Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - April 19 C',l c')Ci ~ . G - ,<. J. MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange April 19, 2004 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina and Brandman PRESENT: Chris Carnes, Acting Plarming Manager 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City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2004 Commissioner Domer moved to approve the minutes from the March 15, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED (2) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING - SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) - FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 THROUGH 2010-11 Review of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2004-05 through Fiscal Year 2010-11 to determine program conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State Law. Chris Carnes introduced the project and summarized the Staff Report. Commissioner Smith noted that she was not in favor of spending $250,000 on signage in Old Towne at the Circle, and would not vote for that specific item. Planning Commission April 19, 2004 With the exception of Commissioner Smith's comment above, the Commissioners found that the projects identified within the proposed Seven year Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the City's General Plan Policy. Commissioner Smith moved to approve the Review of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2004-05 through Fiscal Year 2010-11 to determine program conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by law. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None INRE: NEW HEARINGS (3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-0003 - STORM WATER QUALITY An amendment to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Orange General Plan adding text to the goals, policies and implementation measures ofthe Element to specifically address storm water quality in order to comply with tl1e Third Term National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from tl1e provisions oftl1e California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15308 (Class 8 - Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Enviromnent). Chris Carnes introduced the item, and Sherman Jones gave a staff presentation .on the item. The commissioners asked what best management practices the City of Orange was taking to ensure the quality of the city's storm water run.off. Roger Hohnbaum mentioned the bi.weekly street sweeping and the cleaning of the city's stonn drains on a regular basis as examples ofthis. Additionally, he mentioned that the city had Code Enforcement Officers, so if there was an individual or a business that was doing something that could potentially contaminate the storm drains and ultimately the waters, the officers were there to educate as well as to cite repeat offenders. Chairman Pruett noted that by approving General Plan Amendment No. 2004-0003, it would place a greater emphasis on the commission's land use planning for storm water and surface water run. 2 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 off. That is the intent with this amendment, to ensure that as proj ect' s come through, the protection of the city's storm drains is taken into consideration and given a higher level of consideration. Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 16-04 recommending to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-0003. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2423-02, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1722-03, AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 237- 02 - MARVIN MILLER (ALAMEDA MARKET) A proposal for the demolition of three existing structures, consolidation of three parcels into one, and construction of a 4,930 sq. ft. retail building, to be used as a market with alcohol sales (Type 21, Off-Sale Beer and Wine License) and make a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, check cashing, and a taco stand. The site is located as 122, 130, and 140 South Hewes Street. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1722-03 was prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. Chris Carnes introduced the item. The Commissioners raised the following questions/concerns. The project planner, Mario Chavez-Marquez responded. . What is the historical status of the buildings that have been there for some time? Commissioner Smith believed it was one of the few western false-front buildings in the city. One of the properties, 122 S. Hewes, was at one point listed in the historical survey inventory. Since then, the historical preservation planner and the building official have conducted inspections of the property. There have been numerous modifications to the property that have changed the character of the building; therefore, a survey was done determining that the project was no longer historic. . The Staff Report, page 4.04 speaks to hours of operation (10 a.m. to 10 p.m.) is that for all three uses? The applicant informed Mr. Marquez that, to clarifY, it isfi'om 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. for all three uses. Does that change in hour concern the police department or staff, in terms of any kind of condition of approval? Regarding the alcohol sales, the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control already regulates the starting sale of alcoholic beverages (it is 11 a.m.). 3 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 · Is there any concern on the check -cashing operation in terms of crime') There is currently a check-cashing operation, and the Crime Prevention feels that with the development of the new building, it will provide for more secured doors and windows and possibly surveillance cameras that are currently not in the existing facility. Overall, the new building will enhance the security of the site. The public hearing was opened. Marvin Miller, tile owner of Alameda Market, gave a presentation on his application. Some of the Commissioners voiced the following questions/concerns: · Was the applicant aware that the c.u.P. associated with this project would be reviewed one year from the date of granting approval and would be reviewed each year after? The applicant stated that he was aware of this condition. · Was the applicant aware that he would not be allowed to post any exterior signage advertising the sale of alcoholic beverages at the site? The applicant stated that he was aware of this condition, and in fact, was voluntarily adhering to this rule in his present sale of beer and wine. In addition, he sold only 6- and i2-packs and did not allow the sale of single cans or bottles of alcoholic beverages. · The applicant would be responsible for the immediate removal of graffiti, was he aware of this condition of approval? Yes. He also stated that he currently was not experiencing any problem with graffiti. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 20-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2423-02, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1722-03, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Minor Site Plan Review No. 237-02. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2439-03 -ENAYAT FAZEL! (CHEVRON GAS STATION) A proposal to allow the off-sale of beer and wine at a gas station mini-mart including Findings of Public Convenience or necessity. This site: is located at 4105 W. Chapman Avenue. Subject site borders on the adjacent cities of Garden Grove and Anaheim. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the CaliforniaEnvirorunental Quality Act (CEQA), per 4 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 CEQA Guidelines Sectionl530l (Class I - Existing Facilities). Chris Carnes introduced the project. He noted that two additional items were wceived at the administrative session preceding the planning commission meeting. One was prepared by the city that showed the location of other off-sale facilities within the vicinity of the subject site, and the second was a petition prepared by the residents who live within the vicinity of the subject site requesting that the commission not approve the proposal. The petition contained over 70 signatures. The public hearing was opened. JeffFarano, 2300 W. Katella, Anaheim, represented the applicant and gave a presentation on this request. He stated that he believed that the primary reason for recommending denial is the crime reporting area of Anaheim, an adjoining city; and secondly, that there already were facilities in the area that could meet the needs of the local community. He noted that the owner had been at the site since the mid-1970s, and purchased the land and built the new facility. Mr. Farano noted several letters of support (and stated that he had not seen the petition mentioned earlier), and in particular noted a letter of support from the adjacent Crystal Cathedral. (It state:s fue owner lowers the gas prices on the weekend to help the church attendees, and is very active in the community, among other things). He noted that the letters of support from the local residents are those belonging to residents that primarily live within a half. mile of the business in question. He also detailed the state-of-the-art security system that exists on the property. The commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . How did you receive the signatures on the petition in favor of the project? The petition was at the counter of the store over the last week, they were not circulated through the neighborhood, and they just asked for support of the petition. . Are single cans and bottles of alcohol sold at this establishment? They are not sold in individual bottles and cans. . Where is the closest grocery store to this location? Commissioner Smith said she had looked into this issue and it is 1.3 miles west of the 5 Freeway. Going east, the next grocery store is 1.2 miles east of the 5 Freeway at Chapman and Main. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Pruett asked staff to review, for the benefit of the public, why the City looks into the number oflicenses, etc., that exist in the neighborhood where the new license is requested. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, spoke to this issue. She stated that state law requirements went into effect approximately 15 years ago, and at the time there were so many licenses being issued that the state had a concern as to location and proliferation of licenses within certain areas. There were a limited number oflicenses that could be issued, and the state wanted to look into the statistics surrounding possible higher crime in areas with multiple liquor licenses. 5 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 Sergeant Tom Kisela of the City of Orange Police Department, Vice Unit, spoke to the department's concerns. He stated that the department had been called to the address 19 times since 2002, and that to service this area (there is currently one officer), additional officers would have to be called from adjacent areas to cover it. He also cited tile proximity to high crime areas bordering the location in Anaheim and Garden Grove. Chairman Pruett stated that he did not want the findings to reflect negatively on the business owner. The commissioners all had positive comments regarding the business owner's attention to detail at his business and it's positive impact to the community. Chairman Pruett moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 09-04 denying Conditional Use Permit 2439- 03. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Chris Carnes, at the request of Chairman Pruett, explained the appeal procedure to the applicant. He stated that the finding of the Planning Commission was final unless appealed to the City Council within the next 15 days, and must be made in written form on forms available in the Community Development Department offices, and requires a $1,000 deposit. The City Clerk, upon filing the appeal, will schedule: it for the soonest possible Council hearing. All property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be notified of the appeal. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2458-03, MINOR SITE: PLAN REVIEW NO. 284-03, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1729-03- MONTGOMERY RESIDENCE A request for a Conditional Use Permit to approve two-story development within the Old Towne Orange Historic District to modify an existing 1950's one-story, non-contributing Stucco Box styled single-family residence into a two-story Spanish Colonial architectural style residence. Project includes the expansion of a kitchen area between the existing garage and one-story residence and the construction of a new second-story family room, bath and enclosed balcony over tile first floor. The site is located at 204 N. Waverly Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1729-03 was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. Chris Carnes introduced tile item, and a staff report was given by Senior Planner Dan Ryan. It was noted that in the last ten years, there had only been one other project where the owner requested a change in architectural style to a non-contributing building within the Old Towne Historic district. The guidelines currently do not address changing the architecture of a building if it is not a contributing building. He stated that he had received a letter of concern from the Old Towne 6 Plarming Commission April 19, 2004 Historic Preservation Association questioning whether the project should be viewed as an addition or an in-fill type project. To allow a full discussion of these items prior to the Plarming Commission hearing, the Community Development Director asked the DRC to again review the project to determine the appropriate policy that should be followed. The DRC discussed the classification of the proposed project. The committee reaffirmed its previous d.ecision that the building was a non-contributing building, and did not create a false sense of history in its redesign. The DRC thanked the Old Towne Historic Preservation Association for its comments, but stated that the current guidelines stated that only additions to historic buildings need to match the existing architecture of the contributing building and this project did not fall into that category. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was invited to speak: Marie Montgomery, 204 N. Waverly - First bought the house nine years ago, it has the original terra cotta roof, which carmot be duplicated so it will be replaced. No walls will be coming down, and they will be saving the original double-hung windows. Feels that this is an enhancement to the neighborhood, there are some existing Spanish style homes in the area as well a.s Craftsman homes. The DRC in their review noted that they preferred the stucco chimney to tile brick chimney. The public was invited to speak: Opposed: Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street - discussed the fact that tilis is not an in-fill. This project will create a false sense of history. Commissioner Smith asked him what date he would put on the proposed design and he stated that it was mid to late 20s, when the existing structure was a 50s structure. He noted a copy of the standards (Page 20, Chapter 5) that addressed the historic guidelines. He stated that if this project were approved, it would be in violation of the standards. In Favor: Chip & Leslie Buckley, 910 E. Maple, Orange - They are neighbors in favor of this project, feeling that it fits in nicely to the whole scheme of the block. The public hearing was closed. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . There needs to be clarification on the design guidelines on when something is considered an addition or a rehab. . A condition should be added to retain the glass block diamond feature that is currently present. 7 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 Minute Order: The Planning Commission looks to revise the Old Towne Design Standards to better define Chapter 5, section A-3, Page 26 for future projects such as this; and to consider changing provision from pre-1940s to pre-1950s homes. Commissioner Smith moved to adopt Resolution PC No. 17-04 approving Negative Declaration No. 1729-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2458-03, Minor Site Plan review No. 284-03, and Design Review Committee No.3835-03. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED (7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2490-03, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 312-03, 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 an Administrative Adjustment for a reduction in the required rear yard setback and in parking back-up area. The site is located at 230 N. Grand Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1726-03 was pn:pared in compliance with the California Environmt:ntal Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The item was introduced by Chris Carnes, and a staff presentation was given by Senior Planner Dan Ryan. It was noted that the property is zoned R-3, and the garage also includes a small workshop. The site is currently developed with a 1,527 sq. ft., contributing, one:-story, 1909 Hip Roof Cottage. The DRC recommended approval of the project on February 18, 2004, with conditions noted in the Staff Report. The guidelines call for 700 sq. ft. of recreational space, and this project provides 950 sq. ft. The public hearing was opened. In Favor: Applicant, Leason Pomeroy, III, 158 N. Glassell, #201, Orange Leason Pomeroy, IV, 230 N. Grand Street, Orange . All conditions noted by the DRC have been addressed and met. · Shared concerns regarding ingress and egress to property, noise and security. Master bedroom is adjacent to driveway. 8 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 Opposed: De Anna De Bay - 231 N. Grand - concern is if this farnily moves away and it turns into rentals. There are 20 lots currently on the street, and on those 20 lots there are 34 living units. In those living units there are 16 on one side that are rentals (west side) and on east side are 18 units and II are rentals. That gives a possibility of 68 cars, just on this one block. On street sweeping days there is not enough parking for the cars that are t\1ere now. Many of the existing garages have been turned into rental units, further compounding the problem. Real concerns about the quality of life in the neighborhood in the future. Annalisa Goode - 438 S. Grand - second unit apartment rentals are inappropriate for Old Towne. Lot by lot, apartment units like the applicants', are deteriorating the single-family neighborhood. Before the City considers additional rental units to fill up more back yards, she requests a suspension to all pending and proposed second unit building projects in Old Towne and place a hold on Mr. Pomeroy's project until the City Council reviews the overwhelming Plarming Commission recommendation for City Staff to consider rezoning all of Old Towne Orange to R-l. Janet Crenshaw - 400 block ofN. Shaffer -- While this second unit is within th(~ size limits for grarmy units, she questions whether the proposed 3-car garage-sized building tha1 it rests upon fits within this lot. Owner claimed at DRC that all 3 adjacent property owners wefl~ in concert with him on this plan, including the ones that will share a driveway for 3 residents - has the City consulted these neighbors or received anything in writing? Bob Tunstall- 238 N. Grand (the neighbor that shares the driveway with the Pomeroy's). Has the highest regard for the Pomeroy's, they've been good neighbors. The immediate concern is the egress from garage (it takes his wife 4 turns to get out of the garage). Ifthe new building comes out beyond the line of their garage, it will pose some real maneuvering problems. Long-te concern is that the Pomeroy's may not stay in the house and the 2-bedroom proposed ad.dition will become a rental along with the house to a conceivable 7 adults with 7 cars. Asks the Planning Commission to take his concerns under consideration. Patricia Bello - 222 N. Grand (neighbors to the south of the project). This project, even though within design standards, will still change the fabric of the neighborhood. Not opposed to building a garage, but opposed to the 2-story. They were not part of any concurrence to this proj ect. Concerns are also with the additional parking space that is provided between the two properties, it will be right up near their fence that is next to their bedroom. Two-bath consideration also concerns her because it increases the possibility of additional tenants. The public hearing was closed. The Commissioners noted the following questions/concerns: . Chairman Pruett noted that several letters had been received regarding this project, two from property owners adjacent to the site, and one from a nearby residence voicing concern about lighting and privacy. Lighting on rear porch lights the back yard currently, and will remain. This issue had been addressed at the DRC and the applicant believes he was able to mitigate these concerns through the design so that no windows face directly onto the neighboring properties, and the lighting will be not as much as it is currently. 9 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 · One issue is how much encroachment is there on adjacent neighbor's property? There is no easement on record. Applicant should re-evaluate back-up issue from parking. · Open space is an issue; there is no play area for a child. Plan is to place picket fence in front yard for recreational space. · Plan does not appear to have area for storage, what is the plan? Shelving above car in garage. Additional storage needs to be considered. · Not comfortable with findings that are currently in place. Overall massiing & density in backyard is a problem; access to patio area and patio area in general (behind house) is a problem. · Realize that applicant is building this unit to solve a short-term problem with an elderly relative, suggest tl1at a long-term view be considered. . Rear setback needs to be reviewed. The public hearing was re-opened. Chair Pruett asked the applicant if they would like to continue tl1e project and how much time they would need. The applicant answered that they would like to continue this project and that they would need a month. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith moved to continue this item to the June 7, 2004, Plarming Commission meeting so that the applicant could address some of the concerns raised by the Commissioners. Chairman Pruett noted that no additional noticing to the public would be given. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion to continue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED (8) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2492-04 - CALIFORNIA FIREFIGHTERS APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING PROGRAM A proposal to establish a firefighters testing and certification facility in an existing multiple-tenant industrial complex (Orange Industrial Park). The site is located at 626 North Eckhoff Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Envirolllllental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). 10 Planning Commission April 19, 2004 Chris Carnes introduced the item. The puhlic hearing was opened. Bill Cathcar1, speaking for the applicant noted that this facility was to be used strictly for testing and certification and they would follow strict schedule adherence (star1ing no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and closing no later than 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Because testing was tightly scheduled, this would preclude any problem with meeting the parking requirements. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Domer moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 21-04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2492-04. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED Chairman Pruett moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting to a study session prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 3, 2004. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith None None Commissioners Bonina and Brandman MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at II: 15 p.m. 11