Loading...
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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2556-05, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4056-05 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 1764-05 (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) - AL RICCI. Leslie Roseberry noted Item is withdrawn at the request of applicant/property owner.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