Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - November 15 e..aroOD.G.~ ,3 Planning Commission City of Orange MINUTES November 15, 2004 Monday~ 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer J erre Wegner, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. (2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2004-226, VARIANCE NO. 2127-03 AND DRC NO. 3935-04 - VASQUEZ RESIDENCE A proposal to consolidate six (6) vacant remnant Cal-Trans parcels totaling 11,677 sq. ft. in area, into two (2) residential parcels. The Variance request is to allow the creation of the parcels with less than the code required minimum 100 ft. lot depth, minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lot area, minimum 20 ft. front yard setback and 20 ft. garage setback. The six sites are located at 2220 East Dana Avenue, and 226, 230, 236, 242, and 246 North Sacramento Street. This item was last heard at the May 3, 2004, Planning Commission meeting and at that time was continued to an unspecified date. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, (Class 32 New In-fill development) section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item. This application is to consolidate six remnant parcels from the Cal Trans improvements that were done to the 55 Freeway. The applicant is requesting that the six parcels be consolidated into two parcels, and to construct one Planning Commission November 15,2004 unit on each parcel. In doing so, the applicant needs to obtain variances for front-yard setbacks, lot areas and depth for the parcels. The Planning Commission continued the item several months ago, asking that it go back to the DRC as well as for the applicant to bring forward a parcel map so the Commissioners could look at specifically what the variance measurements would be. The DRC looked at the project twice, the first time was as the Planning Commission saw the project with a 2-story on each proposed lot. The DRC felt that was too massive for that area and for those lots and to come back with one-story proposals. The applicant did that, returning with a proposal for a one-story unit on each lot. The DRC indicated that they felt the design was compatible with the community; however, they also stated that the issue of one or two parcels was a Planning Commission issue and they were simply commenting on the design of the units. Ms. Roseberry noted that Daniel Ryan the project manager for this project was in attendance, and he was available if the commissioners required additional information. Chair Pruett asked Mr. Ryan to give an in-depth overview of the project, and Mr. Ryan gave information on the specifics of the project. He noted that the project, as redesigned as one-story buildings, met the City's In- Fill Residential Guidelines as far as the context and style of the neighborhood as determined by the DRC. The DRC still had concerns as to the overbuilt nature of the lots in question and the development that is being proposed. Combining all of the requested adjustments would create two substandard lots, which would be out of character with the surrounding area in granting the exception since other sites were developed with R-1-6 standards. Also the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations as other properties in the vicinity and zone that are developed. Nothing deprives the applicant from developing the property with one single-family residence, or from adding an accessory second unit on the property. In fact, at one time the applicant had proposed that, but decided to go back to their proposal to request two separate R-llots. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny Variance 2127-03 and DRC No. 3935-04 and Parcel Map No. 2004-226 subject to the findings discussed in the draft resolution which was presented. The meeting minutes were approved on 2/7/05. Chair Pruett invited the applicant to come forward to make his presentation. Aaron Johanssen, 8795 Brookdale Drive, Garden Grove, represented the applicant as the designer on the project; he stated that he worked out of the City of Orange at 153 S. Cypress Street. He stated that the drawings tried to meet the character of the neighborhood as closely as possible by staying with the ranch-style, one-story homes. Referencing earlier concerns about shading the back yards, he stated that he believed that the problem had been alleviated by the current orientation for both homes. Chair Pruett asked the applicant if he had the opportunity to review the recommendation (discussing the legal findings that needed to be made) in the Staff Report. The applicant stated that he had not had the opportunity to review them in their present form. Chair Pruett noted that one issue that Mr. Johanssen might wish to address is the issue of Special Circumstances applicable to the subject property, including the size, shape, topography, location and strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is to be found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical situation. That's one of the findings that the Planning Commission needs to make, and Chair Pruett noted that at the present time, with Staffs recommendation, that finding could not be made. What he hoped the applicant would do would be to give the Planning Commission some feel as to how they would approach that question to address those findings. Mr. Johanssen stated that their opinion on that was when Cal-Trans 2 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 originally subdivided the lot, that's when the problem was originally caused, not by the applicant purchasing the property. He stated it was a unique situation just because of the size and the shape of the lot, and if a single home were placed there, then there would be a very large-sized yard that must be maintained. Mr. Johanssen asked what the City would do if it had a lot too small to be sold for a buildable property - he stated "The city would buy it, then, correct?" Chair Pruett stated no, it would be owned by someone that would not prompt the City to purchase it. Further, he wanted to clarify an earlier point made by Mr. Johanssen, that being that Cal- Trans created the problem by selling it as they did. He noted that the applicant purchased it with the understanding that it was a lot comprised of six separate lots and the applicant and other prospective bidders of the parcels were advised by Planning Staff prior to the sale by Cal- Trans that only one single- family residence could be constructed on these remnant parcels due to the size, shape and area of the property. Mr. Johanssen noted one other additional piece of supporting evidence, the applicant got signatures from his neighbors as to the approval or disapproval of his building plans. The document was submitted to staffto be entered as part of the record. The Commissioners had the following questions and concerns: . Can an application be submitted for these parcels with a single home on one lot, and an accessory second unit simultaneously, or does the primary home need to be approved and then the secondary unit? Ms. Roseberry answered that it could be done either way. · There are currently six lots that comprise this property, wouldn't the process have been going from six lots to one lot, then parcel it into two separate lots? Mr. Hohnbaum responded, as this is a map process question. He stated that typically that could be done at the same time through the parcel map or the tentative map; in fact it requires the map for downsizing five or more lots into one or two lots. . Is there any configuration where staff would recommend acceptance on this property of two primary units? We did have discussions with the applicant (consolidating six parcels into one) that they could still have two units, one being a large primary residence, but the secondary accessory unit could not be larger than 640 sq. ft. · Do you know why the applicant decided not to submit plans for one unit and accessory second unit? Mr. Johanssen stated that the applicant did not feel that the smaller unit would serve his family's needs. The applicant has a specific use for these two houses, one for himself, his wife and his two children; and another for his parents (and they required three bedrooms). It was possible to get two somewhat small bedrooms in the 640 sq. ft. unit, but not the three that the applicant's parents required. . Did Cal- Trans sell all six parcels as one group? Yes. · The staff report states that there are no other substandard lots in the area; does that fact impact our findings in any way? Ms. Roseberry stated that one of the things that Staff looks at in granting a variance is that the Planning Commission is not granting a special privilege. One of the things Staff does to ensure that is to see if there are similar situations in the immediate vicinity. None can be found in the immediate vicinity, which is why this finding cannot be met, and the granting of the variance would be a special privilege. So, yes, it does make a big impact on Staffs recommendation. · A search was done in the area, to determine if there were other substandard lots. Is it possible to widen that search? Ifwe begin to widen the search, it begins to lose its ability 3 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 to pass the "straight face" test. If it starts to get too wide, it does not meet the requirement of finding something within "the immediate vicinity and zone" as required in the findings. The public hearing was opened. Chair Pruett invited the public who had submitted cards to voice their issues/concerns. Michael Prater, 249 N. Sacramento Street. He stated that he was opposed to the substandard lot size. His property is located directly across the street from the proposed new lots. He referenced several properties with large homes that had accessory second units, and felt the applicant could apply for that. Mr. Prater stated that both he and his neighbor had been denied variances for building in the front that created an area not meeting the 20-foot setback requirement. He believed that front-yards were very necessary to maintain the overall character of the neighborhood Jim Hamilton - 271 N. Sacramento Street. Opposed. He noted that he is approximately 100 yards from the property in question. He described the property as a "long, skinny piece of pie." He felt there was really no way to parcel it into two lots with two separate primary residences. He had several contractors look at it when the property came available. He did not want the substandard lots or smaller houses in the neighborhood. Chair Pruett invited the applicant and his representative back to address any of the above issues, or to clarify any further points. Mr. Johanssen stated that the applicant could build the primary unit with the secondary accessory unit, but it would not serve his purpose. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Domer felt that the application of the zoning ordinance was an overly strict one. Because of the applicant's needs, it would be better to create a slightly substandard lot, but not a substandard home. He hopes that the Commission looks at the big picture, having the opportunity to have two somewhat smaller residences that fit into the neighborhood, versus what was proposed before (i.e., two story homes that are out of character). Assistant Attorney Sheatz wanted to comment on the point of Commissioner Domer's about being overly strict on the application of the zoning ordinance. He noted that it came straight from state law, and was not one created by the City of Orange, and the verbiage of the exact findings is directly from that law. Chair Pruett stated of the immediate neighborhood is impacted. Creating two substandard lots would definitely impact the neighborhood negatively. Commissioner Domer went on to state that either way there were issues: (1) creating one overly large lot, out of character for the neighborhood, or (2) creating two substandard lots which had homes more in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. The Commissioners voiced the additional issues and concerns: . Do we have any data on the average home size (square footage) in that immediate neighborhood? Yes, they are approximately 1,100 to 1,500 sq. ft. · Commissioner Smith stated that this is a difficult situation, as are many that are brought before the Planning Commission. She stated that in this case she must agree with Commissioner Domer and the DRC that found that the projects were appropriate by their 4 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 declaration on page 2-4 that the infill does follow the established scale and massing of the existing streetscape. It is a special circumstance with these six tiny parcels. What I want to go for here is the fact that the City needs the housing. Although the single-family homes are small, they still would provide housing for two families rather than one. Although not usually in favor of projects like this, the fact that the applicant wants to build two houses that abut the really high freeway wall is admirable. She does not believe that one larger home is appropriate for the neighborhood. She believes that there is a finding that the unusual size and shape of the lot could make the case for this type of development, and does not believe it grants special privilege since there are so many other handicaps to the property. She wanted to make the point, in favor of approving this project, that the parcel is an island unto itself, bordered by streets, and does not affect any immediate adjacent properties and stands independently from the others. She believes this is a special circumstance unique to this property, and Commissioner Domer later commented that he agreed with this statement. · Commissioner Bonina applauded the applicant for taking the homes from two stories down to one, which he believed was more appropriate for the neighborhood. With all the variances to be considered, the one that concerns him most is the variances for the setbacks for the garage. This creates the inability for two cars on each property to park on their driveways, and they therefore go on the street. He is of the opinion that the property would be better developed as one lot, one home. · Commissioner Brandman stated that in her opinion, based on parking, access, etc., this property (based on two single-family homes) would not be allowed to build a second accessory unit on either of them. Planning Manager Roseberry asked to comment on two points relative to this. (1) There has not been a plan submitted for review that would show whether an accessory second unit would or would not fit on either of the properties. From her experience, she does not believe it would be impossible to fit one. She reminded the Commissioners that an accessory second unit could vary from 450 to 640 sq. ft., so there is some leeway. (2) When staff is looking at setbacks for the property, Council has approved homes with lesser setbacks, including tracts of homes. The difference in this project, she reminded them, is that in this instance they are reviewing one or two lots in an already established area, and not an entire new tract. · Commissioner Smith stated that although two people were in opposition to the project, as represented by their attendance at the meeting, there existed a petition that stated that 30 neighbors were in favor. Chairman Pruett stated that he would entertain a motion, noting that Staff has requested that if the motion is one to divide the property into two lots with two single-family homes, that the motion should be one that asks Staff to take this back and come up with the findings, if possible, in which to support the motion. Mr. Sheatz wanted it noted that this would be both for the variance and for the map. One of the justifications for denial, under state law, that would be most applicable to this is that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. So if there is a motion to go forward to approve, there needs to be some statements or facts that would support the opposite of that (i.e., that the site ~ physically suitable for the type of development proposed). Chairman Pruett further stated that at this point, the Commission could not take action to approve, because those facts and findings were not in front of them. 5 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Commissioner Pruett said that what is required in the findings are listed, and therefore questioned why it would need to go back to Staff. If the case can be made that the findings are present, does it need to go back? Mr. Sheatz stated no, but that it would give Staff the opportunity to develop the matter further based on what the Commission decided and to add all needed conditions of approval. Commissioner Domer moved that Staff bring the item back to the Planning Commission at the next Planning Commission Meeting with a resolution approving the project with supported findings based on comments made by this Commission during this meeting with the appropriate conditions of approval, and a possible redesign of Lot 2 to lengthen the driveway. Commissioner Brandman seconded the motion. Discussions which took place during the initial motion suggested by Commissioner Domer and the final, as stated above, include: Commissioner Bonina added that if the direction is to approve the lots as submitted, then he suggested there was an opportunity to remove one of the Variances. One that concerns him most is the lack of driveway. He believes that there is an opportunity, in the review of the project, to take the lot No. 1 property line, move it and the home further south, thereby creating a standard driveway. And on lot No.2, again move it south, and rather than have an access straight on to the garage from Sacramento, do a curve that goes into a side garage (i.e., not from the front). Those two efforts will, at least, minimize the variances to the neighborhood. If we could at least look at that and determine whether it would be appropriate. Commissioner Domer stated, that as the maker of the motion, he was not in favor of imposing another burden on the applicant. Chairman Pruett suggested that if the Commissioners want the driveways to change, that the motion should reflect that Staff work with applicant to reconsider a redesign of the driveway on Lot 2. Commissioner Bonina asked that both lots be reviewed. Mr. Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, stated that redesigning from the dais was not a good idea. An option was to have the applicant work with Staff to find a solution to both driveway issues, continue the project, or vote on what is in front of them. Commissioner Domer stated that he did not feel comfortable having the item come back for a further vote, nor did he want to impose any additional burden on the applicant to do a major redesign. Commissioner Smith verified with Chair Pruett that the conditions for the findings would be detailed after the vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, and Smith Commissioners Bonina and Pruett None None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Suggestions for Findin~s for Soecial Circumstance made by Commissioner Smith: Under Page 2-05: 1. The special circumstance is the size of the lot based on the fact that these are remnant parcels, unusually shaped, and it's an unusual pie-shaped parcel. Basically this is leftover property, it is not the way it was first designed, and so that affects the size. The shape is the remains of six lots, coming out with an unusually thin, pie-shaped parcel. Topography is ok. Location or surroundings: it backs up to a high freeway wall (not usually found behind a residential parcel). It also appears as an island, compared to the rest of the housing tract. 2. It does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, as other properties back up to the freeway wall. 3. These parcels are across the street from the rest of the tract. It is not contiguous to a row of houses that interrupts the scale and rhythm of the streetscape. Suggestions for Conditions of Approval: Commissioner Smith would like attention to be paid to the suggestion of moving the lot-line south, or any circumstance that allows for a full-length driveway. This would prevent cars from being parked on the street, and also to keep that wide front-yard at the curb, although it is not directly in front of the house, but is at the north end of the property. That would retain the large landscape area. And southerly, that would keep the 40' landscape area. She believes those are mitigating factors. Chairman Pruett suggested that there should be a condition for roll-up garage doors, so that it is easy access into the garage. The applicant needs to understand, as well, that the garage is for parking and not for storage, as there is no place else to park the applicant's cars other than the garage. (3) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1736-04, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-0005, ZONE CHANGE 1229-04, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 355-04, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3942-04, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1687 - THE OLSON COMPANY. A Proposal for a General Plan Amendment from Office Professional to Medium Density Residential (15-24 units per acre); a Zone Change from Office Professional (OP) to R-3; a Major Site Plan Review; and a Tentative Tract map to provide for the development of eighteen (18) 3-bedroom, 2-112 bath town homes, each with a two-car garage. Additionally, ten guest parking spaces are provided. A density 7 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 bonus is requested for this project. The site is located at the intersection of Manchester Place and Compton Avenue, including 206 N. Manchester Place. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1736-04 was prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. *Note ~ Commissioner Bonina abstained from discussion and voting on this item as his company had business dealings with this project. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced Christine Kelly, Contract Planner, to present the item. Ms. Kelly described the project as an l8-unit, 3-bedroom, 2 Yz bath townhome project, each with a two-car garage, and a total of five guest parking spaces. The City of Orange Redevelopment Agency currently owns the proposed site. The Olson Company is proceeding with this project as a result of their successful proposal in response to an Agency Request for Proposals. The original proposal from the Orange Redevelopment Agency requested 20 units, the Olson Company proposed 18 units in order to best meet the site constraints, as well as the OMC development standards. The project included a density bonus. Density bonuses are regulated by the California Government Code, and allow a density bonus of a minimum of20% for moderate-income condominiums, which are restricted as moderate for ten years. Additionally, a minimum of one additional development incentive shall be granted. In this instance, two concessions are provided. The first is from the OMC that states that when a development abuts a single-family zone, the maximum height of any building within seventy feet of the R-l zone is one story or 20 feet. The second concession is from the OMC, which requires a distance between principal structures of twenty-five feet, when there are 5 or more buildings on a site. The proposed architectural style of the development is Spanish Colonial, with a color palette of earth tones, consisting of brown, tan and red. Landscaping is to be distributed throughout the site with open space standards vastly exceeding the 250 square feet per unit, or 4,500 square feet required by code. A tot lot is located at the center rear of the site. Private open space is provided as private entry patios. Primary access for the site will be from Compton Avenue, with a secondary access in the northeast corner of the site along Manchester Place. Since Manchester Place is a one-way southbound street, this secondary access will allow only right turns in and right turns out. The project consists of five separate buildings, three buildings with four units each, and two with three units each. 8 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 The proposed land use serves as a transitional use between the single-family residential to the west and south, the Ponderosa Travel Trailer Park to the north and the Best Buy store to the east. Finally, the project will not only create a visual transition from the commercial to east to the residential to the west and south, but it also would serve to compliment the various architectural styles in the area. The residential to the west and south is predominantly stucco, with asphalt shingle roofs, while the Best Buy Is split face block and stucco. The intersections of Manchester/Compton and Manchester/Chapman are the two most likely intersections to be affected by the project. However, after careful review, it was determined that the addition ofthe trips related to this project does not have the potential to degrade traffic at either of these two key intersections. Both the Staff Review Committee and the Design Review Committee have recommended this project for approval to the Planning Commission. Conditions of approval required by DRC have been included as conditions of approval attached to the Draft Resolution. Additionally, this project was presented twice to property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius, by the developer. Staff believes that this project would be a positive addition to the Manchester/Compton location, and would serve as a positive transition between the commercial to the east and the higher density land use to the north in Anaheim, and the single family residential to the west and south. We recognize the need for affordable housing in the City of Orange, and that this project contributes towards meeting the City's affordable housing requirement. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the requested entitlements for the housing development as proposed. The required findings are detailed in the draft resolution. She noted that even though the Planning Commission has authority to approve the major Site Plan Review, the Density bonus, the Design Review and the Vesting Tentative Tract map, these items must be acted upon by the City Council in conjunction with its action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Kim Prijatel, VP Development for the project, gave an overview of the project. She noted that if the project timeline went as planned, they would assume a March 1, 2005 close of escrow, and then they would intend on starting immediately or as soon as their plans were approved. All 18 units would be built in one phase, and delivered in approximately December 2005 or January 2006. The Commissioners had the following questions or concerns: · Were the HOA dues factored into the housing cost affordability? Yes. . Is there a provision to note how often the trash is picked up? Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, stated that at this time it wasn't possible to predict the generation rates, but if it appeared that it needed to be picked up more than once a week, the City would 9 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 certainly do that and the rates would reflect this. At this point they believe that one dumpster would be sufficient for the entire proj ect. The public hearing was opened. Chair Pruett invited the public to speak. Ricardo Rosas, 3724 Compton Avenue - He congratulated the Olson Company for adding five additional parking spaces, because on-street parking was a large concern. He stated that he was neither for nor against this project, but was concerned about the traffic generated by the project, and the speed of the cars on the off-ramp at Manchester, noting many accidents in the area. He stated that he calculated that in the corridor between Harbor and the 57 Freeway and Garden Grove Freeway and Katella Boulevard, there was going to be 1, 224 condominiums and town homes and 1,057 apartments and that does not include the proposed additions to the Block at Orange. His question was if possibly through the Planning Commission or some other means that a stop-sign could be put at the corner to slow the traffic down coming through Compton Avenue. Mr. Rosas also noted that there was a small lot (belonging to Cal Trans) across the street from the proj ect ~ he wondered if this area could be made into a small parking lot (also adding a cross-walk) so that there was more parking in the area. He asked how the City was going to monitor the provision in The Olson Company's project that there be no on-street parking permits issued. Ms. Prijatel responded to Mr. Rosas's concerns. She stated that as far as she knew, if someone came into the City with a request for parking using the address of this proposed project, that they could not receive a parking permit. The Commissioners raised the following questions and concerns: · Is there anything in the CC&R 's that would limit the number of automobiles that an owner would be entitled to? Ms. Prijatel said that they can't limit the number of automobiles that someone has, but what they can do is limit the number of automobiles that they can park on this property. As far as using guest parking spaces for people living on the premises, that is absolutely prohibited in the CC&R's, and HOA's, from her experience, police that very strictly. . It might be interesting to have the HOA give each homeowner a Guest Parking Permit that would show the owner's name - that way if there were a reoccurring problem with an owner parking in guest parking, it would be very obvious who the offender is. The HOA typically comes up with their provisions on their own, they are given the tools initially to implement, but parking is usually something they're on top of. · On the parking issue, there is a Condition of Approval from the Police Department, what exactly was the rationale overall? The point is that there are 3-bedroom units with parents and children that grow and start driving cars, there's a 2-car garage, there's 10 guest parking spaces, yet we don't allow the residents to participate in on-street parking, and I'm assuming that if someone does park there they can get ticketed. Are we forcing them to park in the Best Buy area and traverse what can be a very dangerous road to get home at different hours of the night? This happens at single-family residences, as well, but is more prevalent at this type of community. Instead of being a definite provision, is on street 10 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 parking something that can be revisited in the future? Chair Pruett stated that anything could be revisited in the future, but is a very big concern with the neighbors. Ms. Roseberry stated that in the future, if parking ever became a really big issue, the residents could change the condition is through a Public Hearing, and that would give an opportunity for everyone to address their issues, pro and con, and it would be the Planning Commission that would take action on the Major Site Plan Review (which is what the condition is for). If the Planning Commission did decide to modify that condition, then the applicant would still have to go through the permit request process. . We are so careful about parking in the City. What was the reasoning behind limiting the on-street parking, when it is obvious that it is possible for these families to have 3-cars (mother, father, child, etc)? The parking was limited when UCI was using the parking lot, where overflow parking for Best Buy is now. And many of these cars were beginning to park in the neighborhood. That has gone away, but the issue of parking has not - the neighbors are very concerned about the issue of parking being generated by this project in their neighborhood and they do not want that impact. . What if there was some moderate impact, which would perhaps give the HOA an opportunity to go through a full-on public hearing? You would have to go through a public hearing regardless, because it's changing an existing condition. There was discussion amongst the Commissioners, the Assistant City Attorney, and the Assistant City Engineer regarding the issue of on-street parking. Commissioner Domer's concern was the wording in the document that read "The residential units will not be permitted to participate in the on street parking program now or in the future" - which he felt might make it seem like the project's property owner was precluded from challenging this. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that it could be resolved by eliminating the phrase "now or in the future", and simply have it read "The residential units will not be permitted to participate in the on street parking program." . Are there speed bumps on the interior roadway? Mr. Hohnbaum stated that had been reviewed, the project had many curved areas, and that would most probably preclude the need for speed bumps. If the HOA feels that speed control is necessary, they have the right to add the speed bumps at a later date. . Do the units have sprinkler systems for fire prevention ? Yes. Chair Pruett stated that he'd like Mr. Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, to discuss Mr. Rosas' earlier question about whether a stop sign could be put on the street. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that approximately one year ago, the issue of a four-way stop sign was brought before the Traffic Commission. Currently, today, there is a two-way stop on Compton; Manchester is allowed to flow. The request is for a four-way stop, which would cause Manchester in the southbound direction to stop, as well as Manchester in the northbound direction before it would make that left- hand turn onto Compton. A review was done of the traffic counts about a year ago, as well as a review of the accident history, and what was found was that overall it does not meet the City's warrant for a four-way stop. The warrants require that both in the a.m. and the p.m. the ratio of traffic from the main road to the side street does not exceed 3: 1 - and he pointed out that in the a.m. the ratio is 14:5. There's quite a bit of traffic on Manchester obviously heading southbound, very little traffic coming out on Compton. In the p.m. it is a completely different situation - on Manchester there are 70+ vehicles in the peak hour of the p.m., and there's actually 38 on 11 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Manchester ~ so the ratio there is 1 :8. They both have to meet the 3:1 standard, and there is quite a bit of discrepancy between the two. In addition, the overall traffic entering the intersection (in order to qualify for a four-way stop) should be at least 250 both a.m. and p.m.; in the a.m. there's 270, and in the p.m. there's only 70. So it doesn't meet the requirements. There is only one attributable accident recorded at this intersection in the last five years (in 2003), someone ran the stop sign and was hit by a southbound vehicle. The Traffic Commission denied the request for the stop sign a year ago. Since that time, the traffic engineers indicated that if the neighbors wished to have the City reconsider a four-way stop sign at this location, they felt it would be prudent to restudy the area. Chair Pruett felt it was prudent to do so, as the configuration of the traffic flow caused by this new project is one that is going to put quite a lot of traffic through that intersection. Chair Pruett stated to the audience that if the neighbors wanted to have a traffic study done to look at placing a four- way stop sign at the intersection, a letter should be written to the Traffic Engineer using the address here at the City (300 E. Chapman) and they will follow through on that and provide a response to the request as to the findings. Additionally, Chair Pruett addressed the concern about the speed of the cars on Manchester. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that it was a matter of enforcement, and Chair Pruett also noted that it was on the border of both Anaheim and Orange, and the issues would be addressed through enforcement and the City Engineer working with the City of Anaheim. Chair Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. 40-04 recommending to the City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1736-04, General Plan Amendment No. 2004-0005, Zone Change No. 1229-04, Major Site Plan Review No. 355-04 (including a density bonus), Design Review Committee No. 3942-04, and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 16787. This motion would also include correcting in the resolution the numbering sequence which is incorrect, and removing the phrase "now or in the future" from Condition of Approval No. 47, including the revision dated November 15, 2004 to Condition No.3. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Smith extended her compliments to the Redevelopment Agency for the RFP on this project, and to The Olson Company for presenting a quality project and for their responsiveness in doubling the guest parking on the project. Commissioner Domer extended his appreciation to City Staff for this project, because it is one of the first of its type in the City, which will be a benefit to that area. Chair Pruett seconded these comments, and offered compliments to the public that vigorously participated in this project, noting that it was very much needed and appreciated, and hopes they realize the value brought to the project through their participation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Commissioner Bonina None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2514-04 - PRP WINE INTERNATIONAL A proposal to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit No. 2218-98 from an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) license to an 12 Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. The site is located at 2326 North Batavia Street, Unit 11 O. NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item, noting that in addition to the above description, the applicant was asking to add liqueurs to their stock, which causes the change from the beer and wine license to the general liquor license. Staff is recommending approval to the amendment of the C.U.P., and call attention to one particular condition. That would be for the license to remain for distribution purposes only, and not be transferred for a basic liquor license/liquor store. Chair Pruett invited the applicant to comment on the proposal. Mike O'Connor, 227 Thrush Circle, and noted the address of the property is 2326 North Batavia Street in Orange. He noted that he agreed with the project description given by Ms. Roseberry. The Commissioners had the following questions or concerns: . What is entailed with distribution, what does that mean? We have a group of sales people that go to people's homes and do wine tastings, and the location is strictly for distribution purposes where we have a van that goes through different areas of the community. . I notice that in the Conditions of Approval, there are no cash transactions allowed on site, and that's to prevent it from being a license for a liquor store. Yes, it is not the type of establishment where people come and visit and make transactions there. . Commissioner Domer stated that the applicant's Internet site provided a good deal of information for him and enabled him to make a more informed decision. Commissioner Smith moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 39-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2514-04. It was seconded by Commissioner Domer. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Pruett moved to adjourn to the next meeting of December 6, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None 13 Planning Commission ABSENT: None November 15,2004 MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 14