Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - May 3 APPROVED MINUTES May 3, 2004 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: INRE: IN RE: (1) Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None. Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Chris Carnes, Senior Planner Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2004. Commissioner Domer moved to approve the minutes from the April 5, 2004, meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (2) Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED VARIANCE NO. 2127~03 - VASQUEZ RESIDENCE A proposal to consolidate six (6) vacant remnant Cal-Trans parcels totaling 11,680 sq. ft. in area, into two (2) residential parcels with 6,121 sq. ft. and 5, 547 sq. ft. in area. 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, and minimum 10ft. rear yard setback and minimum useable open space. The six parcels are located adjacent to and east of the Newport 55 Freeway, south of Dana Avenue, and west of Sacramento Street. APPROVED Planning Commission May 3, 2004 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) and Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in land Use Limitations). The item was introduced by Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager. She noted that staff is recommending denial on this project. There are two findings that have to be made for the Variance - the first finding talks about special circumstances and that strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties; and the second finding is that the Variance granted is subject to conditions which will assure that the authorized adjustment will not constitute special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. The applicant is requesting to have the Planning Commission approve a Variance to create a substandard lot (a lot which is less than 6,000 sq. ft., in order to create two parcels instead of one). The proposal is for the Variance, it is not for the consolidation of the lots. Should the Variance move forward, the applicant is required to submit a parcel map in order to consolidate the six lots and create two new lots. This proposal is simply for the Variance. Ms. Roseberry requested that Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz speak to the findings that are required for this project to be approved by the Planning Commission, and she noted the staff report indicated these findings could not be made. Mr. Sheatz stated that the findings are required by State Law, Government Code Section 65906. The City must be able to prove the two findings in order to be able to approve a Variance. This case is unique by the way that it has come to the Planning Commission. There currently are six existing parcels and the applicant is trying to gauge whether this will be approved prior to the consolidation of the parcels. The two parcels do not exist yet. Mr. Sheatz advised the Commissioners that the action they would take in approving the Variance would be to create substandard parcels. Chairman Pruett asked Mr. Sheatz for clarification on the findings - he asked whether or not the government code related to special circumstances where the City or State caused, through some action or deed, a piece of property to be put into a special circumstance; and if the Planning Commission takes the action to adopt the Variance, the Planning Commission would, in fact, create the special circumstance for the property. Mr. Sheatz concurred with this. Mr. Sheatz felt that ideally all of the issues should be brought forth together (i.e., the variance, the parcel map, the consolidation of the separate parcels, etc.). He said he understood why it had evolved as it had, because it is a very expensive process, and the applicant wanted to know prior to consolidating the parcels whether or not they could even build the two houses on what would be substandard lots. However, because there were no official parcel maps, it would be impossible to ensure that the setbacks and variances were exactly as they were being proposed. Ms. Roseberry further explained how this Variance request came forward. When the parcels came up for bid from CalTrans, there were numerous questions coming into the department regarding the property. Based upon what the zoning calls for in the lot size, the setbacks, etc., everyone was 2 APPROVED Planning Commission May 3, 2004 being told there could be one house plus an accessory second unit on the site. When this applicant came forward and stated that he wanted to propose splitting the parcel, asking for Variances, etc., he was told that it would be difficult to make the findings to approve that, and it was suggested to him to submit for the Variance first due to the concern for the cost of creating the map. Chairman Pruett stated that he felt there were really two issues before the Planning Commission when they were asked to talk about special circumstances and granting a Variance. When there is a piece of property where the appropriate zoning is for a single family residence, and the request is to split it and make one a substandard lot - he questioned where are the special conditions that state that you need to do that? Mr. Sheatz noted that the special circumstance for not making the finding could also be "prior knowledge" - that the applicant knew prior to purchasing the property that it was only zoned for one single-family residence. Mr. Sheatz said that the Commissioners did not have to grant the Variance based simply on the fact that these are odd-sized parcels. Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification from Ms. Roseberry on whether the applicant would have had to have gone through the Staff Review Committee and the Design Review Committee had they gone the alternative route and done a parcel map first and then asked for a Variance. Ms. Roseberry stated that it did, indeed, go through the Staff Review Committee (it would not have to go through the Design Review Committee), but it would have not changed the analysis if the parcel map turned out to be as it is currently depicted. Ms. Roseberry further clarified the process. Once an application is received it is assigned to a planner. The planner will review the project and begin initial analysis and distribute it to members of the Staff Review Committee (an internal meeting that does not include the applicant), and together the Staff Review Committee will discuss a recommendation. In this case they recommended the project be denied because of the various reasons that were discussed in the resolution. Mr. Bonina asked if this had been communicated to the applicant (the answer was yes) and noted that the applicant had decided to move forward to the Planning Commission anyway. Commissioner Smith commented that she had driven through the neighborhood where this project was proposed, and saw several similarly-shaped lots that could be impacted by whatever the Planning Commission decides to do, therefore she had some serious concerns about this project. Commissioner Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry if there was some level of overlay in the neighborhood that restricted the design from being a two-story. The answer was no, there was not any restriction. Commissioner Smith asked what the average lot size was in the neighborhood (the answer was 6,000 sq. ft.) and she said that 11,680 sq. ft. (the combined size of the six existing parcels) would be an overly large lot for the neighborhood, and especially large for just one dwelling. Commissioner Domer asked about the addressing of the property, as it regards to the 100-foot lot length. Ms. Roseberry replied that generally the front of the property is considered the narrowest part of the parcel. It has not been reviewed for this, as yet, however. Mr. Domer also noted that the floor area ratio for anything larger than a 10,000 sq. ft. lot would be .50 - therefore the maximum building area (which includes garages and accessory structures) would be 5,840 sq. ft. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission May 3, 2004 The public hearing was opened. Chairman Pruett invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Aaron Johannsen (8795 Brookdale Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92844) spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Daniel Vasquez. He said that when the applicant came to him originally with the project, his desire was to put two houses on this site. Mr. Johannsen said that he and Mr. Vasquez understood the process, and knew that this was not going to be an easy problem to overcome. He felt that the shape was an important factor, and one, which should be considered; despite the earlier comments he had heard from the staff and Commissioners. He thought the smaller parcel was the one that concerned him the most. He also noted that there was a very high sound wall at the back of the property which should be noted. If there were just one house on the lot, that would create so much extra landscape which could become a problem in the future. The Commissioners asked the following questions: . Was Mr. Johannsen the architect of the project? No, he was the designer. . Did Mr. Vasquez plan to live on the property? Yes, and he has relatives that he would like to move into the second residence, and if they went with only one house it did not fit the needs of his family. . Has the applicant spoken to the neighbors? One or two neighbors were spoken to along Sacramento. What was their concern? They were concerned about any use other than residential. . You're seeking a Variance for the backyard (5.7 vs. 10 feet), did you consider a front-yard Variance on the second house so it could be moved up closer to the street so there was more room behind the house? He felt it was important to stay within the coded 20-foot setback. . You are not a licensed architect, yet your drawings indicate that you're doing general architectural services? Yes, there is an architect that he works with (Mr. P. Gonzales). Does he review the plans. Yes. I work with Mr. Gonzales on a fee-basis for architectural reviews. In looking at the drawings, it implies that architectural services have been provided, when in fact it is really designer services that have been provided, not architectural services as you are not a licensed architect. There is concern as to how this project is being represented and how the designer is representing himself to the client. No, the client is well aware, and it is within the pervue of California Civil Code. . The proposed Lot 1 refers to the height ofthe building (two stories) as 27 feet, and then it says maximum floor is 3,672, useable open space provided 3,924 sq. ft., floor area proposed as 1994 sq. ft/3-bedroom, 2-car. What does maximum floor area of 3,672 refer to, because it does not say sq. ft after it, what is that indicating? If I recall, that was based on the maximum build for a lot of that size. Okay, so that would be the FAR, the Floor Area Ratio? Yes. Does the 1,994 sq. ft. include the garage? No. So an additional 400 sq. ft. should be added onto the 1,994 sq. ft. And the same must be done for the second property. This is not citing any omission on the part of the designer, this is just to get an idea of the size of the structure. 4 APPROVED Planning Commission May 3, 2004 . Commissioner Brandman asked, if one house was built on this property, what is the maximum size it could be? Maximum would be 50% of the lot. That contains the principle residence, accessory structure, and garage. That would be 5,840 sq. ft. of building. It was also mentioned that with the odd shape of this lot, it's questionable if the lot could accommodate a 5,000 sq. ft. structure with setback requirements and everything else. The accessory second unit's square footage would be included in the maximum 5,840 sq.ft . What is the hardship that indicates the need to split this property into two lots? A special circumstance was created when they placed the freeway in the exact location that they did, with reference to these six lots. That hardship was not created for this property owner. This property owner, the applicant, purchased the property with the full understanding from the City, that it was only for a single-family residence (plus a secondary accessory structure). There is no justification or finding that states the need to create a substandard lot. The City does not want to create a substandard lot. The City has not seen any designs yet for a single family home. In consolidating the 6 lots into one lot, it has enough room for a single-family home of some size. There is not a necessity for a Variance to create the lot itself; it's created with 11,000 + sq. ft. . Question asked if the applicant understood that staff has recommended the denial and if the Commission upholds that denial the applicant has the choice whether to go to Council. Also asked about the primary lot number 1 being for the Vasquez's and lot number 2 being for family. Has the applicant considered if it is denied would a one lot, single family, 6/7- bedroom structure be considered to facilitate the families needs? If this is the only other option verses selling - would that be the applicant's next step? That issue has not come up. He would have to ask the applicant. The applicant can do one of two things, appeal to City Councilor redesign. . There is a feeling from some Commissioners that this lot, as one lot, is too big for the neighborhood. The size of house that would be supported on this size of a lot would also be too large. It's not an outstanding location for a 4,000 sq. ft. house against a IS-foot sound wall. The size and shape of the land is quite obviously a left over parcel. In regards to the discussion that the topography or the geography of the land does not create a special circumstance but rather the Variance does, because it's a very unusually shaped parcel. A special circumstance should be considered because it's not one that was carved out in a planned development. There are many lots in Orange that are less than 6,000 sq. ft. that have nice projects including some in Old Towne. . Commissioner Domer stated the only acceptable development is to have two lots and to have two units. It's a special circumstance that the applicant did not own it at the time the freeway came through and they are left with remnants. Second dwelling units should not be an issue. Every house in that neighborhood has the ability to do a 2nd accessory unit if it fits. Commissioner Domer would like to see plans brought back in having the house moved up five feet. Maybe have the plans go back through Design Review and show a larger back yard area. . Question to staff: In the development of this property (11,000 sq. ft.) with one single residence, and with the opportunity to put in a secondary residence, has the City experienced a variance on the size of the secondary residence, and if so, historically how is it been dealt with? There is not a lot of history with that because it's only been in place since July, but the City would not entertain a variance for the size of the second unit. Mr. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission May 3, 2004 Sheatz added the size drives the definition of accessory unit. You can't get a variance from the definition in the Zoning Ordinance. . Chair Pruett, in looking at the issue of the property and in creating a special circumstance, and stated it's very important to realize from a process standpoint, that the special circumstance has not been created. CalTrans who sold it to a property owner with a full understanding that it was a single-family lot created the special circumstance. From that point forward there is no special circumstance. The issue of having good reason to subdivide this into two lots with one of them being a substandard lot has not been made. The second issue is an 11,000 sq. ft. lot and the potential of having a 5,000 sq. ft. home on it. The likelihood of that is somewhat remote. When you look at it in the context of the existing neighborhood, all of the homes surrounding it are all single story. With an 11,000 sq. ft. lot whatever you put on it could be a single-story, which would be more in conformance with the neighborhood than two two-story homes. If someone has an unusually shaped lot, and it's going to be subdivided because of that into one, with a substandard lot, this would be a very dangerous precedent being set. There is nothing to back this special consideration other than size and the topography of the lot. In conformity with the neighborhood itself, a single family, single story unit being built on this property would be the best use of the property. . Commissioner Domer wanted confirmation from Mr. Sheatz in regards to special circumstance applying to the applicant. Does it apply to the applicant or to the property? Gary Sheatz wanted to make sure everyone was very clear on exactly what was being looked at. The focus should be the 6 parcels. It is applicable to the property (which is the 6 parcels and not the ownership). . Commissioner Smith stated that the properties have possibilities but also limitations. There is nothing that prevents a two-story house being built on the property as long as it meets the standards. She also questioned if the In-Fill Guidelines had been approved through Council yet. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry answered yes, they have been through, but did not know if it had hit the effective date yet. Community Development Director, Alice Angus answered by saying it was a two-part answer. The Guidelines were adopted by Resolution about a month ago, so they are in place. The Ordinance that puts the process in place to require new, residential singlefamily to go through Design Review had a second reading last week and becomes effective in 30 days. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Domer moved to have this application continued to a later date to allow findings to be made in support of the applicant as to the application and to also have the application further reviewed by staff and the DRC. This is in the Design Guidelines that will be in place, but he would actually like to see this go forward with DRC review. He thinks they can add a lot to the process and assist in two homes being situated in this location. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Bonina proposed a Substitute Motion, to continue this item so that the project would go through preparation of a defined parcel map prior to submitting the proposal. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. Commissioner Domer asked why didn't they go the parcel map route and what is the cost of this process? Ms. Roseberry re-visited the process. There 6 APPROVED Planning Commission May 3, 2004 was a lengthy discussion regarding the need for a parcel map to be done. It is up to the applicant how many lots are put on the parcel map based on the discussion of the Commission. Chair Pruett also stated that it's very important the applicant understand that by the Commission asking for a parcel map to come back with the application, it does not guarantee anything. The action of continuing this issue and asking the applicant to come back with a parcel map has no pre- conceived notion on the part of the Commission. Commissioner Brandman stated that she would support this alternate motion, and stated that she found there was a need to get the parcel maps prior to proceeding. Motion to continue this item until after parcel maps are drawn: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett and Smith Commissioner Domer None None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Brandman motioned to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, May 17, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonina. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 7