Loading...
2005 - January 17 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 17, 2005 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary COMMISSION REORGANIZATION: Commissioner Domer moved to nominate Phillip Bonina as Chairman, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, and Pruett None Commissioner Bonina None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Domer moved to nominate Mara Brandman as Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Pruett moved to nominate Ken Domer, who declined the nomination. The motion to nominate Commissioner Brandman was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: NRE: INRE: INRE: (1) Commissioners Bonina, Domer, and Pruett None Commissioner Brandman None MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: THERE WERE NO MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. APPROVE Planning Commission January 17, 2005 (2) APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3917-04 APPROVAL An appeal of the DRC approval to demolish and rebuild a single car garage located at 403 E. Palmyra. Applicant - Melinda Brown. Appellant - Melinda Fobber. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - new Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section 15332 (Class 32 - In Fill Development) Chair Pruett noted that there were a number of cards from the public requesting an opportunity to speak on this item. He asked Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry to give a full reading of the Staff Report. She noted that on July 7, 2004 the DRC took action initially requested by Melinda Brown, which was initially listed as a repair and addition to a single-car garage, and it was approved by the DRC. On November 29, 2004, the City received a complaint from a neighbor regarding the construction work. Staff reviewed the project approvals, did a site visit and found that the approvals consisted of a repair and what was found on the site was, in fact, a demolition. At that point there were 3 walls down on the single-car garage and one wall remaining. Staff issued a Stop Work notice on December 1, 2004, to allow time for the City to make determination of what to do with the project at that point. It was decided that the project should go back before the DRC, the original approval body, for their determination. It went back before the DRC on December 15, 2004, and at that point the DRC stated that they believed the project could move forward, and in fact the applicant could demolish the final wall. On December 22, 2004, an appeal was received. On December 15, 2004, the DRC was asked to look at a number of factors on this project. The project site is within Old Towne, and the main house is listed as a contributing structure. There is not a separate indication on the garage as to whether or not it is a contributing structure. There is a process for demolition of a structure within Old Towne. Staff cannot okay the demolition of a structure unless it is by the Chief Building Official or the Fire Chief to remedy a dangerous situation. That did not happen. The DRC can approve demolition of a non-contributing accessory structure greater than 120 sq. ft. If a structure is found to be a contributing structure, and demolition is requested, it goes through the Planning Commission and eventually the City Council depending on the size of the structure. The DRC was asked to take a look back at what they had approved, and to determine whether they believed the project was still a repair or that it was a demolition, and also should the garage be a contributing structure to the historic district. At the meeting, the DRC members (although not unanimously, and one DRC member was recused from the project), voted 2-1 that they believed the project was a demolition, and that the structure was no longer a contributing structure because of changes and additions to the structure and could be demolished and rebuilt as per plan. The Planning Commission is being asked to either uphold the DRC's decision or uphold the appeal. The public hearing was opened. 2 APPROVED Planning Commission January 17, 2005 Chair Pruett invited the Appellant to present her appeal. Melinda Fobber, Appellant, 274 S. Center Street. She noted that her driveway abuts the rear of the applicant's property. The appellant noted that she is no longer living in the City; now living in Ohio. She stated that upon hearing of the demolition of the applicant's garage, she went to the City and spoke with Senior Planner Daniel Ryan, gave him the address of the demolition, and stated that she felt that she should have been notified of the demolition. She stated that upon learning that the project had been classified as a repair, she informed Mr. Ryan that it was not a repair, and the garage would be gone within a half hour if the City did not step in to stop the demolition. A Stop Work order was issued. She stated that a workshop window, located on the east side next to her property, would not be acceptable due to noise factors. She felt the project should go back to Planning Commission for full review and determination. The applicant's adjacent property is one foot higher and there are drainage issues that are not acceptable to her. Additionally, deed restrictions should be set upon the applicant's property if it is approved by the Planning Commission so that the garage structure cannot be habitable. She disputes applicant's claim that 3" of garage is on her property, because in fact the entire garage is on the applicant's property, but the fence is not. The appellant felt that an alliance of neighbors was against her, and according to her, these were people that she had not gotten along with in five years. Chair Pruett reminded the appellant that the Planning Commission's decisions were based on facts, not in terms of the number of people supporting or opposing a project. The applicant, Melinda Brown, provided pictures of the garage to the Commission. She stated that contrary to the appellant's claims that the garage was entirely on the applicant's property. Ms. Brown provided paperwork showing that she had the property surveyed and the survey shows that the garage was approximately 3" on the appellant's property. She gave a history of the project, stating that she originally spoke with Senior Planner Daniel Ryan who advised her that she needed to call the project a repair, despite her contentions that there was a lot of dry rot and termite problems. She contacted architect Craig Wheeler, who developed the plans. Inasmuch as Mr. Wheeler is a member of the DRC, he recused himself from the July DRC meeting where the project was presented, and Chuck Lau presented the project on her behalf. Because of code requirements, the walls could not be saved, as they were termite ridden. The applicant provided examples of the dry rot, as well as examples of the T1-11 that had been previously applied to the back of the property. The original construction was shoddy, there was no foundation, and only four posts in each of the comers holding the structure up. Additionally, the old structure had lost its integrity due to the many modifications made over the years. She addressed the drainage issues that the appellant had brought up, stating that her attorney had advised her that it was not her problem that her property was higher than the appellant's. The drainage problem is a problem of the appellant, not hers. In Favor of Appeal: Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, OTPA. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission January 17, 2005 Shawn Howell, 385 S. Glassell Street. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer Street. . Support for appeal deals strictly with process. . It is not the scope of the DRC to determine if a structure is a contributing building. Site was not visited by Staff. . TI-II material siding is not enough to justify demolition. . City must be consistent in its rulings. . OTP A has been concerned for years that there are not enough DRC Committee Members. Small committee size voting on this issue, and the recusal of many members has happened numerous times. Opposed to the Appeal: Kevin Hockenberry, 515 W. 3rd Street Diane von Gerichten, 339 S. Palmyra Eric Brock, 274 S. Center Street Craig Wheeler, 58 Plaza Square, Architect for Project Erich Brock, 274 S. Center Street Dan Slater, 278 N. Pine Street . Viewed inside of original garage, no way to bring up to code standards through "repair", . Applicant is a stickler for historic details and a staunch preservationist. Appellant is a "nuisance neighbor" who stopped project on weak and speculative points. . Garage was not built on footing. When boards came out of ground they were rotted. . Tried to save original garage walls, unable to due to dry rot and code requirements. . Surveyor's findings that garage was 3" on neighbor's property led to decision to move garage so that it was totally on applicant's property. The public hearing was left open to allow for questions to the applicant. Chair Pruett asked the Commissioners to direct their questions to Ms. Roseberry, Planning Manager, and she will either answer it from staffs perspective or obtain appropriate staff response, or may with assistance from Chair Pruett direct the question to either the applicant or the appellant. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Does DRC had authority within their scope to determine whether a property or a building is a contributing or non-contributing? Most of the larger structures are listed within inventory, as to contributing or non-contributing. The accessory structures are not listed. The DRC has the ability to approve a demolition of a non-contributing accessory structure that is over 120 sq. ft. . Is there a process in place for the construction contractor to say this is a demolition, not a repair, as we're unable to save any of this? The plans that they were working off of were a repair, and the approvals were labeled as a repair. There was information there for the 4 APPROVE" Planning Commission January 17, 2005 contractor to see exactly what was approved. We would have been more than happy to discuss a different process with the project applicant and the contractor to try and move this through. . Page 5 of the staff report packet, under DRC clarification, states that the condition of the existing structure was compromised and no longer contributing. Who determines when something should be de-listed from the inventory? There is no specific process to de-list a structure off of the inventory. There exists a lengthy inventory of contributing structures throughout the historic district. We look at what changes have to occur for it to no longer be contributing. . It looks as though the sink is in the new potting shed and not the workroom, as shown on the plans, because there was a concern about having a sink out there and then converting it into habitable space. What's the minimum standard for habitable space in an accessory second unit? A utility sink is permitted, does not make it habitable, and that's not an issue or a problem. An accessory second unit would have to be at least 450 sq. ft., and additional parking would be required. The public hearing is closed. The Commissioners had the following comments/concerns: . This is not the first time there has been this type of issue with garages and the accessory buildings. The original one-car garages that are in Old Towne, most cars don't fit in them, people want to replace them, and under the code they were at one point supposed to be replaced with two-car garages, and the Commission has tried to take that back to where they can be replaced with historic-appearing one-car garages. . Where does the authority lie, in this process, for determining whether these secondary structures are contributing? That would have been done through the historic building survey, and two of these have been done during the last 20 years. It leaves us to question whether they are, or are not, contributing since they are not listed. . It is important for us to keep the integrity of Old Towne in place. We do need to review the process further. . A fully staffed DRC is important and this should be a matter of priority. A motion was made by Commissioner Domer to deny the appeal of DRC No. 3917-04. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Minute Order: Encourage the City Council to review the understaffing of the DRC and to encourage Staff to provide additional information to applicants and construction contractors on how to deal with issues of uncertainty as they arise, and what the process is to resolve these issues. Work closely with OTPA to identify these issues. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission January 17, 2005 (3) MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0367-04 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3962-04 - HOME DEPOT (LARS ANDERSEN AND ASSOCIATES,INC.) A proposal to demolish an existing 114,883 square foot commercial building within an existing shopping center in order to construct a new building of approximately 102,000 square feet for occupancy by The Home Depot. The site is located at 1855 N. Tustin Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1743-04 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning Manager Roseberry introduced Anne Fox, contract planner, to discuss the project. The submitted plans also show an attached outdoor garden center that is approximately 31,000 sq. ft. There will also be upgrades to the existing parking facilities and landscaping, bringing it up to current city standards. These improvements will provide 668 parking spaces on the site and 165 new trees. The current site is mainly asphalt, with no landscaping. A corporate color scheme is being proposed, and the issue of colors came up at the DRC Meeting, and the DRC members felt that the applicant should bring this before the Planning Commission and left the final decision of colors up to the Planning Commission. A final landscape plan will be brought back to the DRC for final review and approval. There will be enhancements, also, to Highland Street, a street that runs along the eastern border of the property. The public right-of-way is currently indistinguishable as it relates to the truck loading area. The City's traffic division asked for a focused traffic study. One letter has been received from the public, which was forwarded to the Planning Commission, as well as a response from Staff to the comments received. Both Staff Review Committee and Design Review committee have recommended approval of the project, and have included several conditions, which are in the draft resolution before the Planning Commission. Scott Mommer, 4630 W. Jaquelyn, Fresno, CA, representing Home Depot, the applicant. He noted that he had worked on numerous projects for Home Depot and complimented the City for the process undertaken to approve the proj ect. The one issue before the Planning Commission is relating to the corporate colors, and Home Depot's preference is for the corporate colors. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Could you provide some additional information on the fencing, curb and gutter on Highland Street? The response was provided by Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer. Currently, there is no curb and gutter, there is what is referred to as a ribbon concrete flow channel that distinguishes between the public right-of-way and the private property. Curb and gutter is proposed all the way from the north end of the property where it joins the private neighborhood, all the way down to Taft Street. There are then three driveways being proposed, and each of those driveways will have a gate across them which will be closed during the non-delivery/non-business hours. In addition, there is a block 6 APPROVED Planning Commission January 17, 2005 wall that comes from the north end of the property down to the curb return, and ends on the north/south portion of Highland Street. From that point down to Taft, there will then be a tubular steel fence. Both the block wall and the tubular steel fence are six feet tall. So the access that is currently available today will be completely cut off. . Surprised by level of foot traffic that comes from the adjacent community through the applicant's property. Understanding that level of foot traffic, has there been any consideration given to a sidewalk that parallels the north property line which extends from Highland towards Tustin Avenue? Roger Hohnbaum stated that it would be up to Home Depot to determine this. Mr. Mommer stated that it would be an unsafe situation, and Home Depot would prevent this access. The public was invited to speak. Jay Aviron, 5263 E. Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles. Mr. Aviron stated that he is the property manager for the strip mall that is located on the property. He noted that there was a reciprocal easement agreement with the other property owners (including Big Lots, which is also located on the subject property). He believes that Home Depot is fast-tracking this project and ignoring Mr. Lim's, one of the property owner's, rights. Because of Home Depot, an additional 130 parking spaces will be encroached. He is currently negotiating with Home Depot, and the first meeting was last week, and the issues were not resolved. He wished it to be added to the formal record that the proposed trees in front of Produce World would prohibit the delivery of goods to the store. Home Depot stated that they were re-working that area to solve this issue. Chair Pruett noted that the Planning Commission could not be an arbiter in what is considered a matter between private parties. If Mr. Aviron had a valid legal claim, the Planning Commission's decision would not prejudice that claim. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz further noted that this Commission could not make a determination on either party's behalf. Ms. Fox noted that the development being considered was on a parcel owned by Home Depot, with the exception of a small area of parking spaces that sit in front of the Lim property, and the enhancements would greatly improve the overall traffic flow. City code requires us to look at the entire property boundaries. Anyone who made improvements to their property on this site, the City code required that they would need bring the entire parking lot up to City standards. The commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Does the City have any plans to improve Highland? No answer available at this meeting; would have to review the pavement management plan. . Are there safety measure to prevent access on outside stairwells, etc., to roof? All access to roof is through inside stairs, so no safety measure needed. . Only curb and gutter will be improved? That is correct. . Any plans to discourage speed? No physical deterrents, such as speed bumps, are planned. . Any shopping cart bins planned for the west end of the parking lot? None currently planned, that will be reviewed. . No problems with corporate colors. In terms of the color scheme proposed by Home Depot, those are quite acceptable. 7 APPROVED Planning Commission January 17, 2005 Commissioner Brandman moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 01-05 adopting Negative Declaration No. 1743-04, and approving Major Site Plan Review No. 0367-04 and Design Review Committee No. 3962-04. Further, the Commission noted that they approved Color Scheme Exhibit B (that which was requested by Home Depot) to be reflected in condition no. 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2515-04 - ARNONE'S LITTLE IT AL Y A proposal to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license for a restaurant in an existing tenant space within a shopping center, and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The site is located at 2143 N. Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provlSlons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). Chair Pruett asked for a brief introduction on the item as there was no opposition to the project from the public. Ms. Roseberry gave an overview of the project. She noted that the proposal was approved by the Public Safety Department, and there were no issues, and their standard list of conditions are attached to the Conditions of Approval. Staff is recommending approval of the project. The applicant was invited to speak to the issue. Gary Arnone, 2321 Villa Real, Orange. He noted that, simply, they were requesting the license to allow the serving of wine with their pasta. He noted that he had read and understood the Conditions of Approval. The Commissioners had no further comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Domer to Adopt Resolution No. PC 03-05 approving Conditional User Permit No. 2515-04. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. 8 Planning Commission AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett None None None APPROVED January 17, 2005 MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Brandman moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 7, 2005. Commissioner Bonina seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Pruett None None None The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. 9 MOTION CARRIED