Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - January 5 APPROVED c.. 2S-dO. 9. 2.:'; MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: January 5, 2004 Monday -7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT CALENDAR: (I) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 1, 2003, AND DECEMBER 15, 2003. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes from the December 1, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting (with one minor change noted) and to continue the Minutes from the Meeting of December 15, 2003, to the next regularly scheduled meeting of January 19, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2468-03 - LA CABANA RESTAURANT A proposal to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2200-97 in order to allow live entertainment (a trio and/or a mariachi band) in conjunction with an existing bona fide restaurant that sells alcoholic beverages (ABC License Type 47 - On-Sale General Eating Place) at 3063 West Chapman Avenue. This item was continued from the November 17,2003, meeting. 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). The applicant was not in attendance. Several times throughout the meeting, Chairman Pruett asked if the applicant was in attendance, and there was no response. Planning Commission APPROVED January 5, 2004 MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Domer, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item to the February 2,2004, Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2470-03 -- NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to install and operate a wireless telecommunications antenna stealthed as a monopine and associated equipment cabinets within the Parkridge Hills (PR) Planned Community district (APN 085-531-36). NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 -- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section 15331 (Class] 1, Accessory Structures). Commissioner Smith recused herself from this item, as her husband is an employee of the Southern California Edison Company. Leslie Aranda Roseberry gave a staff presentation on the project. The proposed project is located within the Southern California Edison easement within the Parkridge Hills Community open space area. On this site there exists three wireless telecommunications facilities (Sprint, Verizon and AT&T). The antenna will be stealthed as a monopine, with twelve panel antennas attached to the tree trunk. The total height will be 52 feet. There will also be an equipment room to service the antenna. The applicant will be planting additional pine trees to act as a landscape buffer. The Staff Review Committee and the Design Review Committee also reviewed this item. Staff added a condition to the resolution with the concurrence of the applicant, stating that Nextel Communications will submit an analysis that the antenna will not cause interference with the Orange Fire Department's 800mhz communications system. Peter Yune (310 Commerce Drive, Irvine, California) represented the applicant (Nextel Communications) and gave a report. He noted that the original proposal to the City was a monopalm. The City staff felt that a monopine would be more appropriate. He explained that the advantage of the monopine is the co- locatability, so that if another carrier wanted to locate their facility to this site, they could make arrangements with Nextel Communications rather than adding another monopine to the site. The proposed monopine is called a Canary Island Monopine, which is considered fuller with more branches and has a better appearance than most other monotrees being used throughout Southern California. Additionally, he stated that they are adding three additional pine trees (either Ponderosa pines or CanaIY Island Pines which are very similar) to further screen the proposed site. Questions asked by the Commissioners included: . Who proposed the additional pine trees to be added to the site? The applicant responded that upon review of the site, Nexte1 suggested the additional pine trees. 2 Planning Commission APPROVED January 5,2004 . What is the applicant doing to prevent the signal coming from this facility interfering with the local residents' phones, computers, televisions, etc.? The applicant responded that they were licensed by the FCC to operate the facility at specific frequencies. Nextel is at 851mhz, he believed that the City of Orange/County of Orange emergency authorities operated at around 819 - 820mhz range, so they are at different frequencies. He also noted that before applying for the building permits for the site, they must receive the City/County Fire Departments' clearance. They will also do a Modulation Study to ensure that they do not interfere with the existing carriers, as well. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adopt Resolution No. 01-04 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2470-03. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett None Commissioner Smith None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2472-03 - KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS A proposal to construct a 4,000 sq. ft. single story drive-through restaurant on a 2.24-acre lot. This is Phase II of two phases. Phase I included the clearing of the entire 2.24-acre site for the development of a 3,220 sq. ft. In-N-Out Burger fast-food restaurant. The Planning Commission reviewed Phase I at the November 4, 2002, and December 2, 2002 meetings. 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). Leslie Aranda Roseberry gave a staff presentation on the project. Both the Staff Review Committee and the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Deborah Kerr (4655 Cass Street, San Diego), represented Krispy Kreme on this issue. She noted that Jim Mettee (Vice President, Real Estate and Construction for Great Circle Family Foods -- the franchisee) was also in attendance at the meeting. She thanked staff for their assistance, and mentioned that the Design Review Committee had valuable suggestions, which they have incorporated into their design. The building entrance faces Tustin Boulevard, and they have proposed landscaping which keeps several of the existing trees on the lot. The Commissioners had several questions, which were answered by both Deborah Kerr and Jim Mettee: . What are the peak traffic hours? The answer was early morning, exactly opposite that of the In-N- Out Burger, the other establishment located on the site. . Commissioner Smith voiced her concerns over the egress from the Krispy Kreme area, which is co- located at the same area as the ingress to the In-N-Out. Several other Commissioners discussed stop signs, left-turn-only arrows, etc. Ms. Kerr mentioned the different operating peak hours for both establishments, which will help lessen the potential problem. 3 Planning Commission APPROVED January 5, 2004 · What is the plan for more than 12 cars in the queuing area (so that additional cars did not spill out onto Tustin Boulevard)? Mr. Mettee responded that with their experience they believe there will be no trouble with the plan. He also mentioned that they normally target 40 parking spaces for their stores, and this site has 61, so there is more than enough space available for cars. Mr. Mettee stated that their highest priority was the safety of their customers, and they aggressively monitor the situation and redirect cars if necessary. · What is the next closest Krispy Kreme location to this site? The answer was The Block of Orange, but it was noted that the Block of Orange site was an entirely different trade area. For example, The Block of Orange has a high-volume late night customer base because of the high concentration of movie theatres and entertainment venues at the site. Krispy Kreme does not expect the same high-volume, late-night business for the new proposed site. · Concern was expressed for the pedestrian walkways, and particularly the disabled access walkway, which crosses through the existing queue for the establishment. Commissioner Brandman asked staff whether any of their comments had caused staff to reconsider their findings. Staff reported that there was quite a bit of discussion on this issue previously (during the In-N-Out Burger review) and the pedestrian access issue had been studied extensively and felt that the present layout would work. · The applicant stated that they have the "bots dots" in the driveway that alerts drivers to the fact that there is a pedestrian walkway ahead, and would be willing to install a caution sign as well if the Commission felt it was necessary. · Commissioner Smith mentioned that Condition #22 stated that decorative paving would be applied to all pedestrian walkways. She noted that it was not present in the site plan that she was reviewing outside of the handicap walkway. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that the decorative paving that she was referring to applied to the sidewalk surfaces around the building. He felt that if the applicant agreed, it would make sense to apply the colored delineation across the pathway area from the parking lot to the building. After much discussion and multiple ideas proposed by the applicant and Commissioners, Mr. Hohnbaum suggested that they modify Condition #22 to further indicate that staff wiII work with the developer to incorporate pedestrian crossings within the parking lot and to realign the handicapped crossing from the In-N-Out parcel to the Krispy Kreme parcel. · Commissioner Bonina stated that he highly recommended a direction sign, which diverted traffic away from the busy Tustin Avenue exit. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Domer (with the modifications proposed by Staff to Condition of Approval #22) and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt Resolution No. 02-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2472-03. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission APPROvvr January 5, 2004 (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2477-03 AND VARIANCE NO. 2125-03 __ GERALD MCGRATH A request to allow the construction of a 490 sq. ft. artist's studio with full interior plumbing facilities located behind an existing detached garage. Also requested is a Variance to allow the combined square footage of the new artist's studio and existing primary residence (1,424 sq. ft.) and to allow reductions in the code required minimum side yard and rear yard building setbacks. NOTE: The 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). Leslie Aranda Roseberry gave a staff presentation on the project. She I}oted that the building was in the process of being constructed without permits when it was pointed out to the City's Code Enforcement. A stop work order was issued and no additional work, to the City's knowledge, has been completed on the site. Both the side yard setback and the rear yard setback are being proposed at less than what the City's Zoning Ordinance requires. The side yard setback is required to be five feet; it is being proposed at two feet. The rear yard setback is being proposed at eight feet eight inches as opposed to the required 10 feet. Staffs evaluation included three parts of the variance: the square footage, the side yard and rear yard setback. Although the artist's studio and detached garage does exceed the 50% size of the prime residence (required), there is still ample open space left on the site. Secondly, when looking at the side yard setback areas, the proposed setback is two feet, which is the same as the existing garage. For the rear yard setback, there are structures in the immediate area that have less than a ten-foot setback. · Commissioner Smith noted that she had called Chuck Lau, the City Planner on the project. She said that she was informed that accessory second units can be built closer than five feet of the property line, but the part that is out of compliance with this project is that the law says they can only be 10 feet tall within the setback area and the proposed building exceeds the 10 foot height. · Commissioner Smith questioned the inclusion of a shower. Ms. Roseberry stated that one of the reasons this project is before the Planning Commission is because of the inclusion of indoor plumbing to an accessory structure. · It was noted that the project proposes a Deed Restriction ensuring this accessory structure cannot be used as a rental property. The penalty for not adhering to this would mean that there could be a Revocation Hearing, and possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant, Gerald McGrath, mentioned his goal with this structure was to be able to have a place where he could create his artwork. He stated that the height of the proposed structure was 14 feet. The Commissioners asked the following questions of the applicant: · Was the work being done by one contractor? The applicant said he had done some work himself and was working with various contractors. · Were the contractors he worked with licensed? The answer was yes. · If the structure were restricted to 10 feet (in height) would that cause a problem for the applicant? The answer was yes. · Was he planning exhibitions in the facility? The answer was no. · Was the applicant familiar with the Conditions noted in the staff report? The answer was yes. · Had the applicant spoken to his neighbors? He stated that he did mention it to neighbors directly on each side of his residence. The public was invited to speak on this issue. 5 Planning Commission APPROVED January 5, 2004 Opposed: Darin Weller, 214 N. Magnolia Street Fernando Rico, 238 N. Magnolia Street JeffLemnitzer, 234 Magnolia Street Kathleen McMurray, 211 N. Maplewood Street Opposition Points: · While neighbors support the arts & their livelihoods, they say the project is too large for the neighbors to the south. . Disapprove Staff recommendation. . Structure is too high. . One neighbor is a licensed contractor. Unfair for others to follow law to get permits, but not Mr. McGrath. . No communication about project. In Favor: Scott Parker, 1040 N. Elizabeth Place Mike Morales, 229 N. Maplewood Drive Alice Morales, 229 N. Maplewood Drive In Favor Points: . Mr. McGrath has been a good neighbor. . Has maintained his property well. . Has shared plans with immediate neighbors. . Has taken pride-of-ownership in property. The applicant was invited back to speak to the Commissioners and respond to the comments raised by the public speakers. · Commissioner Smith questioned where the chimney was and the applicant responded that it would be a freestanding fireplace with piping coming out above the roofline. The applicant stated that if the fireplace was a problem, he did not need to add it. He had understood that you needed a heating element with the structure, which is why he proposed the one noted. · Chairman Pruett stated that this project illustrates what happens when someone undertakes a project without going through the proper process. The opportunity is then lost to make the best project that it could be and creates problems within the community and dissatisfaction with many neighbors. · Commissioner Bonina strongly suggested that the applicant take the opportunity to get together with his neighbors and discuss the issue openly. · Chairman Pruett stated that he would like to have certain conditions imposed on the project, for example, no exhibits are to be held, and the structure should not become a marketing/sales office, etc. The Commission recommended that the project go before the Design Review Committee, (the applicant said he would certainly be happy to go through this), and noted that this item should be continued to a later meeting after staff has had the opportunity to make recommendations. Additionally, the Commission also asked that the property line issue be reviewed by the appropriate public utilities to ensure that the project is not in violation of an existing easement or high voltage line. 6 APPROVED Planning Commission MOTION January 5, 2004 Moved by Commissioner Domer and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 2,2004. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: MOTION Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to Adjourn. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. 7