Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - February 2 APPROVED C J..SOD .~. 2.3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 2,2004 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith ABSENT: None PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2477-03 AND VARIANCE NO. 2125-03 - GERALD MCGRATH A request to allow the construction of a 590 sq.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 garage (1,014 sq. ft.) to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the primary residence (1,424 sq. ft.), and to allow reductions in the code required minimum side yard and rear yard building setbacks. The site is located at 221 N. Maplewood Street. 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). A request was made by the Applicant to continue this item to the n~xt regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on February 18,2004. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to continue this item to the February 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission APPROVED February 2, 2004 IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2004. The Commissioners would like to add a summary of the Comments by the Public to these and future Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue the Approval of the January 5, 2004 Minutes to the next meeting on February 18, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Dorner, Pruett, and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2468-03 - LA CABANARESTAURANT 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. The site is located at 3063 West Chapman Avenue. This item was continued from the November 17, 2003, meeting and the January 5, 2004, 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 asked ifhe was familiar with all of the items in the Conditional Use Permit. He stated he was not. The Commissioners wanted him to fully understand all of the conditions, and therefore agreed to move the item to later in the Agenda, giving the applicant ample time to ensure he was familiar with all of the conditions. Commissioner Smith requested that applicant pay particular attention to Items #19, 22, 24, & 25. The Commissioners wanted to ensure that the Applicant was aware that the property owner was thinking of redeveloping the property, and wanted to ensure that the applicant understood this before making financial improvements to a property that he was renting. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to move the item to later in the Agenda. 2 Planning Commission APPROVED February 2, 2004 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett, and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: NEW HEARINGS (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2465-03 - CINGULAR WIRELESS A proposal to mount a total of twelve panel antennas on an existing SCE electrical transmission tower and add a pre-fabricated equipment room. The site is located at 2783 E. meats. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities), 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15311 (Class 11 - Accessory Structures). Commissioners Smith and Brandman recused themselves, as Commissioner Smith's husband is an employee of Southern California Edison, who own the property"where the utility tower is located and Commissioners Brandman's husband's company did the environmental work on the cell site. Gil Gonzales represented the applicant, Cingular Wireless. He explained that the 150 foot utility tower is unmanned and would result in no disturbance to the surrounding neighbors. The staff report showed that this was a new tower; in actuality Cingular is adding a node to the existing Edison Tower. Grace Wright, a neighbor, asked for clarification of what was being installed. Once it had been explained, she said that was fine. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Domer and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adopt Resolution No. 05-04 approving Conditional Use Permit 2465-03. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer, and Pruett None Commissioners Brandman and Smith None MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission APPROVED February 2, 2004 (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2474-03 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 2003-0019 - KOREAN AMERICAN CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY A proposal to use a vacated day-care facility for a church and day-care and to allow a 20% reduction (from 10' to 8') in street side setback for parking. The site is located at 2261 N. Orange-Olive Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303-c (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Chris Carnes gave the Staff Report. Staff has recommended approval of the project with eight restrictions. The property is zoned C-1 in the middle of a residential area. Staff has recommended that the signing be restricted to what would be allowed for institutional uses in residential zones. The conditions also restrict the daycare/preschool operations to the weekdays to the hours proposed (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). In attendance were the architect for the project, Kyo-Sang Kim, 13028 Esplanade Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703 and Don Park, Owner and Manager of the facility; his address is 3522 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA. Mr. Kim explained that the existing use is for 120 students, and the new application is proposing only 80 students. The Commissioners voiced the following questions and concerns: (1) Size of Congregation - There currently are about 45 attendees (including youth) at the Sunday service. It was understood that this was within the size allowed for the square footage of the sanctuary and parking requirements. The applicant explained that there were approximately twenty-five families currently (and approximately two younger children amongst those families). (2) Traffic concerns and the surrounding residential area - The property is odd-shaped along Orange-Olive, and there were concerns because the applicant is increasing the amount of parking (23 spaces to 26 - subject to approval of the administrative adjustment for setbacks). Both applications must be approved together - because without the administrative adjustment, they cannot increase the amount of parking spaces needed for the church sanctuary. The parking requirements for the church exceed those needed for a preschool. One parking space is needed for 30 sq. ft. of sanctuary or assembly area. The maximum sanctuary/assembly area can be 780 sq. ft. - the current proposal is for 630 sq. ft. The sanctuary/assembly area cannot be expanded beyond that. (3) Parking has been reconfigured, and there was concern because of morning drop-off of students for the daycare. The proposal is to use the southerly parking area (Orange-Olive) for drop-off, so as not to impact the residents on Shaffer Street. This was reviewed by the Staff Review Committee. Orange-Olive Road (in the vicinity of this site, from Taft to Lincoln) is very under-utilized, and Staff did not believe there would be any concerns or future issues with entering or exiting the site using this approach. It was also asked 4 Planning Commission APPROVED February 2, 2004 whether there was any parking allowed immediately in front of the entrance/exit on Orange-Olive and the answer was no. (4) Even though Orange-Olive Road was deemed to be underutilized, there was concern about the entrance/exit to the site (would people dropping off children need to do 3-point turns?). Prior to this proposal, there was an additional access point (i.e., traversing through the property and exiting onto Shaffer, negating the need to turn around after drop-off). Historically, staff explained, there had never been a problem with entering and exiting from Orange-Olive road. (5) The Commissioners stated their concern that if there were multiple cars dropping off or picking up children (and the space was tight already, without the addition of the new parking spaces), coupled with the fact that this drop-off/pick-up area was between the playground area and the daycare - had it been deemed safe for the children to traverse between these two areas? What pathway do the children have between the playground to the building? Staff explained that this configuration was historically like this, but that this concern could be resolved by adding to the area a clearly delineated pedestrian way either by striping or by a different type of paving material.. It was also asked by the Commissioners whether the northern area, which is the current playground area, could become a landscaped area, and the playground area for the children could be moved to the area between the two buildings currently on the site - thus alleviating the need for the children to traverse the parking area? The applicant explained that the area within the courtyard satisfies the State Requirement in terms of playground area, and that the area is being utilized for student lunches, etc. The applicant also explained that the State Childcare Agency has already approved the site and the application fi)f the childcare. The applicant also explained that there was enough room in the setback area to provide for a fence, if necessary, to separate the children from the parking area when traversing from the playground area to the school. (6) The hedges (when exiting from the property onto Orange-Olive Road) are at a height that prevents the driver from seeing the oncoming traffic clearly. From the proposal, it appears that the hedges are an integral part of the safety (i.e., surrounding the property) of the property. Staff explained that the majority of the hedges are above the allowed Code of 42" and should be trimmed down to that height so they are within the height allowed by Code. The public was invited to speak to the item: Roxana Rocha, 2255 N. Shaffer Street, Orange. Expressed concern for additional traffic burden to the neighborhood. Lilia Maldonado, 2240 N. Shafer Street, Orange. Expressed concerns for parking lot and traffic on street. She stated it is currently a quiet neighborhood with 2 preschools already. Caroline Leigh, 506 E. Vista del Gaviota, Orange - expressed concerns about parking and traffic. During one Open House, their street was lined with cars. Her question to the Commission was if they find it is becoming too busy, what is their recourse as citizens once this is approved? She additionally stated that there were numerous accidents from Orange-Olive Road to Shaffer. 5 APPROVED Planning Commission February 2, 2004 Chairman Pruett stated that he had received one letter from Mr. and Mrs. Maloney stating their concerns for safety and traffic. The Applicant stated that he, too, was concerned about being a good neighbor and addressing the concerns. He noted that the new school that is being proposed was planned to have 40 students less than the existing school. Members of the Commission felt that the use of the property and the pre-school was a good one for the community, however the parking situation was very problematic. The Commissioners discussed various possible drop-off and pick-up situations to make the traffic more manageable for the neighborhood. Chris Carnes stated that there was no requirement to provide a loading/unloading zone. It was felt that this item needed further study by Staff and the Applicant to work out the parking and traffic issues, and it should be continued to a later meeting. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Domer and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to continue this item to a date that is mutually agreed upon by staff and the applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith. None None None MOTION CARRIED (7) RE-VISIT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2468-03 - LA CABANA RESTAURANT (See Detailed Description Above) The applicant stated that Conditions 23, 24 and 25 need to be coordinated with the landlord of his property and he would do so. Commissioner Bonina asked the City Attorney whether it would be appropriate for the conditions to be delayed (in order to be sensitive to the financial impacts to the applicant). Gary Sheatz, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City would expect that all the conditions be met prior to use. Commissioner Smith wanted assurance that if the CUP was granted, did the Applicant have the option to choose not to exercise it. Mr. Sheatz stated that the applicant did not have to exercise it just because it was granted. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Domer to Adopt Resolution No. 44-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2268-03. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith. None None None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission APPROVED February 2, 2004 (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2485-03 - DAVE & BUSTER'S A request to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages on a new patio being added to the south side of the existing restaurant/entertainment facility. The site is located at 20 City Boulevard west. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section l5303-c (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). At the request of the applicant, this item is continued to March 1,2004. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith. None None None MOTION CARRIED (7) INFILL RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NOTE: The proposed Ordinance Amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Acting Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek gave the Staff presentation. The Commissioners raised the following issues/concerns: . Would these standards override the existing standards? The answer was yes. . Is the existing Design Review Committee at full capacity yet? In other words would they be able to take on the additional work required by these new standards? Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that they currently have four members in the DRC and are actively looking for the remaining member. . The Commissioners complimented the staff on the fine work on this project. . What is the process of getting this information (when a second-story addition is being made to an existing structure) to the public? There is no notice given to the public was the answer by staff. Commissioner Smith stated that she realized it was expensive to notify the public, but wondered ifperhaps a sign could be posted on the property to take care of the notice. Staff noted that it would be handled administratively - if someone came in to make an application to add a second story 7 Planning Commission APPROVED February 2, 2004 to their home, and they met all criteria, a permit would most likely be issued. Staff said that that they would look into the issue of notifying the surrounding neighbors _ but there currently was no administrative way to do this. Commissioner Smith stated that definitely "on appeal" (meaning that the City felt it was not within guidelines) that the neighbors should be notified. Staff reported that the guidelines were not meant to discourage second story development, but rather to ensure that the home was well designed and one that fit into the existing neighborhood. Chairman Pruett stated that the City has a responsibility to the Applicant to get the reviews done in a timely manner, therefore eliminating some of the burden and time of the notification. Commissioner Smith clarified her understanding with Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz that the public would be noticed for Planning Commission appeal. He concurred that the Commission would be notified. Therefore, no action was needed. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to Adopt Resolution No. 53-03 recommending to the City Council approval of the Infill Residential Design Guidelines and Ordinance Amendment. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith. None None None MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS (8) STUDY OF THE 300 AND 400 BLOCKS OF SOUTH GRAND STREET A study of existing development conditions on the 300 and 400 blocks of South Grand Street. The study includes recommendations and options to address site redevelopment issues as well as the potential implications of rezoning from R2 to Rl. Leslie Aranda Roseberry reminded the Commission and those in the public that were waiting to speak that this not technically a public hearing because there is not an application associated with it that requires that there be a public hearing; therefore there will be no formal Opening and Closing of a public hearing. However, this is a public meeting and the Chair is looking for testimony and thoughts from the audience. Acting Principal Planner Anna Pehoushek and Senior Planner Dan Ryan gave the staff presentation. The materials presented to the Planning Commission represented over two years of planning, collaboration and analysis by the planning staff, members of the public and the Planning Commission. The effort was initiated by the City Council in December 2000 and has involved a series of Planning Commission and neighborhood workshops from 2001 to the present. This allowed staff to look into issues including (but not limited to) setback requirements, floor area ratio, parking demand and requirements, historic building patterns, bulk and mass, and streetscape preservation. After reviewing the results of workshops held betwe~n April 2002 and April 2003, 8 Planning Commission APPROVED February 2,2004 the Planning Commission requested more detailed study for strategies for preserving historic one- car garages, inventorying accessory units in the R-l areas of Old Towne, comparison of R-l and R-2 lot frontages, eave-to-eave separation, collection of early morning and late afternoon on-street parking conditions, and potential implications of rezoning the area from R-2 to R-l. Staff presented the design and development options they had prepared, and showed a series of slides of examples of housing styles. Public Participation Opposed: Brigid Jabour, 478 S. Shaffer, Orange. Ken Milbrat, 308 S. California, Orange. Summary: Currently live on property zoned R-2. Concern is for taking away the future option to build additional unit if needed. Do not wish to be down-zoned. In Favor: Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, Orange Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, Orange (714) 516-9621 John Murphy, 1312 E. Palmyra Avenue, Orange (714) 633-3651 Annalisa Goode, 438 S. Grand Street, Orange John Goode, 438 S. Grand Street, Orange Mary Matuzak, 340 S. Grand Street, Orange Noel Wilcox, 458-460 S. Grand, (714) 809-9782 John McCullough, 325 N. Shaffer Street, Orange Summary: Rl would be clean, clear-cut & efficient. R2 design has negative impact on the neighborhoods. Well-documented that Rl zoning helps preservation efforts. Residents look to the Planning Commission to preserve their way of life; the only way to ensure this is to zone it Rl. Want to attract new preservation-minded individuals. Great threat to historic district unless rezoned to Rl. It was noted that even if the properties were rezoned Rl, it does not preclude the building of an accessory second unit. Chairman Pruett stated that he would like to see a recommendation put forward to the City Council to apply the recommendations to zone Rl to all residential uses in Old Towne, and that the Planning Commission should look at more than just the 300 and 400 blocks of S. Grand. 9 Planning Commission APPROVEP February 2,2004 Commissioner Smith stated that to keep the R2 zoning encourages a second unit to be built. The City of Orange Old Towne Orange is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as an historic neighborhood. Zoning Rl preserves the single-family streetscape. It preserves the lifestyle of single-family neighborhoods. Rl will preserve the existing single-family homes, and R 1 has been shown to maintain property values. MOTION: Moved by Chairman Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to (1) recommend to the City Council to apply the Grand Street Analysis Packet to all of Old Towne; and (2) recommend to the City Council to initiate a rezone of the 300-400 blocks of South Grand to R-l. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith. None None None MOTION CARRIED MINUTE ORDER: That the City Council initiates a study to analyze the feasibility of the Rl zoning throughout Old Towne to maintain the character of Old Towne as it was originally intended. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Domer to adjourn to a Special Meeting on Monday, February 9, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room "C" regarding a presentation of the development plan for Santiago Hills II and East Orange. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith. None None None MOTION CARRIED The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:40 a.m. 10