not able to accept that this is not a contributing garage. Based on his experience, when you look at historical significance and whether something qualifies, you look at the overall conveyance of its original time and place or at least a time and place desiguated as the significant period of time. In this case he thinks it is still present. . He thinks it will be necessary to back up a little bit and talk about the process; specifically, what will be done as the garage being discussed appears to be in concurrence but is probably not a usable structure. . The applicant certainly has reasonable expectations of having a garage they can park in so a conclusion needs to be drawn but because this is CEQA project, an appropriate assessment has to be done and this needs to go through a process before he can feel comfortable moving ahead. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Ryan if the physical condition and integrity of the building is typically a criterion that one could use to get away from underwriting it as a contributing structure. Mr. Ryan responded in his opinion Commissioner Imboden brought up some good points i.e. the building does have some significance to the original structure. He stated in his opinion the condition of the building does affect its integrity over time and you need to look at the overall picture i.e. even if a building does have purlines, if they're Page 7 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 rotten, can they be re-built? Would you do that? In this case the rafters were all cut and it looked like that was done due to extensive dry rot. In summary, the condition did have a lot to do with the assessment. He added there have been applicants that have repaired garages, keeping the siding and rebuilding the entire interiors because they wanted to keep the garage in its particular position, which saved yard space. That is not the case with this project. When you look at the CEQA guidelines one of the purposes of the original one is to make a determination if anyone had a contributing structure and did demolition, the replacement structure would match appropriate materials, finishes and details. The environmental rules were also part of the assessment. Chair Bonina asked if the determination that this building is not a contributing structure is mostly being driven based on its condition. Mr. Ryan replied, "No, I wouldn't say that." He added that basically the front and back of the building had been changed drastically, the building had been raked to one side, the rafters had been cut and other than the siding that was the only defining feature. Chair Bonina asked if this was a decision made by the City versus one requested by the applicant or how this dynamic was reached? Mr. Ryan responded that a discussion took place as to the need to make a determination as to whether the building was contributing or not and part of that decision was for the applicant to hire someone, have a City consultant make the determination and/or have Staff do it and he volunteered to do it and made the determination. The condition of the building wasn't necessarily driving the fact that he felt the building no longer contributed, it was the lack of integrity as originally designed and all the changes that had been made, the combination ofthose things considered that caused him to arrive at the determination. Commissioner Steiner stated he would like to note he would potentially have a concern with an applicant hiring someone to make the determination of contributing or non- contributing due to the inherent problem with objectivity. Commissioner Steiner agreed with Commissioner Imboden that it wasn't appropriate that if the condition of a building were dilapidated the City would no longer consider it contributing. He asked Mr. Ryan to confirm that in this particular instance the condition was not the determining factor as to the non-contributing status. Mr. Ryan responded that was correct and he mentioned that some time ago he worked on an ordinance for demolition by neglect which covered issues wherein buildings were allowed to deteriorate without maintaining them so they would fall into a category of not being fiscally prudent to repair. Commissioner Imboden stated that it is important to have a consistent methodology for dealing with accessory structures in Old Towne and what role demolition by neglect will play in the assessment of the structure. Commissioner Imboden stated he could not approve the project due to the findings required in association with the Environmental Impacts; however, he wanted to state the project itself is not the issue. He concluded stating it is the concern with setting a precedent that a structure that has had minor modifications made, can be found non- contributing. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Knight if in his collective experience if a precedent could be set Page 8 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 that could be harmful moving forward in terms of establishing the process being worked on presently by City Staff. Mr. Knight stated he did not believe it would be precedent- setting as each project for an accessory structure is being evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Staff is taking the stance that each would have to stand on their own merits as to whether they are contributing or not and they would each be subject to Staff evaluation. Chair Bonina asked what the timing would be for having a process completed by the Planning Staff. Mr. Knight responded this is one project on a list so he could not be more definitive in terms of timing for completion. Chair Bonina asked if it was fair to state that something to address this issue is proactively being worked on. Mr. Knight responded that there are discussions surrounding some of the options but it is not something that is being proactively worked on. Commissioner Steiner asked if having a rigid set of circumstances applied to all types of add on structures that are so inherently disparate as described might lead to unequal results so he asked the Assistant City Attorney if subsequent applicants might be able to argue to this Commission that because you applied a particular set of circumstances in a prior determination, you are now bound by them and the applicant could seek legal remedy. Mr. Sheatz responded that someone could always argue it but it wouldn't bind the City because of the property issues that are being dealt with and the need to have each individual property stand on its own. There are always going to be varying degrees of change or alteration or dilapidation and that is what makes each piece of property worthy of a case by case assessment with the findings, rationale and reasoning all playing a vital role. Commissioner Imboden reiterated he is not opposed to the project per se; he is more concerned about the record being left and the fact that if another applicant came forward with similar circumstances, he felt he would be bound to treat that project in the same manner. Instead he stated his preference would be to have some of the issues raised by OTP A and himself addressed by City Staff and then have a reassessment of the project done and simply determine the mitigation. Assuming there is a consensus to move the project forward, Chair Bonina asked if there was a process whereby the further assessment suggested by Commissioner Imboden could be done i.e. the project is approved but the approval is contingent on the further assessment. Mr. Sheatz responded that since the fundamental issue tends to be in the environmental document essentially what is being requested is granting approval of the environmental document and then Staff doing additional analysis that would be recorded in that document. That would not be feasible. Mr. Ryan stated he didn't have a problem revisiting the site to examine the areas that were brought forward, not related for the determination on this project but to use as an example and means to ensure all things are covered in the future. Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Ryan if there was anything by delaying this project again and revisiting the site again that would lead him to believe he would change his opinion of his initial assessment. Mr. Ryan adamantly replied, "No, there is not. I believe basically that the information I provided in the first review of the building (and Page 9 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 2007 Mr. Knight was there as well at the same time, looking at the building) that the character defining features have been modified over time and the building no longer has those attributes that would cause it to be listed." A motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4092-06, Minor Site Plan Review No. 479-06 and Negative Declaration No. 1771-06 was made by Commissioner Steiner. SECOND: Commissioner Bonina Chair Bonina stated the reasons he was going to second this motion and recommend approval is: Mr. Ryan is a very qualified individual in this regard; he has made the assessment and is confident that in a re-inspection the same result would occur and he does not think this decision would be precedent setting. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Steiner Commissioner Imboden None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED. Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, January 15,2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner, Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:04 p.m. Page 10 of 10 Pages