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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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