Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - May 15 l0'SSI'c C.),J!f"O &.,/3 MINVTES Planning Commission City of Orange May 15, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin. Recording Secretary ~.? : t~ 0) L.".... 9 -r.~::,n:) A,l}O - IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of May 1, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes of May 1, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton. Romero. Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2326-00 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-04 - KEN ARTHUR Commissioner Smith excused herself from Ihe meeting due 10 a potential conflict of interest. The applicant was nol present and the Commission did not want to carryon without him being present. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Conditional Use Permit 2326-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-04 until later in the meeting when the applicant is present. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2331-00 - COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH A request to modify an existing conditionai use permit. which includes the physical expansion of an existing school facility. The site is located at 1855 Orange-Olive Road. 1 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 NOTE: Negative Declaration 1639-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Jay Eastman, Assistant Planner. stated the applicant is requesting a modification to Conditional Use Permit 1505, which permits the operation of a K - 8th grade school facility. The existing CUP allows for 19 classrooms. 4 meeting rooms, 5 offices and an existing gymnasium. A maximum of 475 students are permitted. The proposal before the Commission is a two-phase project. The first phase includes the demolition of a sanctuary building on property located adjacent to the school site, a two classroom, 2-story addition onto the existing school building. and the installation of two temporary modular classrooms on a lawn area just east of the Church's 2-story sanctuary. The second phase will include the construction of a 2-story building on the site of the demolished sanctuary, and the removal of the temporary modular classrooms. The publiC hearing was opened. Greq Lefler. Lefler and Associates. 1824 AleDDo. Thousand Oaks. is the architect for the Church. The intent of this project is to give the existing students more room for classroom education. The Church does not intend to increase the number of students. The modular buildings are to accommodate the space that will be lost during the demolition of the existing building. Once construction was completed, the modular buildings would be removed from the site. The Church wants to occupy the new building by September. 2002. They have read the 27 conditions of approval and do not object to them; however, they asked for clarification on condition 13 relative to the removal of the driveway on Briardale Avenue. They don't have a problem with complying with this condition. But. previously staff had required the Church to put in the driveway to improve traffic flow and to allow the trash trucks to pick up the trash on site and exit without difficulty. He explained when drawings were submitted for the removal of the parking and the playground area in 1997. unfortunately no one realized that the Church was required to go through a modification of their conditional use permit. The Church can meet the parking requirements. They recognize parking is a legitimate problem and the pastor is taking steps to either relocate the Church to another location. or to divide the services to be more manageable. They have also considered adjacent commercial space and the possibility of shared parking agreements. 2 DeoDle sDoke in ODDosition Barbara Vinton, 320 East Blue Ridge Avenue. Roger Vanderlaan. 310 East Blue Ridge Avenue. They were opposed because it is extremely noisy living behind the Church and school. Every Saturday morning blower and sweeper noise awaken them. There used to be Italian Cypress trees that acted as a sound barrier, but they died and they were taken down. It took about a year before anything was replanted and it is not comparable to the trees. People are at the property as late as 12 midnight. There are all night activities and the noise is very intrusive. When the Church is called with these complaints. the response is not favorable. The Church has not always been a good neighbor. Bright lights from the ball field is a concern. 1 person spoke in favor of the project: Walt Posev. 17981 Wellinqton Circle. Villa Park. is a member of the Church. He apologized for the problems because this is the first time he has heard of them. They picked up 33 additional parking spaces when they purchased the additional property. They do not need the fence that was put up, but they wanted to keep the children safe when they are outside playing. They could also take out the athletic field and convert it back over to parking spaces for an additional 30. He would be happy to meet with the neighbors in the surrounding neighborhood to mitigate their concerns and problems. ADDlicant's reSDonse Mr. Lefler stated they were unaware of the neighbors' complaints, but assured everyone they heard the problems tonight and will address all of them. Italian Cypress can be planted to help buffer the noise. 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 Chairman Bosch stated for the record that the Commission received a letter from John Mills, 1906 North Woodside. who was concerned about current lighting at night. Commissioner Smith said conditions can be added to address the noise and late night activities. There also needs to be some sort of sound barrier, such as landscaping. Mr. Lefler responded the Church did not have a problem with added conditions. Commissioner Pruett referred to the letter from Mr. Mills and asked Mr. Lefler to address the issue ot light pollution that is created by the facility. Mr. Lefler was not aware of a light problem, but he will take a look at the existing lighting and make corrections so as not to be intrusive to the neighbors. Chairman Bosch said the critical issue for him is the noise problem late at night. Outdoor use needs to be controlled. It also sounds like parking management is a key concern. Mr. Lefler responded the Church also has concems about parking. He suggested the Commission add a condition to address the parking during special events held at the Church. Commissioner Pruett suggested a parking management plan be implemented to manage the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Romero asked the City Engineer about the condition relative to the driveway on Briardale. Mr. Hohnbaum's recollection of the plan was that there is a certain one-way circulation and staff did not see a total need for the driveway at that location. In fact. it looked like it might even provide a way for people to circulate in and out of the parking lot. using the street, which is something staff would like to discourage. By taking out the driveway it would allow the Church to put in one or two more parking spaces. He was not aware of the circulation for trash needs; that was not an issue that was brought up at the Staff Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Smith is in favor of conditioning a substantial amount of landscaping along the boundary of where the sound complaints are. Also, put into the conditions the parameters for noise. Curfew hours are needed when people are using the picnic tables at night. Chairman Bosch thought condition 27 is one ot a series of things that may help the overall management, such as requiring the decorative gate across the driveway at Shaffer Street. Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 19 that addressed outdoor areas and restricted hours. He suggested signs be posted that indicates when the areas are closed. He also wanted to include a condition for a traffic management plan for the various uses on the property and the parking lot. The Commission felt there are challenges to be overcome here and part of it is the awareness that the applicant has received where parking, lighting, lack of landscaping and hours of operation have been negatively impacting the neighbors. With the provisions built into this conditional use permit, and if it is enhanced with the requirement that landscaping along the north property line be added back in. this could be an improved project. There needs to be more done with regard to the traffic management plan and hours of operation. The conditions and design ot the project are appropriate for the uses and are well placed on the site. The driveway on Briardale can be eliminated. Looking at the circulation plan, there is no need for three driveways. Relative to condition 21. the signs should also be identified as a "Fire Lane _ No Parking." MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Negative Declaration 1639-00 finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton. Pruell, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use Permit 2331-00, based on the findings that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. The CUP will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the neighborhood. The project has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and the neighborhood, and it is granted with conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. There are 27 conditions of approval required for this project. And. condition 16 is modified in which the final landscape plan shall include substantial and mature plant material that would serve the purpose of a sound barrier to the adjoining residential properties. Modify condition 19 to add: "Outdoor school areas". And, the hours of allowed use shall be posted. The design of the sign and its location shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department." Modify condition 21 by adding to the signage: "Fire Lane - No Parking." Add condition 28: "A traffic management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by City staff, including both traffic circulation and parking issues related to the different uses on the site: Church, school and community services." Add condition 29: "Noise from the use of the youth and community centers shall cease between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m." AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith encouraged the neighbors to continue monitoring the Church's activities and encouraged the Church to respond to the neighbors' concerns. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2326-00 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-04 - KEN ARTHUR A request to allow the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two-car garage and workshop with a new second-story unit over the garage. The project includes two parallel open parking stalls on the south edge of the driveway. The site is located at 133 North Shaffer Street and is within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. (This item was continued from the April 3, 2000 meeting.) NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1632-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Commissioner Smith excused herself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Godlewski reported this item was continued to allow the applicant to make changes to the elevations because of concerns with the garage door on the third garage that was going to be used for a workshop. The elevations also lacked detail on the east and south sides. Revised plans have been submitted for consideration. The public hearing was opened. Ken Arthur. 133 North Shaffer, reviewed the memorandums and agrees with them. He hopes to soften some of the elevations and show the existing wall lines on the south and east sides of the elevations. The one garage door was changed to a pair of man doors. On the east elevation. two double hung windows were added to the garage, which will provide additional lighting and give more detail to the elevation. Gable shadow lines were added to the very top of the elevation. The size of the construction is still the same size. It's only 60 feet over an allowable unit size for any back yard. The workshop area is a place for him to work on his personal hobbies. The large White Oak tree will not be removed from the property because it blocks part of the new structure. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 Rick Renoel, 333 EI Camino Real. Tustin, is the architect for the project. and spoke to the architectural detail and elements being tied together on the project. Those soeakinq in oooosition to the oroiect Joan Crawford. 394 South Orange Street. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive Street. Janet Crenshaw, 464 North Shaffer. The speakers were opposed to the size of the project; there has been no change from the previous submittal. The FAR is .42 and the staff report indicates the other lots in the area have FAR's of .21 and .26. The design has not been developed to include the bulk and mass issues. The 1 1/2 story design has not been considered, but it would help improve the bulk and mass for that neighborhood. This is one of the oldest streets in Old Towne; the houses date back to 1887 and there is only one house on the street that is not a contributing structure. The FAR is being doubled, thus it is reducing the open space by 20%. That affects the rhythm of the street. There is still concern about the use of the unit as a possible office. And, the number of cars and trucks parked at the residence gives the impression that a business is being run from the site. Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Arthur owns several personal vehicles, but they are not construction vehicles. He doesn't want to work out of an eighty year old garage. or try to even make it work. The size of the structure does not come into play because of its location next to the Coco's parking lot. If there is any activity on the driveway, it doesn't affect anybody. He is the buffer for Shaffer Street. and he puts up with all kinds of activity from the Coco's parking lot. He does not believe his project will negatively affect the neighborhood. Commissioner Romero is still concerned about the FAR. By reducing the size of the garage to a 2-car garage. the FAR of .35 is better than .42. The bulk and mass issues are still the negative points of the project. He had concerns with the number of vehicles in the driveway. but that's not something the Commission can control. Not using the facility as it is designed for is always going to be a potential problem. He wondered if the applicant had considered other alternatives. (Mr. Arthur has not reconsidered changing the size of the garage.) The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton. at previous meetings. has argued very strongly against approving anything that was over sized in bulk and mass in an attempt to preserve the qualities of Old Towne. This project is a dilemma because the FAR is within the code. The zoning is R-2-6 for the area. The applicant has stated the exterior is going to be wood siding that will be compatible with the architectural features that are required in Old Towne. He has made a number of architectural changes that are good. If this were in the middle of the block, she wouldn't feel the same way. But the location of the project next to the parking lot of Coco's is a mitigating factor in her mind. It's not impacting the neighborhood. She is leaning towards approval of the project. Commissioner Pruett is concerned about the precedent that would be set for the Old Towne area with the FAR of .42 and the bulk and mass of the project. The residence was expanded with the original project and without that expansion, it would have been easier to look at this issue in terms of the FAR. The design changes have made some improvement, but the impact upon the neighborhood is a concern. Chairman Bosch stated over the last decade, everyone has leaned what it means to have a National Historic District. and they have struggled with FAR and bulk and mass issues. He is a strong advocate of floor area ratios. The project meets the ordinance untii the Old Towne Development Standards are applied. The applicant has shown some small, simple changes that have dramatically improved the project. However. he struggles with the project meeting the test of reducing the appearance of bulk and mass and providing a better fit architecturally into the intent of the Old Towne Design Standards. He's 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 convinced that you can't put a 1 1/2 story garage with a unit over it on the site; it doesn't work architecturally. This is going to be a problem until it is recognized that this type of building is special and one of a kind that is not adequately defined. A determination needs to be made that either the zoning. or the FAR or the definition of the second units that can go onto a property are addressed in the ordinances. He felt the building has been improved, but it could also be improved a lot more. He didn't think the concern is just the FAR; it's not just the total square footage of the use. Given what has changed over the last 10 years, in terms of approved design standards and modifications to the standards, does this meet the test of the new standards? The DRC said the project needed some changes. He frankly felt the square footage and the proposed uses are okay. The siding is going to be satisfactory and he believed the Coco's location does mitigate to a great extent. At the same time, he believed it was an imposition into the overall fabric of rear yards. He's not opposed to this project in terms of a 2-car garage, workshop and a second unit and he believed there has been movement towards making articulation of the architectural style that has helped quite a bit, but it's not quite there yet. With some more effort, the appearance of the bulk and mass could be reduced even further by the way the gables are articulated to bring the scale down a bit more. He suggested additional work in terms of plate heights, using volume space on the second floor in terms of dropping the easterly roof line to reduce the mass of the building. doing a bit more in spaces that are not head height spaces to make it work better. The FAR is not too high because it meets the ordinance. Other issues have to be looked at. The Commission asked the applicant to consider another continuance to modify his plans to reduce the apparent bulk and mass. Mr. Arthur agreed to a continuance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2326-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-04 to the meeting of June 19, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith returned to the meeting. RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. IN RE: NEW HEARING 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-05 - PUL TE HOME CORPORATION A request to reduce city requirements for front yards to 16 feet (20 feet required) on 13 percent of all lots, and a rear yard area requirement to 810 square feet (900 feet required) on 4 percent of all lots. 139 single-family residences will be constructed on the property. The site is located east of Serrano Avenue and Orange Park Boulevard, west of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road. and north of Santiago Oaks Regional Park. Mr. Jones noted on Page 2 of the staff report in reference to over 17% of the project site, "one-story look alike" homes is satisfied by the single-story model, but that is changed to 20%. And, relative to the conditions of approval, condition 1 refers to rear yards - add the word "rear" in the last sentence between required and yards. Condition 5, add the word "precise" between including and grading plans. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chairman Pruett chaired the hearing. The public hearing was opened. Frank Elfend. Ellend & Associates, represented Pulte Home Corporation. The staff report covers all items and does a good job of explaining some of the reasons why the request has been made. There are two provisions that they are better defining: Rear yard usable area; out of 139 lots it affects three, or roughly 2%. The justification for that is to build a single family home as a larger footprint as it will have minimal impact on the rear yard. The other request has to do with the front yard requirement of 20 feet. This request is basically to improve the articulation and the architecture of the unit because it has a front porch. Roughly 50% of the 18 lots have a setback of 17 or 18 feet. In the staff report there is a comment regarding the visibility of this project from Santiago Oaks Regional Park. For the record, Development Area #7 is approximately 3,000 feet from the park. He didn't think this area will be highly visible from that location. Commissioner Romero asked how much effort was put into re-positioning the homes onto larger lots and the smaller footprint put in the smaller lots. Mr. Ellend stated that over 70% of the lots needed to be re-plotted when the project was first presented to the City. That has been reduced dramatically. Pulte Homes has moved various models to various lots and it took several months to re-position the homes. Commissioner Carlton said it was very obvious that there was no open space in this development. She looked at the maps and noted only one access street to Serrano. She asked how far this project is from the nearest park? Mr. Ellend indicated there is one park, which is in the Phase 1 area of Serrano Heights. And. last week they had a cooperative grading agreement approved with the Orange Unified School District. which will result in some additional park-like space, including some playing fields. This will be right across Serrano, which is directly south of Development Area #7, roughly 1,000 feet. Details are being worked out with the School District in terms of access. A signal will be installed at the intersection. Commissioner Carlton pointed out there should be some park space in the tract. The developer is asking for a lot of adjustments and in her mind, the way to eliminate asking for numerous adjustments is to eliminate a few of the lots and make some of the lots bigger, There are a couple of lots that could be devoted to a neighborhood park. This becomes a health and safety issue for her and she challenges the developer on this. It is beyond her why the developer will not provide a park for these communities. It would be a plus for selling the community. Mr. Ellend asked Commissioner Carlton to recall the discussion they had previously on the parks and open space on this project back in February of this year. The matter before the Commission is an administrative adjustment for a few lots on this project which will improve the architecture and break up some of the building mass. They will be one-story units on the lots rather than one-story look alikes. There was a very significant planning effort on behalf of the City. on behalf of the community and others. in terms of the configuration of the site and the retention of designated ridge lines as open space in lieu of active parks. As far as Serrano Heights goes as a project. there is a 4-acre park in Phase 1. There are some additional development areas which are known as Development Areas 2 and 4 where there are some mini-parks. They feel very positive about providing some additional usable space as part of the cooperative grading agreement with OUSD. It is Commissioner Carlton's opinion that ridge lines don't replace usable open space for families with pre- schoolers or young children, She thought the project could have been developed without having to ask for the administrative adjustments if the lots were made a little bit bigger. The overall ambiance and the desirability of the community and the quality of the community that is being built is very important. She's 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2000 disappointed that this developer has come in, maximized the space, granted under the entitlements that they have without giving any consideration to some small improvement (park) that would make the City and community feel better about the project. Mr. Elfend said the density of the project does not allow for any further reduction of density. As far as the matter before the Commission, the request to provide some porches, to break up the articulation; it has nothing to do with lot size. It's a very positive use of the architecture of the site. A single family home has much less density than a single story look-alike home. Commissioner Pruett suggested adjusting the lot line out 2 feet and build a retaining wall at the top of the slope, and fill the back yards on lots 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, extending the yards out for usable space. This would eliminate the need for an administrative adjustment. Scott Wriqht. Pulte Home Corooration, noticed the easement. Pulte Homes would be open to adjusting the lot line if it is feasible. He wasn~ involved in the early planning process. He doesn't know why the tract boundary doesn't go up to the easement. He doesn't believe the map has been finaled yet, so that is something that can be addressed at the time the final map goes forward to the City Council. Mr. Jones and Mr. Hohnbaum commented staff would be willing to take a look at Commissioner Pruett's suggestion and work with the applicant to gain the additional square footage to meet the code. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was not in favor of the front yard reductions. It is a trade off for porChes rather than front yard area. That can be fixed in another way by the design of the house, designing the porch to be included in the building in such a way that the 20 foot front yard setback is retained. She voiced her concern at the study session of how the lots keep getting smaller and smaller, and the houses keep getting bigger and bigger. Approval would give the impression that a developer can build close to the street frontage and reduce the green, open space of the property. The idea of building a retaining wall is fine, but she would be in favor of the request as stated without the retaining wall. Commissioner Pruett didn't have a problem with the front porches because people would use this outdoor space. Without the porch. people will not be using the front of their homes, It invites more of a community when people begin to utilize their porches. The Commission asked Mr. Ellend if he would consider a continuance to look at the rear yard areas. Mr. Ellend prefers that the Commission take action at this hearing. They are amiable to the suggestion of retaining walls on the three lots. thus eliminating the need for an administrative adjustment on that particular development standard. But. they request that the setback for the porches be modified as proposed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Administrative Adjustment 00-05 for the front yard reductions. and deny the request for rear yard reductions on the six lots. Revised conditions include conditions 2 through 5, modifying condition 5 by adding the word "precise" in front of grading plans. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett and Romero Commissioners Carlton and Smith Commissioner Bosch MOTION FAILED The motion died for a lack of a majority vote. And. not seeing any action come forward, Mr. Jones informed the applicant of his right to appeal the Commission's determination to the City Council. 8 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: May 15. 2000 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Isld Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED 9