Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - July 5 Cassl'~- C!f/"3 G. ,;: 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange July 5,2000 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith Commissioners Pruett. Romero STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski. Principal Planner, Mary Binning. Assistant City Attorney. Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary ~~; CJ: ,," ':~, IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2337-00 - ROBERT & JANICE MICKELSON -y;.~>';~) i..'.:;) - A request to allow new construction on a previously vacant parcel of a two-story, mixed-use development consisting of a residential dwelling unit constructed over an art studio/gallery. The site is located at 220 West Almond Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicants requested a continuance of their project in order to revise their proposal. The project will be re-advertised for some future hearing date. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2337-00. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Smith None Commissioners Pruett. Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of June 19, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Minutes of June 19, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 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 ijem was continued from the April 3. 2000 and the May 15, 2000 meetings. Mitigated Negative Declaration 1632-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Godlewski reported that the applicant has submitted revised plans and elevations, indicating a reduction in height of 4 1/2 feet. changes in windows and deleted windows on the east elevation. and changing the direction of the gable roof so that the flat facade of the building is not exposed to the view from Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Commissioner Smith abstained from participating on this item due to a potential conflict of interest; however, to fullill a quorum for this meeting, she did not excuse herself from the Chambers. The public hearing was opened. Applicant. Ken Arthur. 133 North Shaffer. said he and his architect reduced the overall building height and changed the roof line to have the mass fall towards the driveway. They also pulled in the roof line over the stairway to reduce the width of the building. The end result is a carriage house appearance, with a much smaller "look". rather than a two-story apartment building. The floor plan and square footage remains the same. The architect forgot to draw in the windows on the east elevations, but they can be added back in (same size, same location as the original drawings). The single car garage door is put back in for a balanced appearance. One person spoke in opposition to the project: Joan Crawford. 394 South Oranqe Street. appreciates the revisions that have been made. but they are not significant enough for acceptable plans. It is hard to tell if the details are going to be carried forward from looking at the revised plans. She didn't know if the windows on the south side of the building were removed. The proportions of the structure have been thrown off by the changes that are proposed (Le, the windows on the west - they are too tight up under the gable). She believes the tandem parking in the driveway is unacceptabie and inappropriate. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter from Steve and Paula Soeste, 143 North Shaffer Street, who were concerned about the bulk and mass of the proposed structure. Applicant's response: Mr. Arthur intends to have the windows that were omitted from the revised plans put back in. The gable roof is added to the front of the garage unit as a carry over from the main residence. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton appreciates the hard work to comply and make the structure compatible with the community. The tandem parking does not bother her because of its location next to the restaurant. She favors the project, with the windows added back in. She stated the garage does look better with the single car garage door rather than the double doors. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 Chairman Bosch commented on some of the key issues. The garage door looks better than not having it. The applicant has done a fine job in reducing the appearance of bulk and mass, without affecting the functionality of the floor space. And, being assured through submittal of plans to the Design Review Committee that everything possible is done with detailing to ensure that the plans provide the proper design features per the Design Standards relative to their compatibility with the existing property and the necessary differences to assure that there is a clear delineation between the historic structure and the new structure and that this could be a fine addition to this residence and the neighborhood. There is a concern about imposition upon privacy of adjacent residences and the placement of the bulk and mass or a larger scale structure in the rear yard of a site in the Historic District that never had that bulk and mass before. It is his opinion. though, that this structure to the best extent possible reflects a better quality design; yet, it does take away some of the air space or view from adjacent properties of the tree tops in the distance. It also serves as a buffer adjacent to a restaurant parking lot. The project does not set a negative precedent which would damage the overall cumulative impact within the Old Towne area. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1632-00 finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources based upon the design presented to the Commission. and the final design changes and conditions of approval. Adding as a mitigation measure. subject fo reasonable efforts to salvage the existing garage or garage materials, as previously discussed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton None Commissioner Smith Commissioners Pruett. Romero MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2326-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-04 with conditions 1 through 9. revising condition 1 to state: "The design of the proposed accessory second unit and garage addition in its entirety and in each detail must be submitted to the Design Review Committee for approval prior to the issuance of any permits." And. clarify condition 2 to stipulate that "Care shall be taken during construction to avoid damage to the roots of the existing specimen trees, including the White Oak tree near the south property line. on the property. The White Oak tree shall remain and be protected in place throughout construction." And. finding that the conditional use permit is granted based upon sound principles of land use. in that it complies with the Old Towne zoning in place and the Old Towne Design Standards. It is in response to services required by the community as stipulated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance in that regard. It is approved based upon the modified design and conditions of approval. It is granted and will not cause deterioration of bordering land use or create special problems to the area in which it is located. That the action has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. And. it is granted subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare. not the individual welfare of the applicant. The Administrative Adjustment is approve because the reduction standards will not be detrimental to the public health. safety and general welfare of persons residing or working on the property or in the vicinity. since the parking arrangement so included is based upon a residential use with an accessory second unit adjacent to a commercial parking lot at a zone boundary, and is not dissimilar to previous approvals of the other accessory second units in the Old Towne area. And, the approval of the request does not compromise the intent of the zoning ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton None Commissioner Smith Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 IN RE: NEW HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2335-00 - HIDEAWAY RESTAURANT A request to allow alcohol sales for on-s~e consumption within a new patio at an existing restaurant. The site is located at 2117 North Orange-Olive Road NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Matt from B&C AwninDs. 1005 South OrtaDa Wav. Placentia, represented Hide Away Restaurant. This is a small restaurant and the applicant is asking to expand his business by putting in a patio. It will be a fabric- covered patio with an enclosed wall and new landscaping. This is a family-owned restaurant and beer and wine have been served for many years without any problems. Gus Maroun. 2117 North OranDe-Olive Road, is the owner of the restaurant. He wants to improve the restaurant with a patio for outdoor dining. He has read the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. including the closing times and serving of alcohol (condition 2). The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton asked about the non-access to the patio area from the outside if serving beer and wine. Mr. Godlewski explained that ABC is concerned only with the restaurant owner's ability to maintain the patio area and police the area so that ~ is not readily accessible to the outside. ABC will approve outdoor patios and service of alcohol as long as it is under the control of the establishment. Sometimes ABC even approves patios that are detached from the main structure. The plans need to be reviewed by ABC for their concurrence. Chairman Bosch said he had a concern about the parking; however, there appears to be sufficient parking under the City's ordinance to accommodate the patio addition. He thought the landscaping improvements are very good to have. With the stipulations as to the percentage of sales of alcoholic beverages vs. food, there are assurances that this will remain as a dinner restaurant which is very important for the neighborhood. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve Conditional Use Permit 2335-00. with conditions 1 through 17, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located, and it is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual we~are of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2341-00 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-09 - JTC ARCHITECTS INC. (PACIFIC BELL) A request to allow the expansion of an existing telephone equipment facility by approximately 10,000 square feet. The s~e is located at 2525 Orange-Cllive Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner. presented the staff report for this item. The proposal is an expansion of an existing telephone sw~ching facility and warehouse facility located between Orange-Olive Road and Delta Street. The conditional use permit is to allow the expansion on property zoned residential, and it includes an administrative adjustment request to allow the reduction of the required 20 foot setback along Delta Street to 17 feet. and the reduction of some interior parking drive aisle widths and parking space widths by a maximum of 10%. Both reductions are within the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. The proposal is for an addition onto the back of an existing switching facility. The existing facility is unmanned: fhe addition is just a continuation on that use. The project includes dedication of 12 feet along Delta Street and the landscaping and improvements on Delta Street. The property was originally developed almost 40 years ago, prior to the subdivision to the east and the improvements were never done. The project includes reducing the number of service vehicles that are stored on site during the evenings. They are proposing a maximum of 15 service vehicles to be kept on site. The existing warehouse and proposed switching facility will have a maximum of four (4) employees during the day, and employees will be on-call at night. The project includes a request to have a gate at the southwest corner facing Delta Street. The applicant is requesting this gate because occasionally (once a year) due to the design of the existing underground vault, they have to pull wires out. And. they will park a van in the setback to pull the wires. The 25' wide gate is proposed to be solid steel. The front setback area along Delta Street in front of the gate will be improved with grass-crete and a half curb. The public hearing was opened. John Chan. JTC Architects. Inc.. 109 North Ivv Avenue #C. Monrovia, showed exhibits of the 6' block wall along Delta Street. In response to Chairman Bosch's question about the setback along Delta Street, they are asking for a reduction to 16 feet to preserve space and allow them access to pull cable. They also want to put in a straight wall, rather than having it jog. But. there is no functional reason why they must maintain the clearance. 9 people sooke in oooosition to this oroiect: Matt Ulukaya, 2541 North Delta Street. William Hoey, 2555 North Delta Street. Mel Schlueter, 2521 North Delta Street. Dan Sample, 2597 North Delta Street. Steve Teubner, 2531 North Delta Street. Joe Villasenor, 2560 North Delta Street. John Aceves, 2570 North Delta Street. Larry Evans, 2589 North Delta Street. Steve Croteau. 2578 North Delta Street. They were opposed to this expansion because of the wide gate and the height of the wall is insullicient. Oleander bushes were removed in 1997 that used to screen the vehicles and lights. They request a much higher block wall, at least 10 feet high. There is only one tree on the west side of the property line. Hopefully there will be larger. mature trees than 15 gallons. Pacific Bell is requesting a 20% administrative adjustment; not 10%. A 20 foot setback is needed. Pacitic Bell is not being a good neighbor and they refuse to return the neighbors' phone calls. The applicant is in violation with the lighting requirements because there is excessive glare. Pictures and a petition signed by every homeowner on Delta Street were given to the Commissioners. There is no plan for landscape material in front of the gate. They 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 questioned why a gate is needed if only to be used once a year. It was suggested to modify the southwest corner of the existing building to accomplish the same goal and eliminate the need for a gate on Delta Street. There is excessive noise from the air conditioner and the service vehicles over the wall. Pacific Bell is planning to take out 35 feet of one resident's block wall (north side of property) and privacy will be lost. The project will decrease the value of the residents' homes. The residents are concerned about the future use of the property and the possibility of a warehouse type business using the site if P"ctlic Bell moved and soid the property. Restrictions on employee parking is needed. Safety concerns for the children living in the neighborhood were voiced. Applicant's response: Mr. Chan stated they could adjust the wall height to provide more screening. They are making an improvement to the landscaping along the wall. The gate is needed for the phone company to pull the cable through the vault. Grass-crete type turf block is proposed for the front area of the gate so that vehicles can drive over it. Lighting can be mitigated. Pacific Bell does not intend to sell this property. Tim No. reoresented Pacific Bell, 100 North Stoneman. Alhambra. He works for Southwestern Bell Communication. who acquired Pacific Bell two years ago. He works on the construction side and was not aware of what has been happening on the maintenance side. He explained that room is needed to pull in cable to the switching equipment. The only reason they need the gate and setback is to back a truck in and to have access to the cable. He was not aware of the oleanders and will have to refer this issue to the maintenance department. Landscaping concerns also need to be referred to maintenance. But. he's willing to work with the residents. Mr. Ng talked about the mechanical equipment and ventilation requirements for the building. The equipment is not on the roof; it is located inside the building. He did not know about the noise problem from the chillerslfans. He also talked about the service vehicles at this site. He agreed with the Chairman that the wall could be pulled back further as it parallels the building to increase the landscape area on the street side. Commissioner Smith thought another team member (maintenance) from Pacific Bell should be present at the meeting to answer the Commission's questions. Commissioner Carlton asked how long Pacific Bell anticipated to be under construction. Mr. Ng responded about 1 year, 3 months. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton was disappointed that the applicant did not meet with the neighbors or talk to them about their plans. She could not see putting in a gate on Delta Street, and she had concerns about the wall. landscaping. lighting. noise and circulation. The applicant should seriously re-evaluate the project and come back with a plan that is much more compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Smith said there are no assurances that the same mistakes made in the past will not happen in the future. She is also reluctant to move forward without talking to the people from maintenance. She personally likes the presence of the gate on Delta Street because she doesn't like the residents not having access to the property when there is a long. thin cui de sac. It is dangerous to have such a large parcel with no ingress or egress at some point. She is also concerned about raising the height of the wall. People will not be able to see over a fence that is higher than 6 feet: she would like to know who is on the other side of the fence, especially in an emergency. Some mitigation measures could be put in place to address the fence issue. She would be in favor of a landscape plan that uses a mitigation measure to beautify the site, especially on the residential side. Excessive noise from the air conditioning/chillers needs to be addressed. She would like to speak to someone about the service vehicles being stored on this site. 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 Chairman Bosch stated it is clear that the Commission has concerns about unanswered questions and a lack of information. He understands the cable pulling process and the need to have a vehicle pull the cables through and back out. It's not just the City's setback requirements which are important that prevent that from occurring even behind the block wall. Even with a small vehicle, it would still be necessary to have a gate. What can be done to minimize the potential for intrusion or operational/maintenance lack of oversight that might cause that accessway to become an attractive nuisance to the neighbors. Limits need to be imposed to prevent misuse. A 25 foot gate is nice. but you can't drive through it onto the site. What is really necessary to get to the 10 foot wide cable slot? Is it really 25 feet. or rather a 10 foot gate? A condition of approval needs to be enforceable that could ensure that operations and maintenance don't negatively impact the neighborhood by having a 30 foot long vehicle parked, blocking part of the street and causing danger to children, as well as other residents on the street. Whatever is approved for the site, the residents will have to live with it forever. He was disappointed that a few employees caused damage. That should not be the policy of the company and that should be looked into. He was very concerned that there are no guarantees to demonstrate that the design of the mechanical equipment or its ventilation will not cause greater hardships to the neighbors in terms of noise or air pollution than what they face now with that equipment that is much smaller and placed much further away. That information needs to be reviewed by the Commission. Site line and acoustical studies need to be provided to demonstrate that adequate mitigation measures are being made with the equipment and its ventilation. as well as the exhaust air. He is also concerned about the grade difference from the east to the west side of the site and floor elevation of the mechanical room. This will also have an impact on the neighbors relative to the building and wall heights. He asked if the bay for the mechanical equipment had to be the same height as the remainder of the building. There are questions about the walls in relationship to the neighbors, protection of their landscaping and the landscape plan does not show side yard landscaping either along the south side of the building addition or along the north property line between the existing retaining wall, parking area and property line wall. Some further clarification of that is critical. A little communication with the neighbors would be really valuable. There are several issues with the parking lot. It is suggested to park the trucks some place else. Perhaps five less vehicles could park here to allow the 10 stalls along the eastern property line to become parallel parking, and the whole wall to be set back to 20 feet and eliminate the need for the administrative adjustment. He would be willing to consider the administrative adjustment to add the 10% or 20% to the height of the wall. if the neighbors do not object to the additional height. Or, some other type of screening to assure that the noise is buttered. The parking layout needs to be modified in order to gain a greater setback and a mitigation ot the project along Delta Street. The bul k and mass of the building and wall need to be addressed. The Commission asked the applicant if they would consider a continuance to provide additional information. Mr. Ng agreed to a continuance. He was not aware of the neighbors' issues and concerns. Commissioner Carlton stated 15 months of construction is too long. It will be an imposition on the neighbors. She encouraged them to shorten the construction time period to even less than 12 months. Chairman Bosch told Mr. Ng that they did not want to see construction access from Delta Street; it should be taken from Orange-Olive Road. It may be prudent to get the wall and landscaping in first prior to construction. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2341-00 and Administrative Adjustment 00-09 to the meeting of Wednesday, September 6.2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 5,2000 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to adjourn to a study session on Monday, July 17, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "C" to discuss Santiago Hills Phase II. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED Isld 8