Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - December 18 /1 ' ( ''-;.J-.j~,,-~ C~fl1tJ, ?,J. J MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange December 18, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary ;.:~ l C f, i .,' ;,,',J. oJ - IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of December 4, 2000. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2260-98 - ENAYAT FAZELI A request for a one (1) year extension of a conditional use permit allowing the construction of a new automotive gas station with a mini-market and an automatic drive-thru car wash on a vacant parcel. The site is located at 4105 West Chapman Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Grant a one (1) year extension for Conditional Use Permit 2260-98. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2355-00 - CLARK & DENIECE HillS A request to construct a two-story second unit within the Old Towne District. The site is located at 475 South Grand Street. (This item was continued from the November 6, 2000 meeting.) NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Godlewski reported that the primary differences in the new plan from the previous plan was to address the Commission's concerns for the main entrance of the second unit facing the alley. The direction was to reverse the entrance back to the interior of the lot, as well as making private usable open space accessible to the new tenants. The second floor living space of the second unit was turned 1800 from the alley facing the interior of the lot. The building elevations have also been changed to reflect that. The result is a more usable private open space for the tenant, and taking away the main entrance off of the alley. The public hearing was re-opened. Clark Hills, 475 South Grand Street. made the changes requested by the Commission and his architect will explain those changes. 1 Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 2000 John linnert. architect. said there were concerns about the rear deck on the second level and how it viewed the alley, as well as access to the residence 011 01 the alley. There was also a concern lor open space. They were given the opportunity to make those modilications and the revised plans show that the rear unit has a new orientation 01 the entry. It is located on the interior side 01 the lot and it has a nice covered porch area. Adjacent to that, is some usable lawn space. Tenants and guests will be able to enter the second unit lrom the sidewalk and enter through the lawn area to the porch to the door. The entry is no longer off 01 the alley. It's on the interior 01 the lot. The deck no longer views over the alley and it now looks into the inner part 01 the lot. They leel they have addressed all 01 the concerns expressed at the previous meeting. Chairman Bosch acknowledged the Commission received correspondence Irom Shannon Tucker dated December 18 via the City Attorney's Ollice, a letter lrom Gary and Deborah Warner, 464 South Center, a letter Irom Mary Matuzak, 340 South Grand, and a letter Irom Mr. and Mrs. Caballero, 487 South Grand. 7 people spoke in opposition to the proiect Luis Caballero, 487 South Grand Street. Annalisa Goode, 438 South Grand Street. Kristin Caballero, 487 South Grand Street. Angie Rust, 493 South Grand Street. John Goode, 438 South Grand Street. Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street. Noel Wilcox, 458 South Grand Street. One speaker submitted a model 01 their neighborhood streetscape, showing the proposed addition. The speakers were still opposed to the second unit in their neighborhood. The Orange Municipal Code was quoted: "Two or more units are permitted on a lot depending upon the area 01 the lot and the ability to comply with other zoning requirements. Two units may be constructed subject to compliance 01 all development standards." The second unit must comply with development standards and must also comply with the objectives outlined in the Historic Preservation Design Standards. The proposed structure is twice the size 01 the primary residence. Adding one more back yard second unit will affect the quality ollile lor the neighborhood by increasing the density, noise, and traffic and decreasing property values. The principal structure has 955 square leet. A detached garage, therelore, would be limited to 478 square leet according to the OMC. But the proposed garage has 1,010 square leet. Tandem parking is also prohibited per the OMC. The proposed project has no redeeming value to enhancing the historic character 01 their neighborhood. The R-2 designation does not guarantee a property owner the legal right to build a second unit when that unit does not comply with other zoning requirements and all design development standards. The elevation on the wall is not accurate because 483 is not a 2-storybuilding. It is classilied as 1 1/2 stories. All lots must comply with the rules and regulations 01 the Orange Municipal Code. There should be no special privileges. The speakers want to preserve the integrity 01 Old Towne. They are concerned about the bulk and mass and cumulative effect. The current project has a FAR 01 .46, compared to most 01 the project in Old Towne which are 25% to 35%. The FAR needs to be determined block by block because II is not balanced. The cumulative effect is still the unanswered delinition. Owner- occupied properties are wanted in the neighborhood. Applicant's response Mr. linnert commented that there have been a lot 01 personal opinions expressed. They believe they have met all the 01 the standards and guidelines 01 the City 01 Orange. In his opinion the model submitted by one resident is incorrect. Commissioner Pruett said the applicant has addressed his concern 01 the second unit lacing the alley. However, the bulk and mass has not been taken into consideration. 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 2000 Mr. Linnert replied they addressed the issues that were expressed by the Commission at the previous hearing. He thought the addition was very appropriate with the scale as it is surrounded by other structures. And, it is historically oriented. They have proposed to design the unit in a 1 1/2 story style structure that has a larger base. It has a lower eave and will not be cantilevered. Commissioner Smith asked about the balcony having a depth of 4 1/2 feet. She wanted the storage bin issue addressed as well. Mr. Linnert said the balcony is not statistically calculated as open space and is not part of the criteria. The open space is provided on the ground level. In working with the DRC and staff, when they first proposed the project, the front door was oriented off of the alley. The DRC requested that they make the entry a little more accommodating and have more architectural character. They designed the entry with a porch and a deeper overhang with a corbel design that would compliment the existing structure. Commissioner Romero wanted clarification about the detached garage not exceeding 50% of the square footage of the principal structure. Mr. Godlewski stated the only accessory part of this structure in the R-2 zone is the 2-car garage for the structure in the front. The other two parking spaces could be considered integral to the second dwelling unit. There may be four garages or three garages, but they are not all attributable to the structure in the front. If there was only one residence on the property, then a detached accessory structure (a garage) could only be 50% of the residence. Mr. Hill explained why they had a storage unit in the driveway. They are using it as a temporary storage unit to store their fumiture and construction materials. In reference to the bulk and mass issue, they've done everything they could to bring the addition down below what the other 2-story units are in the neighborhood. The garages were lengthened to make the unit lower. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch asked for staff's interpretation of some of the issues that were brought up by the opposition. He asked where in the R-2 zone when a second dwelling unit is proposed, is that second dwelling unit considered to be an accessory structure. Mr. Godlewski responded in the R-2 section of the code, it allows for additional dwelling units that are not considered accessory structures. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the R-1 zone as a granny unit, and accessory structures would be those structures that are accessory to the house. Or, if there are multiple units, accessory to those units. Chainnan Bosch said the comment was made about the R-2 requirement for common open space.. Mr. Godlewski said the combination of common open space and private open space is required under the code. Common open space are those dimensions greater than 10 feet and behind the 20 foot front yard setback. Any of those areas that are considered yard areas between the two properties are considered common open space. Common open space is defined to not only allow possible actual use of the property, but to provide visual relief from built environments, as well as the possibility of using it. Planning staff determined that the open space requirement has been met on the revised plans. Chairman Bosch asked staff to respond to the oversized garage and the comparison to automobile parking only. Mr. Godlewski said the code requires a minimum dimension for a parking space. It does not preclude that dimension from being greater than the minimum, so long as the applicant can show on the plan that parking can be accommodated for the number of cars that are required by the particular use on the property. This plan does that. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 2000 Chairman Bosch said another concern is that an existing building is perhaps encroaching over the property line (above the ground) and there is a live (5) loot setback. The question was shouldn't there be a live (5) loot separation lrom structures on the adjacent property; not just lrom the property line. Mr. Godlewski said the setbacks are based on the property line. Stall can~ impose requirements on adjacent properties, or preclude development on individual properties because 01 what is happening on a property in which the applicant has no control. Under the ideal conditions, under current code standards, there would be live (5) leet on both properties resulting in a 10 loot separation between adjacent properties. But, in this particular case, it is considered a non-conlorming situation. And although it does not meet the Unilorm Building Code nor the Planning Ordinance, this applicant could not be precluded lrom building to what is allowed under the code. The Building Code would apply relative to lire and Iile salety structure requirements. Commissioner Romero asked lor an explanation about the prohibition 01 tandem parking. Mr. Godlewski said that tandem parking in the code is not allowed lor required parking. II garage doors are built on both ends, that is not considered tandem parking because both cars can operate independently 01 each other. Commissioner Pruett wanted to know how this relates to the issue 01 over-sized garages. Mr. Godlewski explained the issue 01 over-sized garages was a concern that was raised about the size of the garage door. The excessive height 01 the garage door would equate to an over-sized garage. In this situation, it is a nonnal size garage door. The Commission and stall talked about Mr. Caballero's letter relative to "property designated as R-2-6 carries with it the legal right to build a second rental unit; however, that is not what the OMC says". The zoning ordinance specilies that a minimum 01 3,000 square leet 01 lot area per dwelling unit is required to build units in the R-2 zone. That means that a 9,000 square loot lot would have three (3) dwelling units built on it, if it complied with all 01 the other zoning requirements. There is also a section in the code (OMC 17.14.070 S) where it states that two or more units are permitted on a lot depending upon the area 01 the lot and the ability to comply with the other zoning requirements. Two units may be constructed upon any legally created lot, even illess than the minimum lot size is permitted under this title, subject to compliance with all the other development standards. II you have a R-2 property that does not have 6,000 square leet in area, you can still have two units on that lot, even though they don~ have the minimum 3,000 square leet per lot area, as long as it meets all development standards. Commissioner Romero appreciates the re-design 01 the project by the applicant. He didn't care lor the original design with access to the alley. With the rotation 01 the unit, It will invite and encourage the tenant to use the garage. Using the garage will allow the entry to be better utilized. He recommended that the neighbors petition the City Council to re-zone the neighborhood to resolve the cumulative ellect issue. Because this property is zoned R-2, he is in lavor 01 the project. Commissioner Pruett cannot support the project based on the bulk and mass 01 the project. A lootprint 01 1,200 square leet is much too large. II the City approves a project 01 this size, it will set a precedent for the Old Towne area, and It is not consistent with the Old Towne Design Guidelines. Commissioner Carlton tends to agree with Commissioner Romero. The Commission asked the applicant to revise his plans and he came back with plans that were approved by the DRC. The applicant should not be penalized because 01 the live loot side yard setback. She does not see a reason to deny the project. Commissioner Smith remains in lavor of the project. She expressed regrets to both the neighborhood and applicant because the project does not meet everyone's initial requests. The lact is that people don't want second units in the neighborhood. The way to get rid of second units is to re-zone the neighborhood to R-l. lt troubles her because there are many second units on both sides 01 the street in this block, and people purchased the properties with those second units. Regarding the size 01 the unit 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 2000 and the FAR, even though the unit appears to be large. it is still 30% lower than the City would allow the FAR to be on the property if the open space could be provided. That's another problem in the code. The FAR allowed is .70. The project has a FAR of .46; that's 24% lower than it needs to be. That's a problem in Old Towne and needs to be changed to maintain the historic integrity of the homes that are existing. The cumulative effect is an issue that she is concerned about. However, one particular project cannot be penalized or bear the weight of the sentiment of the neighborhood if the code is not in effect to make that happen. One of the things that powers project size is the City's requirement for parking. To build a second unit, you have to add parking -- two covered and two uncovered spaces. It is that requirement that drives up the size of the second unit. This particular project is behind a small original house. The applicant wants to retain the front house, even though it is small. She believes the applicant is being sensitive to the historic preservation of the neighborhood. She would rather see the original house retained with a second unit behind it than have the original house demolished. This second unit fits in because there are large structures on either side of the property and in this block. She thinks the applicant has been extremely accommodating and cooperative to what the City has asked him to do. With the architectural design and the use of original materials, she does not see the project as a permanent scar upon the street. She is in favor of the project. Chairman Bosch was pleased that the balcony and entry way were reversed off of the alley. He still believes that creating a main entry way of a secondary unit off of the alley sets a precedent that will be damaging to the historical context of Old Towne. Cumulative impact needs to be established. But, it is clear that a second unit could be approved for this property, if designed appropriately. The buildings next door are not an issue to him. He agrees with Commissioner Pruett, though, that something more should have been done in addition to reversing the entry way and balcony to reduce the bulk and mass issue. If the true 2-story concept had been approached, the bulk and mass would have appeared to be less. He commented that the FAR needs to be brought down in Old Towne. In his estimation, the project is not quite there because of the architectural style. The Commission talked about the applicant's plans and guidance received from the City. Bulk and mass were not addressed by the applicant and that's part of the problem. Beller definitions are needed in the ordinances to avoid many of the concerns. The FAR, distance from the property line, a zone change and parking requirements need to be looked at in Old Towne. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2355-00 with conditions 1 through 6, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. That is, housing in a historic neighborhood. The project will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located because ~ is similar to the properties that it borders in adding second units to two blocks of land which already have close to 50% of the properties developed with second units. Also, because real estate values in this neighborhood continue to rise, even as second units continue to be built in recent times. A condilional use permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located, recognizing that it is a historical neighborhood and this project has been designed to comply with the Design Review Standards especially created for this neighborhood. This permit is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare of the community and not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Carlton, Romero, Smith Commissioners Bosch, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski stated this was a final action of the Commission unless appealed to the City Council. Because City Hall is closed between the week of Christmas and New Year's, the opportunity to appeal is until Thursday of this week or January 2, 2001. 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 2000 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to adjourn to Monday, January 15,2001. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 6