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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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