Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - June 7 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange June 7, 2004 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Chairman Pruett recognized the June 5, 2004 passing of President Ronald W. Reagan, 4(jh President of the United States, with a moment ofsilence, in honor of him and the fine work he has done for this country. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: None. (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 19,2004. Commissioners Bonina and Brandman were absent at the meeting of April 19, 2004, and abstained from voting on this item. Commissioner Domer moved to approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2004, regular meeting; it was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman None MOTION CARRIED APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2490-03, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 312-03, VARIANCE NO. 2141-04, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1726-03 - POMEROY IV. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow two-story construction within the Old Towne Orange Historic District for a new two-story, detached, 640 sq. ft. accessory second unit over a two-car garage/workshop. The request additionally includes a Variance for rear yard setback. The site is located at 230 N. Grand Street. This item was continued from the April 19, 2004, meeting. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1726-03 was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The item was introduced by Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager. She noted that, as a point of clarification, this was not a continued hearing, but a continued item. The Administrative Adjustment that was originally proposed is now Variance 2141-04, and therefore she would be asking the Chairman to actually open the public hearing. Ms. Roseberry noted that Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner on the project, was in attendance and would be happy to give a more thorough presentation. Commissioner Bonina stated that he would appreciate hearing the report. Daniel Ryan stated that the Planning Commission continued this item from the April 19, 2004, meeting so that the applicant could address building massing, usable open space, privacy, parking, and circulation issues in the development of the accessory second unit. A previous request for an Administrative Adjustment to allow for a building to be within 8 feet of the rear property line has been changed to a Request for Variance. The revised plans were submitted May 26, 2004, the massing and height of the accessory second unit has been reduced, it addressed the concerns expressed at the public hearing. The applicant's Request for Variance is to permit a garage portion to be within 6 inches of the rear property line, have the habitable second floor be within 10 feet of the rear property line, and to allow 11 '6" roof height for a portion of the rear shed roof of the garage to be within 10 feet of the rear property line. It has a slight slope on the rear part of the roof of the garage. The applicant is willing to change that so that it will fit within the 10 feet maximum height of the rear property line. Daniel Ryan summarized the changes from the previous proposal to this one: the unit has been reduced in size from 640 sq. feet to 525 sq. feet. The number of baths and bedrooms has been reduced from 2 bedrooms and 2 baths, to 1 bedroom and 2 baths. The first floor of the accessory structure has enclosed parking for two cars and a 240 sq. ft. workshop. It has one open parking space provided for the accessory second unit. The height of the existing residence is approximately 16'6" to the ridge of the roof, and the proposed accessory second unit is 23 feet to the ridge (this is about a foot lower than the original proposal). The north side yard setback still remains at 5 feet, while the south side yard has increased from 5' to 10'. The rear-yard setback, the garage portion only, has been reduced from 8' to 6" to the rear property line for the new variance. Other requested modifications from the Planning Commission include providing 2 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 adequate and usable open space and storage area for the residents and tenants on the property. This was a key issue. The total amount of usable open space has increased from 704 sq. ft. to 944 sq. ft. New storage space totaling 924 cu. ft. has been designed to the garage and accessory unit. Code requires 120 cu. ft. per unit. They have additional storage space located to the side of the first floor and in the garage itself. A trellis-covered patio has been added in the area between the residence and the garage. The 10' shared driveway will still be maintained. Prior to this, the project had an Administrative Adjustment request for the rear back-up area - this is no longer requested, they are providing the full 25' back-up area. Landscaping has been revised to include landscape pavers and a grass strip, which is typical of the Old Towne driveways. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . If the accessory second unit is within 6 inches of the rear property line, will the eaves hang over into the other property owner's property? We understand that the eave portion on the rear portion of the garage will be clipped. It will not be extending over the property line. . What about the water run-off? The letter received by the Planning Commission from the other property owner (the Bellows), noted concern about water run-off It is in the Planning Commission's purview to ensure that the water course will not be changed. If it is changed, it will run off so that it does not run onto other property. . In the event that there was water run-off after the property was built, what recourse would the other property owner's have? Well, we've had that situation before, and what we've found that after a project is built sometimes people will change the landscaping and so forth. You go back to the original plan and straighten it out with the property owner, it is their duty to correct that because they changed the grade. . There is mention of a lattice structure between the two properties, and it is not noted in the Conditions of Approval. That is correct. If this moves forward, we should add it to the Conditions of Approval. It is possible to have sound attenuated through a trellis with plants on it? It does help slightly. . Are we doing anything to make the lighted monument number signs any more sensitive to the darkness of the neighborhood. It is an area that needs some help. It might present a problem as far as cars entering and exiting. They do diminish the historic look of the property, but when you want the paramedics there, it's important. . Is guttering allowed in Old Towne? People have applied and been given clearance to have them. Depends upon the style of the house. The public hearing was opened. Leason Pomeroy, III, 158 N. Glassell Street, Orange - the applicant noted that the project was redesigned so that it would address the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission. Further, regarding privacy, the plans were redesigned to delete windows at the rear of the accessory second unit, as well as removing the outdoor deck. The new unit does have a gutter, and there is no water run-off onto the adjacent property expected. Bob Tunstall, neighbor, 258 N. Grand, Orange - stated he was very happy with the changes. The primary concern was the setback issue, and that has been addressed. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 Janet Crenshaw, OTP A, 464 N. Shaffer, Orange - allowing a 6" setback is an outrageous precedent. The building still looks massive from the front. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Domer complimented the Pomeroys on how they had gone back and met with neighbors. He also appreciated the neighbors' willingness to work together on this. The following modifications to the Conditions of Approval were stated: (1) Applicant to work with staff & neighbors to the south regarding trellis issue. (2) Staff and applicant to work together to visit rear fencing issue - two suggestions were made, one would turn 6" property over to rear neighbor and fence would be directly at end of rear accessory unit, thus alleviating the need for the applicant to be in neighbor's yard to clear out 6" setback area. (3) Reinforce the garage walls with concrete wainscot. Commissioner Domer moved to adopt Resolution PC No. 18-04 approving Negative Declaration No. 1726-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2490-03, Minor Site Plan Review No. 312-03, Variance No. 2141-04, and Design Review Committee No. 3881-03. Commissioner Brandman seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED Chairman Pruett called for a 10-minute break from 8:20 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2489-03 - LIBERTY CHRISTIAN CENTER AND NOAH'S ARK LEARNING CENTER (DANIEL HERNANDEZANDJENNYHERNANDE~ A proposal to allow the establishment of a church and preschool/daycare facility in an M-2 (Industrial District) zone. The site is located at 2248 N. Batavia Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager, introduced the item. Commissioner Bonina asked that there be further description of the parking and ingress/egress as well as the fire escape ladder, which was not mentioned in the fire inspection report. Regarding the parking, Chairman Pruett 4 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 stated that the plan showed the left-side driveway and it is basically parking on both sides with a single direction, leading into the property. What the applicant is proposing to do is change that to two directions, and in doing that the parking spaces would have to be removed along the left side of the property. Commissioner Bonina stated that he saw a property line on the site plan that literally divides the properties at the center of the driveway, and his question was is that property line accurate? Ms. Roseberry stated that there had been no lot line adjustment requested. The public hearing was opened. Daniel M. Aguirre, building designer, 382 S. Terri Lane, Orange - Mr. Aguirre is representing the applicants, Dan and Jenny Hernandez. He addressed Commissioner Bonina's issue regarding the fire escape ladder. The building has a small mezzanine (meeting room) and by law, the rooms have to have two fire escapes. There is a wide staircase within the building, and the spiral fire escape ladder is just a back up to be used in case of emergency. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Will the fire escape be staying and is it in good repair? It will be staying and it appears to be in good mechanical condition. Of course, prior to occupancy, the fire department will also be inspecting it. . What is the situation with the parking on the left-hand side of the building? The applicant has a letter from the owner of the property (it is the same for both) stating that the lease of the property includes that driveway. They apparently had used it in the past, and upon the approval of the project, that area will be restriped. The city is requiring that the parking be at a 90-degree angle, so it will be restriped. In the future, once the restriping takes place, there is room for the south drive to allow entry and exit and there will be signs that state that. On the north side, it will strictly be just an exit, and there will also be a sign there, as well. . Could you please further explain the drop-off area for the children, as well as where the play area is that you've identified on the site plan and how is that secure, in terms of the balance of the site. What type of perimeter walls will there be, given the adjacent uses (large trucks moving on and off the property)? Entrance to the property is from the south side, and you go around the horseshoe and drop the children off on the north side. Further, on the north side of the building, there will be a ramp (noted on the drawings) for the drop off of the children (at a 90 degree angle to the handicap ramp on the east side). There is a four-foot block wall fence that divides the patio area there from the driveway area. . Where is the secure area for the children? We show on the plans (on the east side of the structure) a 6' tubular fence that is going to sit back approximately 34' from the curb. . Again, with the high number of trucks coming and going from the area, there needs to be a requirement of pilasters in front to protect children from vehicles on the street. . Will there be staff there to receive the children so the parents do not have to get out of the car? Yes, it is their practice that they have a monitor out front (she has a whistle). . Regarding the ingress/egress on the asphalt driveway on the southerly side, which is south of the property line for that property, you indicate that you have a letter, which is an 5 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 agreement that says that you can use that property. Yes. But it is not a grant of an easement, it sounds more like a letter of agreement, is that correct? Yes. The concern is that when you look at page 3-11 of the staff report, it shows the adjoining properties, that driveway is ingress and egress to the adjacent property (2200 Batavia Street), which is Consolidated Freightway. By configuring the driveway this way, it appears that we are landlocking Consolidated Freightway? Consolidated Freightway has entry to their property on the southerly side of their property, there is a wide gate allowing entry. It is their main employee/trucking entry. Chairman Pruett stated that he needed to ensure that the legal issue surrounding this be resolved to the satisfaction of the city or he questioned whether the Planning Commission could not take action. Ms. Roseberry stated that staff did not have on record any type of shared agreement or a lot line adjustment requested. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated that in order for the applicant to access the property and its improvements, they would need a formal easement from the adjacent property owner. If the other property is ever sold, that would block the access that Consolidated Freightway is now using. So, legally, they can provide an easement, but this property through that easement shouldn't be allowed to block it permanently. That could also mean that if the property is ever sold, you could see trucks going in and out of the joint-use driveway where the children will be. So this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Chairman Pruett told the applicant, that based upon the discussion regarding ingress/egress and legal easement rights to the property, the item would have to be continued to another meeting until these issues are resolved. He also noted that they would not close the public hearing, in case there were additional people that would like to speak to the issue at the next meeting. Also, he noted that the commissioners, independently, would be addressing some of their concerns for the record, and he wanted the applicant to understand that they were the views of that commissioner not necessarily the views of the Planning Commission, because there would be no action taken on the items or the issues/concerns. They are just issues for the applicant to consider as this project moves forward. Mr. Aguirre noted that there was one issue that the applicants were very concerned about, and it was Item 6 on Page 3 of the Staff Report. According to Chuck Lau, there was an issue that had been voted on by the commission, in reference to the Transportation System Improvement Program fees. There are two fees that can be paid, if this is approved before the end of the month. The fee would be $4,000. If the applicant waits until after the 28th of June, the fee would increase to $33,000 or $55,000. Therefore, Mr. Aguirre wondered that if this was going to be delayed, is there a way that the applicant could pay the lower fee? Roger Hohnbaum answered that this category of use has actually gone up significantly. They are allowing the interim projects that are coming before the Planning Commission now to pay at the current rate, and ifthe project is denied the money would be refunded back to them. He stated they would allow that payment to be paid in advance. Chairman Pruett stated that the applicant should definitely discuss this with staff to ensure that their payment is put through in time. The Planning Commissioners shared the following concerns and thoughts with the applicants, so they could consider these issues prior to returning for the continued item. 6 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 . There should be a requirement for pilasters, etc., in the front of the school to ensure that the children are safe, as this is a heavily trafficked street. (Chairman Pruett noted that Condition 5 of the conditions of approval does call for the installation of metal bollards along the front playground area to protect the children). It would be good to review with staff whether these measures are adequate - it may be that additional bollards are required across the front or near the handicapped parking area, etc., but are definitely required in front of the play area. . Drop-off of children has been explained if children are dropped off at the area where the monitor will be waiting before school. Please explain further how a child would enter the school if their parent parks and walks them in. It has been a requirement in the past with other schools, and should also be with this school, to provide a Pick-Up and Drop Off Plan that includes map, pictures and narratives; this includes a document that will go to the parents, showing that the applicant agrees that they will notify each parent. The other schools in the area that could provide assistance on this were suggested: 8t. John's Lutheran, Holy Family, Orange Lutheran High School, St. Paul's all have plans that they would probably be happy to share with the applicant. . 8ignage is mentioned in the Conditions of Approval (#7), but it doesn't mention that the signage should be approved by the City of Orange's Design Review Committee (DRC), so ensure that you understand that any signage that goes up must be approved through the DRC. This should be added to the conditions. . Trash receptacle could use a front door or a front cover (as you see at restaurant's and grocery stores around town) to improve the look of the property, and will keep others out of your trash. . Landscape plan does not appear to be addressed in document, but property has a lot of dead foliage and grass, and it all needs to be brought up to code. . Need to ensure that fire escape cannot be accessed from below (to prevent theft or damage to the building), and that fire sprinklers and egress are covered. . County of Orange has a Childcare Coordinator based at Social Services Department (her name is Ann Broussard), and she may have additional resources that may help you. Commissioner Domer volunteered to get the number of this department for the applicant. . There is very little perimeter lighting shown on the plans. This should be further addressed. Commissioner Brandman moved to continue the item until the meeting of July 7, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED 7 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2503-04 - AMERICAN FAMILY LIVING A proposal to use, on weekends and evenings, the grounds to an office building for weddings and receptions. The proposal includes providing some required parking off-site. The site is located at 1774 N. Glassell Street. NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-c, (New Conversion or conversion of Small Structures). The item was introduced by Chris Carnes, Senior Planner. The applicant is planning to utilize the property for weekend and evening (after 6:00 p.m.) weddings and receptions. The weddings are conducted on the patio area to the south of the office building. A large tent structure is used for the receptions. The wedding parties may range in size from 80 - 250 people. The applicant is proposing to provide the majority of the parking for the wedding parties in off-site parking lots (and a list of these is included in the staff report). He provided letters from businesses agreeing to the shared use of parking facilities. There is disagreement, with the property owners at 1800 Glassell (an adjacent property), over the rights granted in an easement for ingress/egress and parking for the applicant's business. The Commissioners voiced the following issues/concerns: . This item is for a Conditional Use Permit that would stay with the property, and is based upon parking that is revocable. If the parking is revoked, then the conditions ofthe C.U.P. are not being met. Perhaps a way to address this is through an annual review or the issue of complaint. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz further explained that it is difficult to revoke the entitlement of a Conditional Use Permit (after the applicant has relied on this and invested in this). There would certainly be grounds for removal or revocation of the C. UP. if the parking requirements are not met, and perhaps this could be further made clear in the Conditions of Approval through an annual review. . Are there any criteria that parking needs to provided at a specific distance from the property? Alice Angus, Community Development Director, explained that, per Code, parking needs to be provided within "reasonable proximity. " . In the staff review (page 4-22), there is a review of an easement (by a local law firm and addressed to Jean C. Miskam, the owner of the adjacent property) to allow American Family Living the right to park in the adjacent parking lot and the right to ingress/egress to their own property. The letter states that a permanent irrevocable easement was granted with the right to utilize the driveways and park in the parking areas located on the Parcel 2 Property. This item was reviewed by Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz, who states that he has also reviewed the easement, and that the letter somewhat overstates the rights of the easement - "permanent and irrevocable" is not found in the language of the easement. The word "in perpetuity" is, and "in perpetuity" as it relates to an easement is that an easement 8 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 can be extinguished if the reason for the easement goes away, then the easement can go away with it. The problem that surfaces here is that the reasons for the easement are never clearly stated. Mr. Sheatz stated that he wanted to make the Planning Commissioners aware that there is possibly a private property dispute here, and these facts should be considered when making their decision. The bottom line, as it exists today, is that the applicant does have some rights to the northern parcel - what those rights are specifically are not going to be defined by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened. Jene Wilson, Director, American Family Living, 1744 N. Glassell Street, Orange. The applicant gave a background on how the business was founded, and how he would like to expand the use of the property for weddings and public events. He explained that he had a stronger relationship with the next door neighbor, George Miscam, when Mr. Miscam was still alive, and that is how he obtained the easement for the right to use the property for ingress/egress and parking. He noted that the Miscams, the owners of the property at 1800 Glassell (where the dispute for ingress/egress and parking now exists) have put up a gate with a lock on it. Jerry Jones, 1804 Woodside, Orange. Mr. Jones provides the weddings at American Family Living. He explained how the operation worked, and how they provided shuttle service to the guests between the parking areas off-site. They have 4-5 vans that are used. He explained that he was asked by the Miscam Family (the owners of the property next door at 1800 Glassell) not to park on their property, and he has complied with that request. Jean Stewart, 41558 Grandview Drive, Murrieta. She is the current co-owner and daughter of the former owner, George Miscam. She noted that her father bought the property at 1800 Glassell in the early 1970's. She stated that former owners of the adjacent property had requested the ingress/egress from the Miscam's property in order to access four parking spaces in the back of the adjacent owner's property (currently American Family Living). Over time, the four parking spaces were converted to a patio, and in effect, American Family Living has blocked their own parking spaces. She stated that her father never agreed to parking, but did not want his business used for parking for weddings and wanted his business locked at night. Ken Miscam, 42360 Big Street, Murrieta. He is the current co-owner and son of the former owner, George Miscam. The Miscam family noted that they are trying to sell their property, and that this parking issue will impact the sale of their property. The public hearing was closed. American Family Living is currently conducting business under a Temporary Use Permit. The Commissioners felt that it was not good stewardship to approve a Conditional Use Permit when there are no parking spaces on the property, and there are issues that still need to be cleared up. The Commissioners wondered if it was possible to add a condition that stated that the applicant could not impact the business at 1800 Glassell. In order to move forward and to not impact the 9 APPROVED Planning Commission June 7, 2004 business of either party, an extension to the Temporary Use Permit for 6 months was suggested to allow these issues to be resolved legally. Commissioner Smith moved to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2503-04 until the Planning Commission Meeting on December 6, 2004, and directed staff to work with applicant to extend Temporary Use Permit until December 31, 2004, in order not to impact any weddings currently planned on the calendar. The item was seconded by Commissioner Domer. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, and Smith Pruett None None. MOTION CARRIED Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz noted that under the Permit Streamlining Act, he would need permission from the applicant to waive any issues that the applicant may have until the item can be resolved. Commissioner Bonina moved to reopen the public hearing to get the applicant's approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None. MOTION CARRIED The public hearing was reopened. The applicant, Jene Wilson, came forward and agreed to the continuance. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz asked the applicant if he was aware, just to be certain, that he was waiving his rights under the Permit Streamlining Act? He asked for further explanation, and was told he had the right to either an approval or disapproval within 180 days, and he would not be receiving that. The applicant stated that he was aware, and he agreed to the continuance. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith moved to adjourn the meeting, and it 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 11 :40 p.m. 10