Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - October 16 cl1SS (-e... MINUTES C.-<Jf" &--? J Planning Commission City of Orange October 16, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m, PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary .,-) n .' ~. ,. I, L ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2332-00 & ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT ()()-14 - ORANGE -',', ;,,' I J - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORANGE ROTARY . A request for a conditional use permit to construct a five dwelling unit senior citizen project and a request for administrative adjustment to reduce the street-side building setback by 20% and the minimum open space setback by 10%, As part of consideration for the senior housing, the applicant is requesting a waiver of one development standard, The proposal includes two of the five units being permanently set aside for lower-income households, The site is located on the north side 01 La Veta Avenue between Lemon and Olive Streets. Mr. Godlewski reported that the applicant requested to continue this project indefinitely to re-design the project, and staff will re-notice prior to a new hearing. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue Conditional Use Permit 2332-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-14 indefinitely and request that staff re-notice prior to a new hearing, AYES: NOES: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 2, Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of October 2, 2000, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Minutes of October 2, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2000 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2000-203 - MELVIN AOU A request to subdivide a vacant parcel of land approximately one (1) acre in size into 4 smaller parcels for the development of 4 single family homes. The site is on the north side of Walnut Avenue, 142 feet west of Hamlin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Godlewski said this item is normally acted upon by the Staff Review Committee; however, because there was so much concern at that hearing, it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, The property is approximately one acre in size and is located in a neighborhood of mixed development. The applicant is requesting to develop the one acre parcel into four parcels, consistent with all of the requirements of the zone and Subdivision Map Act. A number of petitions and requests from surrounding neighbors have been forwarded to the Commission, expressing concern with the development. Those concerns are the ability to keep horses on the adjacent property, views, densities and intensity of development. The public hearing was opened, EnQles Shen is the project engineer and represented the applicant. They are requesting to divide the property into four lots. Each parcel will have a minimum of 8,200 square feet. They are aware that the neighbors have some concerns, but they don't believe this project will impact the area, GreQ House, 23970 Nichol Wav, Yorba Linda, represented the Aou's and he manages most of their properties, They plan to build 2-story, single family houses, one on each lot. Historically, the parcel map was already approved once. The issues discussed at the two previous staff meetings were that the size ot the property was too small for each house, The 2-story homes are the norm for the area, Chairman Bosch noted for the record the letters and correspondence that were received, as well as petitions opposing the project. Commissioner Smith did not receive copies of these letters, and hasn't had a chance to read them. 18 oeoole sooke in oooosition to the oroiect Dario Hernandez, 535 North Hamlin Street. Doug Ammer, 532 North Hamlin Street, spoke on behalf of Jason Johnson. Leonard Brazitis, 4638 Orange Grove Avenue, Rick Mendez, 4625 East Walnut Avenue, Pam Callahan, 505 North Hamlin Street. Susan Brazitis, 4638 Orange Grove Avenue, Mary Vitullo, 542 North Hamlin Street. Sandy Garcia Rickard, 4625 East Walnut Avenue, Julie Jones-Ulkes, 20121 East Clark. John Ufkes, 20121 East Clark, read a letter from Loyrie Marine, who could not attend the meeting, Bob Jones, 20122 Cypress Street, Newport Beach. Jayne Mathisen, 20122 Cypress Street, Newport Beach. Craig Attanasio, 5744 East Creekside #47. Chuck McNees, 11211 Orange Park Boulevard. Lynette Ammer, 532 North Hamlin Street. Mark Sandford, 10591 South Meads Avenue. Jackie Ponich, 505 North Hamlin Street. Cristina Cortez, 517 North Hamlin Street. 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2000 The speakers were opposed to the project because the applicant proposes to build four 2-story homes. Traffic and parking are major concerns. Several questions were asked regarding the removal of lead based paint and asbestos on the original house before it was demolished, If the parcel is divided, how many houses can be built? Can the zoning be changed at a later date? Will the homes be turned into multi-family housing? How many families will be living in these homes? Can the builder request funds from the City to build low-income housing? Does the builder plan to sell these houses or retain them as rental property? The surrounding neighbors request that no 2-story homes be built on this property, but to replace what was there -- a single story home that conforms with the already existing large lot properties, The neighbors requested that the owner/developer work with them and involve them in the planning process, They want to review the developer's plans. They do not want new houses within 5 feet of their property lines, but want a 20 foot rear yard setback, Speakers were not completely opposed to development of the property, but opposed the subdivision of the property because of the four large houses, It does not fit with the houses that are on Walnut. The new homes will be an invasion of privacy that will jeopardize the residents' way of life. Their equestrian lifestyle will be impacted; it must be preserved for future generations, Views will be blocked. Trees should be preserved as wild animalslbirds live in the trees. Children's safety is a concern, Property values will decrease, Walnut Street is 40 feet wide; not 60 feet. The property is best suited for only one or two single story homes. An environmental impact report is needed for this project because of the many impacts, Mitigation measures must be addressed, The project should be conditioned, Equestrian use is next door. Houses should be moved off of the fence line, It was suggested to have CC&R's for the new houses and put the people on notice that the adjacent properties are grandfathered into the City as equestrian properties and there are special setbacks associated with these properties to protect the equestrian lifestyle. The neighborhood has expressed interest in purchasing that property for a park. Photos were taken of the neighborhood and displayed while the speakers talked. ApDlicant's response Mr. House mentioned that of the 68 people who were sent notices of this project, 64 or 65 of them have approximately 7,500 square foot lots and at least half of them have 2-story houses, The footprint 01 the house is approximately 2,300 square feet. They have back yards and 2-car garages with space for at least two cars in front of the garage. Their parcel map is in keeping with the size of lots in the area and it complies with all of the City's ordinances. The rear yard setbacks are more than 20 feet. The side yard setbacks are 7 feet. Mr. Shen explained they are requesting to subdivide one lot into four lots, Each lot wilf have one house built on it and one family will live in each house. The zoning is R-1-7; they are not requesting to change the zoning, This is a flag lot with a common driveway, This project will enhance the surrounding neighborhood with quality homes, which will increase property values, Commissioner Carlton said the staff report noted an abandoned well on the site and she wanted to know if Mr, Shen was aware of this. Mr, Shen was not aware of the welf, But, if there is a welf, they will follow the City's requirements to destroy the well. Commissioner Smith wanted to know the intent of the property owner -- to retain the homes as rental properties, or to build them and sell them? Mr. Shen replied the owner will be selling the homes, They will be retaining the trees on the site, if they do not interfere with the project and if they are healthy. Commissioner Smith asked if they were willing to look at different building plans than what is shown on the blue prints? Mr. Shen could not answer for the owner. Chairman Bosch asked about the CC&R's for the four properties regarding the easements and maintenance, Mr. Shen said this project does not require CC&R's. They will, however, accept conditions placed on the project. 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2000 Chairman Bosch said the Commission was handed a site plan showing four residences, but it was not part of the submittal package, It has been represented that this may occur, but the site plan is not an official submittal. Something else could be developed as long as it meets the development standards of the City's ordinance relative to whatever parcel map is adopted. Mr. House stated the package had been submitted to the City. The staff planner asked him to bring the revised version of the site plan, based on the parcel map that was presented, a possible footprint for the yard and other requirements of staff, He acknowledged the site plan is just to give the Commission a rough idea of what they are proposing as far as the four lots, Chairman Bosch was concerned about drainage issues on the site. Mr. Shen stated that all drainage will go to the street. They are working from existing elevations and they plan to keep them, Commissioner Carlton asked if there was any consideration for guest parking, in addition to the driveway in front of the garages? Mr. Shen said guests can park in the driveway. There is no extra guest parking. Commissioner Carlton also noted there is not enough room for the trash trucks to turn around. Mr. Shen explained the residents must take their cans to the curb on Walnut for trash pick up. Commissioner Pruett asked if there was a reciprocal agreement for Lots 2 and 3, to which Mr. Shen responded yes, Mr. Hohnbaum explained it was staff's desire that all tour lots take access off of the common driveway, They would all have an access easement. Chairman Bosch referred to Page 2 of the staff report that talked about lot frontage, Mr. Godlewski said that all parcels are required to have frontage on a public street. With this lot configuration, even the lots in the back have an actual frontage on the public street. The easement takes care of the dimension requirement to access those lots, A conditional use permit is required for Lots 2 and 3 to be reviewed for lots without frontage on a public street. Flag lots do not have the minimum frontage requirement because they are not located on a public street. Commissioner Carlton asked if a demolition permit was issued to this owner or to a previous owner? Mr. Godlewski was not sure who pulled the permit at the time of demolition, He understands that the demolition took place at the time the City owned the parcel. If that is true, any demolition permit requires AQMD review prior to the City issuing a permit. Their review is specific to determining whether there is asbestos on the property or not. The previous owner wanted to develop the property for low-income housing and low-moderate income housing, but they were not able to get a proposal to work on this site and the property was subsequently sold to the Aou's. Mr. Godlewski said if a developer wanted to present aproposal for low-income units, that is acceptable and could be reviewed by the Planning Commission, The minimum density on this parcel is six units, Commissioner Smith said there was mention of crosswalks that were not marked on Hewes. She wanted Public Works to investigate this problem, She wondered where the cars come from that are causing a parking problem in the neighborhood, Mr. Hohnbaum will look into these problems. She hopes the City will investigate the tanks and water well that are on the property. A 7 foot high fence was cited and the ordinance allows for a 6 foot fence without a special permit. There was a question of whether or not the equestrian use can be grandfathered in, There is some misunderstanding of what can be allowed on this property, The proposed lots are bigger than the neighboring lots, except for the three lots to the west of the site. Commissioner Smith was interested in retaining the trees on the site and also would like to acknowledge Mr. McNees' concerns about the trails and access point. 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2000 Commissioner Carlton asked if the neighbors have approached the City in regards to buying the property for use as a park. Mr. Godlewski stated at the time the parcel was owned by the City, the decision was made to sell the parcel. He doesn't recall any proposals coming in to purchase the property for park use. Chairman Bosch thought it would be helpful to have some reiteration of the development standards that could apply to this type of property, He asked how building heights and setbacks are applied? Mr, Godlewski responded that the R-1-7 zone requires a rear yard setback of not less than 20 feet for 2-story development. One-story development could be built within 10 feet under certain circumstances. There is a 5 foot side yard setback and that includes the possibility of a 2-story house, 5 feet off of the property line. Also in the R-1-7 zone there is a 20 foot front yard setback requirement. The determination of what is the front of the lot is left open to discretion on the flag lots; however, the side lot line and the rear lot line are defined by the configuration of the lot. In this case, the north property line would be the rear property line and the east and west sides of the property would be considered side property lines. The Commission and staff talked about setbacks and property lines. There is concern about what is going to be placed on the parcels because it will affect the circulation, ingress/egress onto the properties and adjacent properties. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to deny Tentative Parcel Map 2000-203. He telt the applicant needs to bring back proposed physical improvements and more information about the proposed project. The Commission cannot address the circulation, access and public safety issues as they relate to the parcel map. Commissioner Smith preferred to continue the hearing, to give the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns expressed by the Commission and public, Commissioner Pruett agreed and amended his motion. The Commission asked the applicant if he were willing to continue the project and he agreed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Tentative Parcel Map 2000-203 to the meeting of December 4, 2000, to look at potential modifications to the design of the map, including suggested conditions of approval, by re-designing the project to address the issues of trash pick up, public safety, circulation, parking issues, ingress and egress, access, and impacts upon neighboring properties as the configuration of the existing parcel map causes negative impacts, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch outlined the Commission's concerns for the applicant: 1) Provide adequate on-site guest parking, 2) Waste management (trash pick up). 3) Suggested conditions of approval that go with the parcel map that respond to some of the concerns of the community such as the 5 foot side yard setback, 2-story homes, and window placement that causes a lack of privacy, The project will not be readvertised, RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 10:00 p,m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m, 4. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-00 - CITY OF ORANGE SPECIAL EVENTS A proposal to amend the City Zoning Ordinance related to special events in order to clarify the definition of a special event, and establish criteria and findings related to event duration, land use compatibility, vehicular traffic, public heallh, safety and welfare, and maintenance and promotion of the City's business environment. 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2000 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The public hearing was opened and closed without public comments, Commissioner Romero asked who determines what wild or ferocious animals are, under Section 17.46.080 Conduct of Operation - C. Mr. Godlewski said wild or ferocious animals are discussed in the County provisions for animal control, which are adopted by a separate City ordinance that speaks to the County taking over animal control regulations in most instances. It is in that chapter that discusses the wild and ferocious animals of lions, tigers and bears, Chairman Bosch is aware of institutions in the City of where special events occur that will be precluded by this amendment, including some of the distances: "No special event within 500 leet of any hospital, rest home or convalescent facility." The definitions need to be more specific, He is also concerned as to whether the amendment infringes upon first amendment rights. It needs to be quantified by content, location, types of events that are a nuisance now and not impact the rights that are held by community groups. Mr. Godlewski explained, under Definitions, the attempt was made to address the concerns of special events at a church or school. Commissioner Pruett said there are certain permitted activities that have been granted. The code is talking about special events; however, at the top of Page 3 it talks about temporary special permits, He suggested defining "temporary" special events to help define this section of the code, He wondered if some of this couldn't be captured under the issuance of a business license, Some of the events are commercial in nature, Commissioner Carlton questioned "structures exceeding 30 feet" on Page 5. Commissioner Smith thought the special events occurring within 500 feet of any hospital, rest home or convalescent facility prevents those facilities from having special events. She suggested that this section be changed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to continue Ordinance No. 3-00 repealing the existing Orange Municipal Code Chapter 5,70 "Special Events" in its entirety and add Chapter 17.46 "Special Events" to Title 17 of the OMC to the meeting of December 4,2000, for staff to consider and bring back recommendations in response to concerns raised by the Commission. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn at 10:30 p,m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 6