Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - December 6 c..~5oo.c;.:). ~ Planning Commission City of Orange MINUTES December 06, 2004 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina STAFF PRESENT: Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre 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 INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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 continued from the November 15, 2004 meeting. 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). Chairman Pruett explained that this item was on the Consent Calendar, and what would normally happen is a motion would be taken on this item and it would be voted upon on the Consent Calendar. However, because there had been major changes to the Staff Report in terms of the recommendations and findings, this item would be pulled from the Consent Calendar and a hearing would be held in addition to being opened up for public comments. Planning Commission December 06, 2004 Chris Carnes, Senior Planner introduced the item. He noted that the Commissioners had received a total of five letters in opposition to the project from residents in the vicinity of the site. Chair Pruett acknowledged that the Commissioners had received the letters in opposition as well as a copy of the CC&R's and they had reviewed them. The pnblic hearing was opened. Aaron Johanssen, 153 S. Cypress Street, Orange, CA, designer, represented the applicant. Asked by Chair Pruett if he had reviewed the Staff Report, he indicated that he had not been able to review it and address any issues or concerns that Mr. Johanssen may have with the Staff Report as well as the recommendations that were contained in the resolution. Chair Pruett invited the public who had submitted cards to voice their issues/concerns. Opposed: Cecilia Viveros, 2225 E. Dana Avenue. She stated that she does not oppose the building of the Vasquez residence, she just wants whatever is built to be within the law (indicating that all the dust from the empty lot blows onto her residence). She stated that it was not fair for her to have to follow the law (noting that she had been denied certain building requests), and for Mr. Vasquez to be granted all the variances. Because of the expansion of the 55 Freeway she had purchased the lot next to her home. Jeff Lo, 259 N. Sycamore. He stated that he was opposed to the plans for the Vasquez residence because it does not meet the requirements within the law for the granting of the variances by the Commission for building on two substandard lots. He referenced the law for the granting of the variance due to special circumstance. He stated that the applicant had purchased the lots with full knowledge of the constraints, and therefore there was nothing in this case to justify the special circumstance. Mr. Vasquez, he felt, could build one residence on the lot and therefore not be denied the same privileges as the others in the neighborhood. He reported that several other neighbors across the street from the subject property had previously been denied variances or zoning adjustments, and he felt that it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to apply the same rules equally to all, rather than granting and justifying the privilege to one property owner at the expense of the entire neighborhood. He also felt the two substandard lots would be out of character and context with the rest of the neighborhood, and would set precedence in the future for other substandard lots to be created. Chair Pruett complimented Mr. Lo on his letter, telling him that it was very articulate. Michael Prater, 249 N. Sacramento Street. He referenced that Mr. Vasquez had purchased the property with full knowledge of the restrictions. Neither one of the proposed two new Vasquez' houses conforms to the minimum living space required in the CC&R's. He does not want to change the flow and fabric of the neighborhood. He stated that there were 30 property owners on adjacent streets indicating their objection to this project. 2 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 Deanna Baez, 225 N. Sacramento. She is opposed to the project as she does not believe the applicant has addressed the two findings that he needs to meet in order to be granted the variance due to special circumstance. She felt there were too many variances requested, and it would be detrimental to the City of Orange and the neighborhood to put in two substandard lots with two such small homes. Carol Hamilton, 271 N. Sacramento. Born in the City of Orange, Ms. Hamilton stated that she had never previously objected to anything in the city. Her home is across the street from the proposed parcel. Two different real estate professionals had told her that by granting these variances it would cause a 10-15% drop in the values. Why make rules to break them? Some in the neighborhood had been made to abide by them for as long as 35 years, why should someone who does not live in the neighborhood come in and not have to abide by the same rules? Jim Hamilton, 271 N. Sacramento. He stated that he and the previous homeowners would all like to see the property developed, but in a manner that is cohesive with the rest of the neighborhood. He noted that he had been denied a variance when he wanted to move his garage two feet forward in order to house his boat and car due to setback laws. Ollis Markham, 237 N. Milford. Mr. Markham stated that he was a retired contractor. He questioned how the building had gotten so far as the lot was already staked out. Chair Pruett responded that the applicant had been asked to stake it out so that an accurate picture of what was proposed could be seen. He is opposed to the lot and the size of the lot with the buildings proposed. The Commissioners had the following questions and concerns: . Mr. Prater stated that he had requested, and been denied a variance previously, what was the variance for? Mr. Prater stated that he wanted to extend his garage and living room by approximately 4-6', and was told no because the addition would be built within the front setback. . Miss Baez, you had also asked for a variance, would you mind telling us what that was for? She inquired about building into the front and back yard of her home and was told that there was no room because of the minimum setbacks required, and therefore would not be granted those privileges. She therefore built up on a second story above her garage. . Ms. Viveros had asked for a permit to build on another CalTrans parcel and were denied the permit, could you describe the project? She had wanted to build on the front and side yard setbacks onto the property she had acquired, but were not able to bring it towards the public street. Did staff tell you that you could build to the side? She said she was given a packet explaining what she could do and could not do. . And Mr. Hamilton, the gentleman with the bass fishing boat? When the RV ordinance was discussed last year, Mr. Hamilton stated that he tried to move his garage forward by two feet in order to house his boat and a car, but was told he could not encroach into the minimum 20' setback. He also applied for permits for two patios, and both are two feet shorter than he would have liked because the structures would have encroached into the backyard setback. 3 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 Chair Pruett asked the applicant's representative to return. Mr. Johanssen stated that Mr. Vasquez is sensitive to the neighborhood. He felt that the neighbors had concurred on the fact that (I) nobody wants a 2-story house in the neighborhood, and (2) they only want to see one house on the lot. He stated that by California law Mr. Vasquez is allowed to build a home with an accessory second unit. He further stated that Mr. Vasquez had told him that ifhe is denied the right to build two homes on two parcels, then his desire is to build the larger house. So a two-story structure would end up on the property if the variance were denied. By granting the variance, Mr. Vasquez would be restricted from building the two-story residence, according to Mr. Johanssen. He asked for clarification on the issue of whether a 15' setback would be allowed for the rear-yard (where currently is proposed a 20' setback). Mr. Carnes stated that with a one-story residence, the rear yard setback could be 10'. Mr. Johanssen stated that therefore the one house and garage could be moved back on the lot sufficiently enough to gain the 20' needed on the driveways. With respect to the second unit facing Sacramento Street, he stated that there existed the possibility of a wider driveway and moving back the fence on the side of the house would allow parking onsite for two vehicles. With these possibilities, Mr. Johanssen requested a continuance for further study on these particular issues. Gamaliel Vasquez, 1520 S. Pacific Avenue, Santa Ana. He discussed a previous comment that the value of the houses in the neighborhood would be lowered if the smaller houses were built on the lots. He did not believe this to be true. He referenced two homes in the immediate neighborhood that were listed for sale and both were only I, I 00 sq. ft. in size. The public hearing was closed. Chair Pruett asked Assistant Attorney Gary Sheatz to comment on the CC&R's that had been received on the subject tract. Mr. Sheatz was in the opinion that the CC&R's were still in effect and would still apply to the six parcels in question that the applicant is looking to consolidate. Approval of the two parcels would be in violation of the CC&R's, and would place the City in a bad position legally to approve the lot split with the variances. Both the City and the applicant would be placed in the position of being served and defending a lawsuit on this issue. The commissioners voiced the additional issues and concerns: . There was some discussion that a two-story home would not fit in the neighborhood because of the City's Residential Infill Guidelines, yet Miss Baez' has built a two story home on her property. Could you explain why a two-story home would not work on this parcel? Chair Pruett further clarified that this question of staff was a good one, and further that if the applicant is denied the right to build on two parcels, and therefore came back with a larger one-story, this is a process that would take the applicant back before the DRC Mr. Carnes clarified that the City's infill ordinance does reference the predominant style of the neighborhood, which in this case is one-story, needs to be taken into consideration. In practice, the DRC has approved second stories in areas that are predominantly one-story, worked to reduce the visual impact of the second story. · The discovery of the CC&R's is a critical point that the City and Commission need to take into consideration. It is important that everyone realize that a substandard lot is not the same as a substandard home, and the Commission would never want to approve a 4 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 substandard home, so that is a critical difference. It is hoped that the applicant and his representative take into consideration all that has been said by the neighbors. The Commission always encourages applicants to speak to the neighbors. Chair Pruett reminded the Commissioners of what is being proposed. The variances become a problem only after, and if, the City approved the creation of two parcels. He underscored that the Commission did not want to "create a problem, and then correct it by granting variances." The problem was being created by the City in the action that the Commissioners were going to take. CalTrans did not create the problem; it would be created by the Commission if the Variances and Tentative Tract Map were approved. Chair Pruett further stated that this was a very dangerous precedent to set. Mr. Sheatz stated that because of the existence of the CC&R's, the denial could be adopted by the Commissioners with Staff inserting facts that speak to the CC&R's that would also negate the findings. Mr. Domer asked that if the proposal was denied, what were the steps necessary for the applicant to bring this issue forward again. Chair Pruett stated that if it is recognized that there is not a possibility for a two-lot strategy, then the parcel map issue is a dead issue, and the variances are likely a dead issue. The issue becomes one of submitting plans for one home on one lot, and it would go before the DRC and may not have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Carnes further stated that it would include a lot line adjustment to consolidate the six parcels into one. Mr. Sheatz stated that a lot line adjustment could not be used to consolidate the parcels, it would require a parcel map to be filed with the city, no matter what. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, stated that she believed that with a parcel map, it would not have to come before the Commission ifit meets all of the standards. Ms. Brandman asked for assurances that denial of the project, or continuance, would not further complicate the process for the applicant. All the commissioners were concerned about further burdening the applicant. Ms. Angus stated that in terms of additional fees, many are time and material based. There would be some fees involved with having the project go back through the DRC for review. The City would certainly minimize the time that staff would take to process the request. Chair Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 19-04 (in Page 2-13 of the Staff Report), which is a resolution of denial, based on the findings of special circumstance cannot be made, and the proposed lots would not meet the zoning requirements. This is further supported by the CC&R's that were received that state that the minimum setback requirements could not be met, and would therefore grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties located in the vicinity of the project site. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Bonina MOTION CARRIED 5 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 The applicant was informed of their appeal rights by Mr. Carnes. Mr. Domer asked for direction to staff that when applicants are requesting approval of projects they be reminded to fully investigate the CC&R's, etc., prior to resubmittal. This might have helped move this project along faster. (3) 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. This item was continued from the June 7, 2004 meeting. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section l5303-c, (New Conversion or Conversion of Small Structures). The item was introduced by Senior Planner, Chris Carnes. The item was continued to this meeting because of concerns that the proposal would have negative impact to the adjacent property that the property owners have listed for sale. The City Attorney's office reviewed, at that time, a shared parking and access agreement between the two properties. The commission, when this item was last heard, directed Staff to grant a Temporary Use Permit to allow the applicant to continue to conduct weddings until the end of calendar year 2004. The property to the north is still for sale, and the representative for the property has sent a letter to the Planning Commission requesting an additional continuance since nothing has been resolved as of this date. Staff continues to recommend approval of the project and this is partially based that the applicant has shown (and the City Attorney's office has agreed) that they have the rights to use the neighboring parking lots to access the rear of their property, and there is wording in the agreement that allows the applicant to use the parking spaces to the north. Staff has included a revised resolution of approval for the project, specifically to modify two of the findings to reflect the importance of the access and parking rights over the property to the north. Condition No. 9 was also added that specifically states that if the applicant should lose the ability to use the parking to the north and to access the rear of the project site, as well as the loss of the right to park on the lots where the applicant has shared parking agreements, (see Staff Report) the Planning Commission may reconsider this on the impacts that would have on the conducting of weddings and the shared parking agreements. Chair Pruett asked for the public to speak. In Favor: Scott Richmond, 7825 Santiago Canyon, Orange. Mr. Richmond stated that he had been on the Board of American Family Living since its inception over 25 years ago. The subject property was purchased 14 years ago because it included the easement on the adjacent property for access and for parking. This operation has been going on for some time, is a vital part of their ministry, is an 6 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 important service to the community, and they have not received any complaints about their business. Jene Wilson, 1774 N. Glassell, Orange. He asked to address the letter that was addressed to the commission by Jean Stuart, the adjacent property owner, which stated that the applicant's proposal would limit the use of their property for sale to any buyer who had an industrial or commercial venue. He noted that the activities had existed for ten years with no conflict. He asked that the applicant's representative speaking on behalf of real estate law come forward. He further stated that American Family Living had not been able to book ten weddings because of this continuing issue, and represented approximately $15,000 to the non-profit corporation, plus the additional costs for this hearing of approximately $3,000. David Lurker, 895 Dove Street, Newport Beach, legal representative for American Family Living. He noted that the easement that provided access to the property had been in effect for 25 years, and provided both access and parking rights to the property. Glenn Gorman, 19161 Valley Drive, Villa Park. Neighbor of American Family Living for over ten years and has had a nice working relationship with them. He has granted them parking access to his property at 1821 N. Glassell, and there has never been any problems or complaints, or interference with his business. He also has recently acquired 1822 N. Glassell, and has granted access to this property, as well. Mr. Wilson stated that there had been six months of trying to resolve this issue, and there had been only one phone call of about 3-4 minutes. He does not believe that it is fair for American Family Living to give up the rights they had been granted 25 years ago, so that the Miskams can receive more money for the value of their property. He stated that Miskams have already received compensation when they sold the rights to the shared access agreement to the previous owner. Commissioner Smith wanted to clarifY that she appreciates that Mr. Wilson had stated that he had "lost" $15,000 in business, but he was proposing activities on the property that he did not have a permit to conduct. Mr. Wilson stated that for nine years he believed they were operating properly. Ms. Smith stated that the Commission realizes that there was no willful violation of the City's ordinance, but to be fair, other business operators that have been required to get the proper permits to run that type of business would say it was favoritism if the Commissioners did not ask American Family Living to come into compliance. Commissioner Domer asked for clarification on the issue that it seems that there are a lot of parking spaces being blocked by the issue of temporary storage and/or equipment in disrepair in the property to the north (where there is a shared parking agreement). His question to staff is there any prohibition of that type of storage in a parking lot where there is a shared parking agreement. Mr. Sheatz stated that it would be up to American Family Living to enforce this if they ever did not have access to the property where they had the right to access it. It would be a private party issue. Mr. Carnes added that the parking ordinance states that all required parking be readily available for customers and the public, so that if the City did receive a complaint, Code Enforcement action would be initiated to have the parking lot cleared. Mr. Wilson further stated that there are six street parking spaces in front of the adjacent building that has one-hour parking, 7 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 but it is dominated by European Auto Repair, they park their cars there all day long. So if the Miskams wanted to enhance their parking ability, then they might want to request the city to enforce the one-hour parking along Glassell Street. Opposed: Jane (Miskam) Stuart, 41558 Grandview Drive, Murrieta. Parking issue and easement was granted long before American Family Living purchased the property. She felt that because American Family Living had made the back parking spaces of their property into a patio (rather than the parking as it had been), then they felt that the easement was no longer in use. She mentioned that several prospective buyers had looked at the property and were aware of the easement. Her arrangements with the property's broker was that every time the property was sold, the comments would be reported back to her. Each time the comment referenced the parking easement, and it affected the price of the sale of their building. She feels they need to find a Land Use Attorney. Chair Pruett clarified that were the Miskams to successfully challenge the easement agreement, then the Conditional Use Permit granted to American Family Living would come back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and possible revocation at that time. However, at this time, the City believes that American Family Living has the legal right granted by the easement (which have been granted without limitation). Mr. Sheatz reiterated that this would be a private party matter for Ms. Stuart to pursue. Commissioner Brandman stated that the last time the Commission met on this issue was June 7, 2004. She did not understand why Ms. Stuart had not contracted with a land use attorney before now. Therefore, she had difficulty in considering granting a continuance inasmuch as nothing had been done to date to contact a land use attorney. Ms. Brandman asked if Ms. Stuart had anything in writing to indicate that potential buyers felt there would be a negative issue due to the shared parking agreement. Ms. Stuart stated that she did (and she did not wish to disclose the name on the letter). The letter indicated that, based on the easement, it would cause the property's value to be reduced by $250,000. Ms. Brandman stated that was not her question. She asked if there were any documented letters from potential buyers stating that the sale was lost due to the easement issue. Ms. Stuart said yes she could have something documented on this. Ken Miskam, 42360 Fig Street, Murrieta. He stated that there were a lot of businesses, particularly in manufacturing, that could operate normally 24-hours a day. Their argument was the original easement was granted to allow access to two garages in the back of American Family Living's property. Those garages are no longer there. The original use of the easement is no longer in existence. On the parking agreement, he states that it does not specify whether they have one or twenty-five spaces. The Miskams are required to provide 25 spaces. When they wanted to add additional square footage to their building, they were denied by the city because they could only provide 25 spaces. Commissioner Brandman stated that, with all due respect, the comments made by Mr. Miskam would hold less weight for her, as he is not a land use attorney, and a land use attorney had not presented any findings on his assertions. She further stated that Mr. Miskam was projecting or asserting that he may have a buyer with a 24-hour business, and in her opinion that could have a 8 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 negative impact on American Family Living. Again, she is very concerned that in the intervening six months the Miskams have not contacted an attorney to support their concerns. Mr. Miskam stated that he had great hopes that he could sell the property without getting the attorney. His problem, he stated, was giving all the space up to another business for nothing. He stated that American Family Living had never stated that they would be willing to do repairs and maintenance on their lot, which he believed they should have. Ms. Brandman asked if the Miskams had sat down with the applicant to discuss all of these concerns. He stated that Mr. Wilson had stated, when they spoke briefly following the last meeting, that they may wish to purchase the adjacent property. Mr. Miskam felt it was a two-way street. They had not been approached for a meeting. Mr. Lurker, legal representative for American Family Living, stated that to the extent that the easement is a negative value to the Miskams, it is a positive value to American Family Living. He said he addressed a letter to them over a year ago on this issue, and has never received a reply. As neighbors they would be happy to sit down and go over the issues. Additionally, American Family Living has done quite a bit of maintenance to the lot in repaving, restriping, etc. They are not at the meeting to argue those issues, the legal rights do exist for the easement. Mr. Miller also stated that they had requested to do the restriping of the lot within the last year, but this had been refused by the Miskams. Chair Pruett clarified that the easement is a private legal matter between the two parties. He further stated that parking has come up as an issue. The staff report indicates that there is required parking of 80 spaces, and American Family Living has provided documentation of access to 296 parking spaces (including parking agreements with neighboring property owners), and does include 25 spaces on the property belonging to the Miskams. Commissioner Smith questioned that what if the shared parking agreement with the other property owners should change, and these parking spaces would not be available. Chris Carnes stated that the matter would be brought back before the Planning Commission for reconsideration as to where the required 80 parking spaces would be located. If they cannot show they can provide the 80 spaces, then the Commission could consider revoking the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Domer further clarified that Condition #4 provides for an annual review for compliance of all the conditions of approval, including the availability of outside parking spaces. Mr. Sheatz stated that he was rereading Condition #9, and it does not appear as if the other shared parking agreements (while considered in Condition #4), that the owner would be on notice of the potential of losing the rights under the Conditional Use Permit. Condition #9 is very specific to the 1800 N. Glassell property. Chair Pruett felt there needed to be a Condition #10 that stated that if the shared parking agreement at site address 1855 Orange Olive Road (Covenant Presbyterian Church) were to be revoked, then the Planning Commission may consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Brandman moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 27-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2503-04, and including a Condition #10 as stated above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Domer. 9 Planning Commission December 06, 2004 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED Prior to adjournment, Chair Pruett recognized that he was sorry to see Commissioner Smith leave to accept her post on the City Council, but at the same time offered the Commissioners' congratulations on her election and wished her well. Commissioners Brandman and Domer also reflected on how grateful they were to Commissioner Smith for her friendship and service. Commissioner Smith stated that it had been a pleasure to serve on the Commission for 12-112 years. Commissioner Smith moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, January 3, 2005. (There will be no Planning Commission meeting on Monday, December 20, 2004). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandman. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 10