Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - January 17 ~ MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: January 17, 2000 Monday. 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero Commissioner Smith Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary, John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary 1(:6caS2:1\l -)!H:i1:J },J.J:J -. ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 126-99- MICHAEL KELLER A request to demolish an existing garage and to construct two 1 1/2 story duplex units, a cottage and a single story, six.car garage behind a historical single family home. The site is located at 632 East Culver Avenue and is within the Old Towne Historic District and the National Register District. NOTE Negative Declaration 1621-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Jones informed the Commission that the applicant requested to continue this item to February 7, 2000. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Major Site Plan Review 126-99 to the meeting 01 February 7, 2000. AYES: NOES ABSENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of January 3, 2000. Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes of January 3, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2310-99 - DARIUSZ SWIATKOWSKI (POLKA DELI) A request to allow a Type "20" off-sale beer and wine license for an existing grocery market/delicatessen and for a Planning Commission Finding of Public Necessity or Convenience. The site is located at 1710 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (This item was continued from the January 3, 2000 hearing.) There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant, Dariusz Swiatkowski, 1710 North Tustin, requested approval of a conditional use permit to sell beer and wine at his place of business. He explained the hours of operation and stated that a few people do eat lunch at the outside tables and chairs. He plans to post signs informing people alcohol cannot be consumed on the premises. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Romero suggested adding a condition that the applicant shall post signs stating that no alcoholic beverages will be allowed to be consumed on the premises. The Commission discussed re-wording condition 3: "No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on site or in any area adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee." And add another sentence, "Applicant shall post signs stating such, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development." It was noted the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2310-99, with conditions 1 through 6, modifying condition 3 as previously stated. Finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community for public convenience or necessity. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. And, it is considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which it is to be located. The conditional use permit is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEWHEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2312-99 - HECTOR M. RODRIGUEZ (LA CALLE RESTAURANT) A request to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine at an existing restaurant. The site is iocated at 1740 West Chapman Avenue. 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. John Godlewski, Principal Planner, presented the full reading of the staff report. The type "41" license does not allow for the sale of off-site consumption or off-site sales. The hours of operation are stated in the staff report. One of the requests of the applicant is that he be permitted to sell alcohol from 8 :00 a. m. to closing. It's noted that typically the Planning Commission conditions this type of conditional use permit with a standard policy limiting the hours of alcoholic beverage sales and consumption only between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to one hour prior to closing. Further noted in the staff report, there are some portable signs that are currently located on the property that are not permitted under the Sign Code. There has also been a condition added that the issue be resolved with this application. The public hearing was opened. Applicant, Hector Rodriquez, 1740 West Chapman Avenue, requests a conditional use permit to sell beer and wine to compliment the meals at his small family-oriented Mexican restaurant. He removed the tables and chairs that were outside and is only serving meals inside the building. Commissioner Carlton asked why the applicant felt he needed to start selling beer and wine at 8 o'clock on Sunday mornings. Mr. Rodriguez explained they open for brunch on Sunday mornings at 8:00 a.m. Some of his customers have requested beer and wine with their meal. Brunch is served from 8:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. Commissioner Romero said the Commission cannot discriminate from one business to another business on the hours for sale and consumption of alcohol. He asked Mr. Rodriguez if he would have a problem with a condition stating the hours that alcohol could be served -- 11 :00 a.m. to one hour prior to closing. Mr. Rodriguez agreed to that condition. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Conditional Use Permit 2312-99, with conditions 1 through 17, revising condition 3: "Sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to one hour before closing, or 1 :00 a.m., whichever is earlier." 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 the site is locafed. It is considered in relationship to ifs effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. The conditional use permit is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2313-99. ST. NORBERT CATHOLIC CHURCH A request to allow the construction of a parish hall. The parish hall will contain offices, meeting rooms, a day care center, and a kitchen, and will be used in conjunction with the operation of the existing church and private school. The site is located at 300 East Taft Avenue. 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the full reading of the staff report. The Church is proposing to build a parish hall behind the existing sanctuary. The new building will serve as a consolidation of existing operations within the Church and as a multi-use building. About one-third of the floor area is taken up by an auditorium, then there will be a day care center, which will be relocated from existing church buildings located on the south side of the property. Upstairs there is a collection of small, multi-purpose and group meeting rooms. There will be re-striping of the existing paved areas to maintain their 267 parking spaces. The new building will have a setback from the easterly property line of 75 feet, and from the southerly property line of 210 feet. If the project is approved, two existing trailers will be removed from the property. A concern was raised about the possible dual use of the auditorium and sanctuary. Traditionally churches do not use multi-purpose or meeting rooms in conjunction with their main sanctuary building. Staff did not include a specific condition to restrict the use of the building because they do not have enough parking to provide for bofh uses, if used at the same time. There would be a shortage of approximately 70 spaces. A proposed condition could be added to state: ''The new parish halls and multi- purpose auditorium will not be used in conjunction with the sanctuary building." The Church could still use the offices and the smaller meeting rooms on the second floor and the daycare center. The proposed condition would only restrict them from not using the sanctuary building and the large auditorium at the same time. The public hearing was opened. Glen Gellatlv, Bissell Architects, 446 Old Newport Blvd.. Newport Beach, is the designer and architect for the project. They have worked closely with City staff and the Church to address most of the concerns. They have read the conditions of approval and concur with them. Once this project is built and through the consolidation of uses, through better pedestrian circulation and vehicular circulation on the site, and with the elimination of the two modular units, their Master Plan will be completed. The former parish hall is to be converted to a gymnasium some time in the future. Public comments Joseph Harris, 327 East Chestnut. John Whalen, 1621 North Shaffer Street. The speakers did not object to the new building, but wanted to know how tall the new building will be, if windows were proposed for the second story, and where will the building be located in relationship to the adjacent residences. There was concern about the flow of traffic and perceived parking problems on Shaffer. Applicant's response Mr. Gellatly stated the overall height of the proposed building, dimensioned from the floor line to the top of the building is 28 feet. It is primarily a one story building with a majority of the area being on the first floor. There is a total of 17,000 square feet. The ground floor comprises a total of 13,000 square feet and just under 4,000 is on fhe second floor. The second floor is comprised of meeting rooms. The building has a setback of 75 feet from the easferly property line and over 200 feet from the south. There are horizontal windows on the east elevafion of the meeting rooms; however, they are not very big. The existing church building is setback 85 to 90 feet from the easferly property line. The existing traffic flow is going to be improved by the re-striping of the parking fo the east of the existing sanctuary. He sfated people currently access the site from the most westerly entrance off of Taft, circulate around to the rear of the sanctuary, and then exit out onto Taft. Parking is angled to the north and it almosf requires a driver to go back out onto Taft. With the new circulation system, it gives the opportunity to turn around on the sife. Parking will also be added to the west, which will facilitate exiting out onto Glassell. 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 1 7, 2000 Commissioner Pruett had some concerns about the parking situation. The entrance is on the west side ot the church. Motorists will continue around the church on the south side, heading east, which will take them back out onto Meats if they cannot find a parking space. They will probably make a right turn into the neighborhood. Both rows of parking on the south side are going in the same direction towards the east, which pushes everything to the east side. He wanted to know how that could be improved because he saw a potential problem. He wanted to know what is going to encourage people to park out in the parking lots and walk to the sanctuary rather than choose the streets and neighborhoods. He suggested that the parking closest to the building be angled to where traffic would move to the west. Mr. Gellatly explained the parking behind the sanctuary on the eastern side will be 90 degree parking, giving people room to circulate on site. They are adding a significant number of parking spaces on the east side because of the new angle to the parking. They are also adding parking to the southeast corner of the site. He felt people will be more inclined to park more to the west than the east, as they do now, simply because that's where the majority of the parking is going to be, which will be the center of the site. He thought Commissioner Pruett's suggestion was a good one and they could incorporate that by working with City staff. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch appreciated the comments on the layout of the parking. The setback of the building and the window on the second floor is substantial and eliminates any potential invasion of privacy of the rear yards of the residences to fhe east. He appreciated the architectural design of the building. It has been kept simple and low key, despite the overall size of the building. It respects the neighborhood by setting back that distance on the second floor. By removing the chunk of parking from the south center portion of the site will reduce the noise to the properties to the east as well. He is very much in favor of the project and it fits in well with the community. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2313-99, with conditions 1 through 14, modifying condition 4 to redesign the re-striping for the new parking spaces at the south of the sanctuary in consultation with staff to provide an arrangement where individuals entering the site can drive by all parking spaces of each of the three main aisles without exiting the site. And, add condition 15, "To accommodate the requirements of the ordinance with regard to parking for shared facilities, the new major first floor multi-purpose room shall not be used for assemblies at the same time as the sanctuary." 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 the site is located. It is considered in relationship to its effect on the community or 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 welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 6. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-00 - CITY OF ORANGE OVERSIZED GARAGES A proposal by the City of Orange to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 17.10 and 17.14 of the Orange Municipal Code, to add a provision requiring site plan review of oversized garages in the residential zones. 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Ouality Act. Mr. Jones reported the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to study the issue of building size and mass as it relates to garages in residential areas. Staff had identified a couple of alternatives that the Commission considered. One was to develop specific standards for garages, and the second was to look at each proposal individually through the minor site plan review process. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to pursue the second alternative. Two sections of the ordinance have been identified that would be amended or added to. One, is to modify Chapter 17.10 Specific Administrative Procedures by adding category j. to the Minor Site Plan Review Criteria that would allow construction of an attached or detached garage in any residential zone, where the garage door exceeds eight feet in height. The second section would then be in the Residential Districts section and would address Attached Accessory Structures or Garages and Detached Accessory Structures or Garages which would trigger a requirement for residential garage doors that exceeded eight feet in height to be permitted only upon approval of a minor site plan review. The public hearing was opened and closed. There were no public comments. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 1-00. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 7. ZONE CHANGE 1203-99 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 14560 & 15656 - SUN-CAL COMPANIES Chair Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Pruett chaired the hearing. A request to subdivide property and construct 226 single-family detached residences on small lots, pursuant to the Serrano Heights Specific Plan. The zone change application proposes revised development standards that would provide for individual dwellings on lots within "Development Areas" 2 and 4, rather than a greater number of apartments and condominiums, Standards would establish minimum lot sizes and dimensions, and specify requirements for parking, yards and usable open space on each parcel. The total number of dwelling units in both tentative maps is 434 less than permitted by specific plan, NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 954 and Supplemental EIR 1305 were previously prepared for the Serrano Heights project and certified by the City of Orange. The environmental analysis was amended February 19, 1997. Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, reported that the specific applications before the Commission include a zone change request to modify a subdivision and construction standards for two of the multi-family residential development areas approved by the Serrano Heights Specific Plan. Additionally, there are two tentative tract maps proposing a total number of 226 single family residential lots. This, in an area where the City has previously approved 660 dwelling units -- an overall difference of 436 fewer units in those two dwelling areas. The land that is proposed to be subdivided consists of two parcels that were previously created when the City approved Tentative Tract Map 14359 in 1998. The property is surrounded by lands that will be developed as open space and recreation uses, or with single family residential uses on the larger parcels. Single family residential development cannot occur on either project site because the 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 standards for each development area were prepared to address construction of large buildings on large parcels. Approval of this request would allow subdivision with lots of approximately 4,900 and 5,200 square feet. Although the City has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet in a traditional single family residentiai zone, the City has approved subdivisions with iots as small as 3,000 square feet at other locations. While such developments have the look and feel of a single family residential neighborhood, the underlying zoning remains multi-family residential. And that is the case here, the property would essentially be governed by the R-4 zoning regulations, and the additional standards that the applicant has proposed. Staff's only concern with this particular project is that a common recreation area, which might normally be provided in a multi-family complex, would be lost among the subdivision of smaller lots, with rear yards that may be as shallow as 10 feet between the buildings and rear property lines. Staff has attempted to remedy this concern by requiring that the developer replace one home in each tract with a common recreation facility, whether it be a swimming pool or multi-purpose recreation building. Additionally, in response to this concern, the applicant's engineer has submitted an exhibit that indicates the park location in proximity to the two tracts that are proposed. Staff would also like to note that several local homeowner associations previously expressed opposition to the concept of having apartments or condominiums in Serrano Heights. The City and property owner agreed to settle this dispute by limiting the number of such units to 400 in Development Area 4. Approval of this request would obviously help the City uphold that particular term of that agreement. In regard to the previously addressed environmental impacts of this project, a lower number of dwelling units will result in a smaller population increase than anticipated upon initial approval of the Specific Plan. Less traffic on local roadways, less impact on air quality, and less pressure population growth on schools, parks and other recreational facilities. The Design Review Committee considered the project's architecture and is recommending approval of the construction proposal, if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the zone change and tentative tract maps. Commissioner Carlton stated Lot 73 is not a corner lot and she wondered if it should be Lot 74. Mr. Donovan explained the concept is to look for a centralized location within the tract for the recreational area. The public hearing was opened. Frank Ellend, Elfend & Associates, introduced members of the project team for this development He explained the history involved with this proposal. The average lot size proposed is over 6400 square feet. There was also a commitment made for those development areas adjacent to Mabury Ranch to remain above 7,000 square feet and they have. A settlement agreement has been worked out with the community as well. They have an opportunity with this project to build more single family homes and less attached housing on lots and FAR's that are fairly comparable to what is in the Specific Plan overall. They agree to provide a common recreation facility in each tract area They will be providing an additional signal at Serrano Avenue and Apache Creek Road. He commented on four conditions of approval: Condition 4 requires a sound attenuation study. That sound attenuation study was prepared previously and it was submitted in conjunction with the development that is presently occurring. They feel the condition has been satisfied. This is also similar with Condition 17, pertaining to a grading permit, which has already been completed as part of Phase 1. Condition 29 will be designed and constructed as shown on the tentative tract map pertaining to Development Areas 2 and 4. He stated Condition 40 was acceptable as written. Architect Dan Duqan described the architectural plans and elevations for the development. Commissioner Romero was concerned about the small yards and requested more details as to the percentage of homes that had minimum setbacks. 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 Mr. Dugan said Plans 1 and 2 had tront yard setbacks of 14 1/2 feet; Plan 3 is 18 feet. Mr. Jones stated the Development Standard proposes that no more than 35% of the lots shall be less than 15 feet. The 14 1/2 foot dimension could not involve more than 35% ot the total project. That essentially allows the remaining 65% to be at 15 feet or greater. The garage areas have adequate space so that vehicles would not be parked across the sidewalks or into the streets. Mr. Elfend said the minimum lot depth in the Specific Plan is 70 feet. Development Area 2 has a minimum depth of 75 feet, while Development Area 4 has a minimum depth of 80 feet, and both exceed what is currently provided for in the Specific Plan. Public comments Linda Davis, 9701 Janice Circle, Villa Park. Shirley Grindle, 5021 East Glen Arran. Ms. Davis represented the Orange Unified School District. She was not opposed to the reduction, but wants to make sure the Commission is aware that this reduction in housing units doesn't necessarily represent a reducfion in school-aged children. This area will still need a school and OUSD still does not have the land nor the money to build one. Ms. Grindle was opposed to the project, but realized the City was locked into all of the prior Development Agreements and Specific Plans. She wanted to know if there were any trails that go through the two tracts. She wants the City to correct the zoning on the map in the staff reporl. PC zoning is depicted on what is now Santiago Oaks Regional Park, which is not in the City. It is in the County. She wanted to know what the architectural exhibits of attached housing had to do with the project. She did not approve of the 2 1/2 story building as it will set a bad precedent. Appiicant's response Mr. Elfend indicated that they are trying to work with the OUSD and they are meeting again this week. Last week a lawsuit was filed on their requirement to either pay fees or build schools. They have no legal obligation, but will continue to work with the District. There are no trails that go through the property. Santiago Oaks Regional Park is not a part of this project. The exhibits were those that were included in the Specific Plan. Any time 400 apartments can be eliminated and single family homes can be built is considered a good project. The 2 1/2 story homes are reasonable and acceptable because originally there could be 3-story apartments built on the property. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Pruett asked for clarification about the school district and what the City's role is, and the 2 1/2 story building height of the homes. Ms. Binning said the comments by the school district's representative was that perhaps a condition couid be added to address providing a new school. At this time there is one mechanism for school districts to mitigate the impact of developments and that is in the State statute that provides a certain amount of money per square foot. it has been taken out of the City's hands to provide any additional mitigation measures. Mr. Jones explained that the 2 1/2 story is designed within the City's height maximum for 2-story structures. These homes blend in with the neighborhood and do not appear to be a third story. Mr. Donovan added that in the R-3 and R-4 zones, the height limit is 2 stories or 32 feet, but there is a provision that states that height limit can be exceeded if approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. There are some developments in Orange that do have 2 1/2 stories, one being the Morningside on the Lake near Hart Park. The loft area is the 1/2 story space. 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 Commissioner Romero likes the single family residential homes over apartments, but he is concerned about density issues. With the new development occurring in Orange, there may be just a few developments that have reasonable yard space and setbacks. Vice Chair Pruett commented the density of this development is consistent with the density requirements of the Specific Plan. Mr. Donovan talked about the map correction pertaining to the City's zoning. Regardless of the change in ownership ot the property, the City's zoning is governed by what the City Council approves. When the City adopted the Specific Plan, that land was within the Planning Area Boundary. And, PC, as a zoning classification simply reters to the document that is on fiie for that property. That sloped area that is now owned by the County already is designated as Open Space within the Specific Plan. If the zoning is updated in the future, it would be worthwhile to change that. However, staff cannot initiate that change without direction from either the Planning Commission or City Council. The exhibits attached to the staff report are directly out of the Standards in the same section that refers to the Development Standards for those two Development Areas 2 and 4. They were included for reference as it is part of the entire set of regulations that were in the Specific Plan. There are no horse trails through the proposed development. There is a horse trail on the south edge of Serrano Avenue that winds along the whole section ot the street in the Phase 1 project area. Then there is an undercrossing that would link that trail with a branch that goes north over the ridge to Anaheim Hills. It would show up in the common area that is to the north of Tract 15656, and extends up the hill to an intersection of other trails up on the ridge line. Commissioner Carlton stated the current proposal is better than apartments. If she had been on the Commission when this was originally approved, she would have strongly spoken against another project. She is pleased that the applicant is willing to go along with two lots for open space. She wished that would have been offered at the previous hearing. She didn't think any open space area should be between two other lots. It should be on a corner lot. It's obvious that some of the lots will have a very shallow, usable back yard area. Vice Chair Pruett thought the project meets the requirements of the Specific Plan and General Plan. Because the density is being reduced by building single family housing, it's making a signiticant reduction and reducing many issues from the standpoint of traffic and circulation. It was noted that Environmental Impact Report 954-86 and Supplemental EIR 1305-90 were prepared for this project and certified by the City Council and amended in 1997. And the proposed tentative tract map is consistent with these documents. The Commission determined that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Serrano Heights Specific Plan and Development Agreement. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1203-99. AYES NOES: ABSENT Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Maps 14550 and 15656, with conditions 1 through 41, revising condition 2 by changing lot "73" to lot "74", deleting "in the immediate vicinity" and adding "any other internal corner lot." And, delete lot "87" and "in the immediate vicinity" and add "any other internal corner lot." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn to a study session on Monday, January 24, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room C. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero None Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION CARRIED /sld 10