2006 - April 17
td-~DC>. c;.a.3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
17 April 2006
Monday ~ 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett
None
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
(1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2556-05, DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE NO. 4056-05 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 1764-05 (NEGATIVE
DECLARATION) - AL RICCI.
Leslie Roseberry noted Item is withdrawn at the request of applicant/property owner.
Commissioner Pruett moved to accept withdrawal, seconded by Commissioner Imboden.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett.
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
MARCH 6, 2006.
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2006
(3) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING - SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) - FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 THROUGH
2012-2013.
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to approve.
Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bonina complimented City Manager, Council and Dept. Heads on very
informative process in terms of study session.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED HEARINGS: NONE.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS:
(4) APPEAL NO. 506-06 OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4065-06
-APPLICANT: DEE SMITH (APPELLANT: MARK A MURPHY)
Ms. Roseberry, Planning Manager, prefaced Dan Ryan's, Senior Planner, presentation
with commentary: originally this case started as code enforcement case. The property
owner/applicant, Dee Smith, did come forward to City with application to go before the
DRC to ask about material changes to property. This took place in Feb. 2006. Ms. Smith
attended the meeting; however was unable to stay until her item was called to discussion.
The DRC did act upon the project at that meeting. It is the understanding that the Mayor,
upon hearing of the action taken by the DRC without the applicant present, decided to
appeal project to the PC so the property owner would have the opportunity to speak
before an approval body of the City to discuss her project.
Chair Bonina noted PC process is if applicant is not present for discussion of agenda item
the item is typically deferred to the end of the agenda and if applicant is still not present,
the item is typically continued to next meeting. Chair Bonina queried if this is consistent
with DRC process. Mr. Ryan replied process is consistent with that ofPC-- however,
applicant did not ask for continuance.
Mr. Ryan noted appellant is appealing the decision ofDRC No. 4065-06 requiring the
applicant to remove inappropriate materials and modify existing porch construction and
landscaping materials at residence located at 605 E. Maple Ave. Mr. Ryan reviewed the
conditions and recommendations found on Page 3 of the PC Staff Report, Appeal No.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17,2006
506-06.
It was noted that although it was not a public hearing it was a public meeting; therefore,
the PC would be taking comments from the applicant as well as any other public
attendees.
Property owner, Dee Smith, 605 E. Maple, Orange, advised:
(1) to her knowledge, pillars were originally installed over 30 years ago
(2) pavers were installed 8 years ago; she has receipts to confirm
(3) porch pavers were replaced with alternate materials
(4) doors were done 3-4 years ago. Again, she has receipts to confirm.
(5) Brick in driveway is old, applicant's intent was to continue to fix up.
(6) She purchased residence from her father 2 years ago.
When questioned by Commissioner Imboden about her intentions to do additional work
on the driveway, Ms. Smith replied she may be forced to turn this property back into
rental.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Ms. Smith if any of the conditions imposed by DRC were
acceptable. Ms. Smith replied she has already spent $6,000 on property, front porch was
ready to fall down and as a result of being asked to tear out the entire yard, she reiterated
she may be forced to turn property back into rental.
Commissioner Enderby inquired if pavers between street and sidewalk and pavers from
sidewalk to porch were all from original install 8 years ago. Response from Ms. Smith
was only the porch pavers.
Public speaker, Janet Crenshaw, 280 No. Cleveland, Orange, read notes regarding use of
materials used and cited 3 other projects where similar work was performed. She
expressed concern with setting precedent which would deteriorate features of historical
district.
Commissioner Pruett asked staff for date of stop work issuance and additional history.
Ms. Roseberry advised the original code enforcement case was opened in September
2004. Further, Commissioner Pruett asked Ms. Smith if work done to property was done
by contractor. Response was that work was done by her husband, herself and someone
else did the brick work, although he was not a contractor.
Commission Bilodeau inquired if red brick is removed, what does DRC or staff want
used? Mr. Ryan advised veneer cast stone.
Commissioner Imboden initiated discussion of comprehensive review ofthe conditions
versus the recommendations ofthe DRC. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz,
commented he has somewhat of an issue with #4 of the DRC recommendations: "Install
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2006
decorative wood fretwork on front gable roof per the design of the fretwork in the historic
photograph." Although he believes this is a great recommendation; he doesn't believe
the City would have a legal basis for imposing as condition so it was noted it should
remain a recommendation.
Commissioner Imboden asked Ms. Roseberry for clarification on required action(s) to
move forward as it relates to conditions and recommendations. Ms. Roseberry confirmed
PC is being asked to act on the appeal i.e. if PC is upholding appeal then PC would be
denying what DRC acted upon. If denying appeal and accepting DRC actions then PC
would have latitude to change conditions. Mr. Sheatz confirmed this point.
Commissioner Pruett's view is this is not consistent with design guidelines for Old
Towne area and therefore needs to be corrected.
Chair Bonina asked if PC has authority to ask applicant to remove existing conditions if
they are not being altered i.e. if repair is to perimeter of porch and pavers were existing
condition, do we have in code/guidelines ability to request homeowner to remove? Mr.
Ryan responded affirmatively. Mr. Sheatz commented on the City's remedy if the
applicant does not perform the work. This could include filing a misdemeanor criminal
case. Building officials would need to be involved.
Commissioners Imboden stated doors do not meet Old Towne standards nor the Secretary
of Interior Standards; however since applicant has advised this was not part of this project
he cannot support as a condition ofthis appeal. He cannot support appeal overall as it has
been presented and believes we would be setting dangerous precedent by approving such
work.
Further Commissioner Imboden recapped each of the DRC conditions and
recommendations and provided the following commentary:
(a) Item 5 of the conditions: clearly the doors are not in compliance;
however, they are not part of the work that was presented for
discussion at today's meeting so this item could be moved to a
recommendation
(b) Items 1 and 3 recommendations: as they are part of this scope of work
and they do not comply, they should be moved to conditions
(c) Item 2 of the recommendations: could stay there as recommendation
should applicant wish to make any further changes to driveway
(d) Item 4 of the recommendations: great idea to restore; however not
part of what is before the meeting and could stay as recommendation
Any work outside of what is being discussed tonight needs to come to the City
first.
Chair Bonina reiterated the importance of adhering to the City process to eliminate
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17,2006
recurrence of these type of issues.
Commissioner Imboden made motion to deny appeal with some alterations in the
conditions (as referenced on Page 3 in the PC Staff Report): Items 1,2, 3 and 4 of the
conditions that were set forth by DRC remain in place and that Items 1 and 3 of the
recommendations be moved into a condition of approval. Furthermore, Item #5 of the
conditions of approval by the DRC should be made as recommendations. Items #2 and
#4 of the recommendations would remain in the recommendation category.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Pruett.
Ms. Roseberry stated the brick would need to be removed from the porch and an
inspection would need to be performed. The City will follow up with applicant.
Commissioner Imboden clarified that a vote of yes denies the appeal.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION TO DENY APPEAL CARRIED.
The appeal process was reviewed for the applicant by Ms. Roseberry.
The applicant has asked for consultation with the City's Legal Department.
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2541-05 - APPLICANT: CINGULAR
WIRELESS
Ms. Roseberry provided reading of the item citing this was originally part of a DRC item,
they did look at the aesthetics of the application and recommended approval of the
proj ect.
Cingular has proposed the installation of a wireless communications antenna and related
equipment located on the Our Saviors Lutheran Church located on No. Cambridge. It is
proposed as a mono pine design with artificial pine branches hiding the array. Due to a
requested 55' height it is being brought before the PC. The newest wireless
communication ordinance states that if a ground mounted wireless facility antenna is
within the height limitation of 32' it would not need to be brought before the
Commission.
This item was posted to surrounding homeowners.
Applicant's representative, discussed the project including the use of a highly directional
microwave. He advised the church has given a letter of authorization although no
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2006
representation from the church was available at this meeting.
A member of the public, Scott Craig, 125 Barklay, Orange, voiced concern over potential
health impacts while specifically citing the proximity of a school to the facilities.
Property values due to aesthetics was also a concern expressed by Mr. Craig.
Commissioner Imboden commented on variance between drawings which specify 4'
branches where in actuality they scale out to 8'. Ms. Roseberry indicated typically they
see view simulations of beautiful full trees and then generally the plans don't match. She
indicated the carriers don't actually build the trees so the expectations have had to be
made very clear to applicants that they need to match.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the Conditions of Approval (Section 3) should be modified
to state as approved by the DRC versus the Planning Commission. Ms.Roseberry
clarified that we could add the requirement of the DRC approval.
Heights of other towers in the area were not known by Cingular representative.
Motion to approve with recommendation for DRC approval of condition was made by
Commissioner Pruett. Seconded by Commissioner Enderby.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Bonina moved to adjourn this meeting to the next regular scheduled meeting for
Monday, May 1st, 2006.
Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:43 p.m.
Page 6