Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - March 20 Cttssi6 C-0l5"(J(J .G- .~. ~ MINUTES Planning Commission City 01 Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith March 20, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval 01 the Minutes Irom the Meeting 01 March 6, 2000. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Minutes 01 March 6, 2000 with corrections to Pages 4 and 5 relative to Zone Change 1202-99. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2000-117 AND VARIANCE 2083-00 - ISAM HANNA (ORANGE RANCH) A request to allow the subdivision 01 1.359 acres of property into four parcels. The applicant requests approval of a variance to reduce city requirements allecting parcel dimensions. The vacant parcel is located on the south side 01 Nohl Ranch, between Santiago Boulevard and Valley Glen Lane. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1620-99 was previously prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts 01 this project. Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, reported that on January 3 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny a live lot subdivision at this location. The applicant has withdrawn that proposal and submitted a new plan that includes lour parcels and lour units. A three lot subdivision 01 the property has been approved, and remains valid through March, 2001. The revised proposal avoids the easements owned by the City 01 Anaheim and Ouestar Southern Trails, which owns a pipeline under the southerly 30 leet 01 the property. The applicant's proposal includes four parcels that are large enough to satisly the City's minimum standard 01 6,000 square leet each. The applicant has requested that the City grant a variance to reduce the dimensional standards. The City requires that each 01 the lots be 60 leet wide and 100 leet deep. The applicant's application notes that the property's irregular shape and topography make the property dillicult to develop according to City standards lor lot width and depth. The applicant has resolved most 01 the technical issues. Stall's only concern about the proposal now is that the channel design and the level 01 improvements are subject to review, approval and acceptance by the City 01 Anaheim. There is a retaining wall proposed to separate the development area Irom the easement, and stall is not quite sure what the City 01 Anaheim will require in terms 01 lining the channel with concrete or what those improvements might entail. 1 v,~_,,,,,,,_.,,,"'~,.,. .""'''~''.'''''''''","'''_''" ~"'''____'''_'~'''''_~'~~~~__'_~'___"_'_'' .____.._,..~,.., Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2000 Chairman Bosch noted that condition 8 is a recommendation that a maintenance agreement be drafted by the applicant for approval by the City 01 Lots A and B. He wanted 10 know who was to bear the cost 01 maintenance for these lots and the easement. Mr. Donovan replied stall discussed that the City does not want to assume maintenance responsibilities. And, the applicant has inlormed him that the 40 loot easement is already a legal rasponsibility 01 theirs according to the terms 01 the agreement. It was noted the Commission received a communication dated March 20 from Mr. Ronald Johnson with regard to this item. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant. Isam Hanna. 2664 Vista Vallev Road, revised their original plans to meet the City's standards. Their proposal meets all requirements except the lot dimensions. 3 oeoole sDOke in oODOsition to this oroiect Angelo Casello, 2124 Valley Glen Lane. Carol Schara, 2202 Valley Glen Lane. Ronald Johnson, 2104 Valley Glen Lane. They objected to houses being built on this vacant property. However, il houses are to be built, there should be no more than three homes. The proposed homes are much smaller than those in the area. The average size home is 1900 square leet. Trallic, sale entry and exit, the narrow width 01 the street, trash pick up and drainage problems are concerns. Trees will eventually block the residents' views. The proposed project will have a negative ellect on the property and surrounding area. Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Hanna replied he is proposing 6,000 square loot lots with usable pad areas. The homes will be a minimum 01 2,100 square leet, and they can add another 300 square leet as a bonus room, within the lootprint 01 the house. There is only one access proposed, which will be much saler. Views will not be obstructed because 01 a grade dlllerence. He is working with stall to relocate an existing pipeline and then Orange will take over that drainage. The homes on Valley Glen Lane range in size Irom 1650 to 2600 square leet. Chairman Bosch talked about the variance request and the findings the Commission must make bel ore granting a variance. He is concerned about Lot 1 in terms 01 how people can utilize the garage, back up a very long curved driveway to a 2-way drive, shared easement on Lot B, without a turn around space and get out without backing all the way out to the street or onto other people's lots. Mr. Hanna said the plans could be revised to include a 5 loot tumaround on the property or at the street. He even thought the house on Lot 4 could be rotated to meet the setbacks. He commented that the City 01 Anaheim approved his plans. Commissioner Pruett stated the existing drainage has a 40 loot right-ol-way, but the way it is illustrated on the plans shows a 30 loot right-ol-way. (Mr. Hanna acknowledged it should be a 40 loot right-ol-way.) Commissioner Pruett did not understand the 15 loot Iront yard setback that is Irom Nohl Ranch Road to the back 01 the house on Lot 4. Trash truck access is also one 01 his concerns. It is not a good idea to place trash containers out on Nohl Ranch Road because it will be an obstruction to trallic and it is on the grade. Chairman Bosch lelt there were too many homesl1ots lor the property and by eliminating one house, there might not be a need lor a variance. (Mr. Hanna said a variance will be needed in any event.) 2 ,,_,.,. T'.' ...... '.."_ ," .". ,., . ~ "_"_'~'~_.'''_'''__'~ ,,,.... ,"". ~"_<'"" .~._...., Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2000 The Commission asked for staff's clarification on some of the issues that were raised. Mr. Donovan responded to the issue of setbacks. The setbacks are 20 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the rear for a two story building. There are exceptions. One, if there is a single story portion of a building, a person can build as close as 10 feet to the rear property line. Or, if the property abuts a public use, like Nohl Ranch Road, or what wOuld become Lot A, the City standards allow an automatic reduction of 5 feet off of the rear yard requirements. Mr. Hohnbaum talked about the new automated trash trucks. The cans would need to be placed in front of the curb for pick up to occur. The trash trucks will not pull into the proposed driveway, or back out. The only way to provide sufficient room for the trucks to pull out would be to put in some sort of a bay, where the truck could come in, pick up the trash, and then pull back out into traffic on Noh! Ranch Road. Commissioner Carlton was curious about residents turning right onto Nohl Ranch Road. She asked if the City would post a sign for No U Turns at Maple. Mr. Hohnbaum did not think this issue has been addressed as far as conditions. He talked about the problems with U turns, the grade and street widths. Regulation of the intersection would be difficult to coordinate because of the dual jurisdiction. Chairman Bosch said the approved tract map has three homes with three separate driveways onto Nohl Ranch Road. Given the status of Nohl Ranch Road on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, if there were driveways onto that street from residences, would individuals be allowed to back out onto that street or would they be required to develop their lots to have a forward motion access onto the street from the lots. Mr. Donovan said it would be a vehicle code infraction to back out onto an arterial highway, regardless of how the site is designed. With that in mind, staff required a turn around area on each of the lots with the previous proposal. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Romero had two concerns: Lot 1 and backing up onto Nohl Ranch Road. Then, the trash pick up on Nohl Ranch Road is a problem. Four lots on this property is still excessive. Commissioner Carlton had concerns with the traffic, trash and six variances for lot depth and width. This seems excessive. She did not think the plans were very concise because there were too many alternatives to make a decision. Many problems have not been solved. Commissioner Pruell thought the four lots were excessive. He has not seen anything that demonstrates that the variances meet the required findings; he doesn~ see a hardship that substantiates the property being divided into four lots. Traffic circulation, on and off site, is a problem. To add another unit on the property creates more. problems and he cannot support the project. Commissioner Smith does not necessarily agree that four units are excessive. The neighborhood she lives in has many 6,000 square foot lots that function quite nicely with homes of a similar size. There are many neighborhoods that have mixed uses and sizes of properties. There are many streets in Orange that are blocked by the trash trucks because of the new automatic pick up service. And, it takes away parking from everyone because the trash containers sit out in the parking spaces on the street. She agrees that the grade of the street could be hazardous. Ideally, if there was more breathing room on this lot without six variances, that would be a beller decision. Chairman Bosch said the zoning on this parcel is identical to that on the adjacent lands within the City of Orange, but there are development standards that apply to try to keep a level playing field to assure that property values are not diminished, or negative impacts on the residential environment. The lot size, per se, is not an issue. It's how the lot is developed, how it is accessed, the livability conditions and the safety 3 .,..."._..,.''''......_.......1-..,..... "'-"~"'-"- .<-~-"...,-.".,,~. ,-,,., ._..^'~""- Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2000 conditions. The advantage of providing for a single driveway access to this piece of land for residences rather than separate driveways is one, for public safety reasons, that would be a good reason to accept a certain amount of variance to allow that to OCCUr. However, with the variance requests, it makes it very difficult to provide for the turn around space on the lots. The nexus between a variance approval and the use of the lot is to gain public safety and a beller living environment on the. site by means of the combined driveway. That is not happening with the four units. Lot 1 is a nightmare because of a large retaining wall, the storm easement below it, a 30 foot slope behind it up to the residence behind, and it has a driveway in excessive length to get back to a point by reconfiguration of Lot 4 that might allow some sort of a turnaround to occur. Although the total area of tile land involved indicates a square footage that can support an R-1-6, more than three houses, the fael that there is an easement is a challenge that means the lot could never support that density of housing. He would rather see three lots with one or two variances to have a single driveway than three lots with separate driveways onto the street. II's unfortunate that this land was ever approved to allow development on it at all. He could not support the variances for four lots. The Commission concurred that a common driveway for a three lot development would be beller than three individual driveways onto Nohl Ranch Road. They asked Mr. Hanna if he would agree to a continuance for the consideration of a three lot development. Mr. Hanna agreed to a continuance, but he still wants to pursue four lots with fewer variances rather than three. Commissioner Pruell was disappointed that the applicant did not grasp the Commission's offer. The Commission fell there were problems with the development of the site as proposed with four houses and the encumbrance of the easement; however, the majority of the Commission were willing to look at the applicant's proposal. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Tentative Parcel Map 2000-117 and Variance 2083-00 to the meeting of May 1,2000. Revised plans are to be submilled to Planning staff no later than April 17, 2000. AYES: NOES: CommissJoners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith Commissioner Pruell MOTION CARRIED 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2319-99 - LEISURE TOWERS GUE:ST HOME A request to allow the expansion of an existing board and care facility for persons with mental disabilities and disorders, from 34 to 40 residents. The site Is located at 1305 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code Section 15303. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full presentation of a staff report was waived. Commissioner Smith was confused as to whether or not there is an open space and recreational requirements for this type of facility. II looks like one site is being allowed to fill the requirements for the other site for recreational space. She also asked about covered parking requirements. Mr. Godlewski stated this has been an on-going project since 1960 and ordinances have changed. This type of facility does not have any requirements in the code to address open space. The staff report tries to relate this use to similar uses that are found in the same zone with similar activities. Allhough there is no requirement, it doesn't mean that the quality of life should not be looked at. There are no parking requirements for this facility. Parking is on private property and the alley way is used for back up and access. 4 ~"~....~,,.~-~~_... ~~"..... '~'''~''_""'._._, "- .""~...,,.. ,.,,, _"~.... ..M.....,...... Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2000 The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant. Bill Thomas. 11305 East Chaoman Avenue, said they have 34 residents living at the facility. Half have been there for more than five years. It is their mission to train these people and give them therapy to help them function in the communny and live a normal life. They have a very structured environment. All residents are required to be in a day treatment program. He estimates that 70% of the new residents only stay at this facility six months. They are regulated by Title 22 for the Department of Social Services. In the 15 years he has been at the facility, only two residents have had cars. The main house has never had a garage. A weight room, a pool table and ping pong are provided for recreational type activities. Arts and crafts classes are held in the dining room. They anticipate adding one additional staff person on the weekends. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners Romero and Pruett did not have a problem with the proposal. Commissioner Smith thought there were too many people for the site and there was not adequate recreation for a home this size. The use is fine, but parking and providing adequate amenities are problems. Commissioner Carlton did not feel that adequate staff is provided to take care of 40 people. Chairman Bosch applauds the operation as being one that is apparently quite successful and well run. He is concerned about the recreation space being reduced in order to put in more residents. Reducing the number of square feet of open space and increasing the demand on the property is overburdening the property. Commissioner Smnh would like additional information before approving the project. She is trying to make a decision based on providing a higher quality of care and a better living environment for people with mental disabilities or disorders. The Commission offered the applicant the opportunity to continue this project to allow him to provide a more precise plan, a written statement outlining the programs, and what other recreation space is available on the property. The two properties seem to be treated as one program. How does this work with Title 22? Mr. Thomas agreed to a continuance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2319-99 to the meeting of April 17, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commiss!oners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-00 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend certain provisions of the Orange Municipal Code (Title 17, Zoning Ordinance). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Ouality Act, per State CEOA Guidelines, Section 15305. There was no opposition to this item. The public hearing was opened and closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 2-00. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission, at its next regular meeting, will be adjourning to a special study session with the City Council on April 4, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the City's annual Capital Improvement Program Update. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch. Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 6