Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - August 7 C[tSS)e, MINUTES eel?/J;;.) j' Planning Commission City of Orange August 7, 2000 Monday. 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary ,"J" C.) f;t"':f 2'~ ITEM TO BE CONTINUED -)1~:-:1::J 1..1.1::J - 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2342-00 - PUMP ROOM GAL'S BAR A request to allow more than three amusement devices at an existing bar. The site is located at 1532 West Chapman Avenue. (This item was continued from the July 17, 2000 meeting.) NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant requested that this item be continued because he was out of town. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue Conditional Use Permit 2342-00 to the meeting of Wednesday, September 6, 2000. AYES: NOES: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR 1.a. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of July 5, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes of July 5. 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED 1.b. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of July 17, 2000 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the Minutes of July 17. 2000, with a correction to Page 4, Item C. Special Event Permits/Special Promotion Permits. second paragraph - change the word "separate" to "combine": Vice Chairman Pruett wanted to combine the Special Events and Special Promotion sections in the Ordinance to eliminate confusion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Carlton. Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2337-00 - ROBERT & JANICE MICKELSON 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. (This item was continued from the July 5,2000 meeting.) NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Carlton questioned the vague recommendation from the Design Review Committee (DRC) relative to the sign age being kept to a minimum. Mr. Godlewski explained that the DRC, in looking at the design of the building, felt that it was more appropriate to minimize the use of sign age. Any signage that is proposed by the applicant must come back to the DRC for further review. The public hearing was opened. Bob Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. Oranoe. said he and his wife would like to build a mixed use residence over the art gallery/studio at this site. They propose to have two bedrooms on the second floor and the building height is approximately 25 feet. They agree that signage should be kept to a minimum because of the location of the property. John Linnert. 1900 Continental Avenue. Costa Mesa, is the architect for the Mickelson's. He explained the lot is quite small and of a substandard size; thus, he has designed the two-story structure to compliment the adjacent structures. The mixed use is a wonderful way to transition the structure to the downtown core and surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Mickelson spoke about condition 3. The DRC suggested that the roof drainage (down spouts) be internal. However, he would like an opportunity to show some designs to the DRC of external gutters and down spouts that can be done in an architectural style to compliment the design of the structure. He agrees with all of the other conditions of approval. Public comments Ruth Kroll, 1229 Lomita. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive. Ms. Kroll asked about the sewer connection for that inside lot. Mr. Hohnbaum responded the City will require the property to be connected to the sewer independently of any other structure. It will most likely go out Almond and over to the sewer on Olive. Ms. Siebert spoke in support of the project. OTPA was very pleased to see the design of the structure. The Mickelson's came to the OTPA committee and asked if they could discuss their plans with them before they even started the City's process. This style of architecture will compliment and bring variety to the neighborhood. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was 100% in favor of the project. This infill is compatible with the neighborhood, but does not duplicate the old buildings. She agrees the signage should be kept to a minimum so as not to detract from the architecture. She is also in favor of the DRC making a decision about the external gutters and down spouts. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 Chairman Bosch also thought the external roof drainage was appropriate and recommended to modify condition 3 to state: "Roof drainage (gutter and down spout) design, if exposed on the exterior, shall be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit." Commissioner Pruett spoke about signage on the property and asked about a condition that deals with the issue of compatibility and being consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Godlewski suggested that condition 2 be reworded to state that signage be reviewed by the Design Review Committee for consistency with the residential character of the neighborhood. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve Conditional Use Permit 2337-00 with condition 1 through 10, modifying condition 2 to state: "Signage shall be kept to a minimum and shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee for design, detailing and relationship to the surrounding residential properties in which the site is located. A monument sign is recommended as opposed to any type of signs on the building." And, to revise condition 3 to state: "Roof drainage (gutter and down spout) design, if exposed on the exterior of the building, shall be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit." The Planning Commission finds that the conditional use permit has been reviewed and shall be granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community, in its relationship to both the General Plan designation of the property, the zoning, and the Old Towne Guidelines. The permit has been reviewed relative to potential impacts on neighboring properties and it has been found not to have the potential for causing deterioration of bordering land uses or creating special problems based on the design included in the approval and conditions of approval. The permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located, including the National Register Historic District, and the approval has been made subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith wanted to use this project as a model of what works to getting a project through the City process quickly. The fact that the Mickelson's and their architect spoke to the neighbors and different groups, helped in that there were no surprises. The project is also founded on research of architectural styles in the historic era appropriate for the neighborhood. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 4. ZONE CHANGE 1206-00 - LESLIE O. PERSOHN (JAMES SHAB) A request to change the zoning classification for a 1.4 acre parcel to R-1-40 (Residential, Single-Family, minimum lot size 43,560 sq. ft.) from A-1 (Agricultural). The site is located at 487 North Equestrian Drive. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition to this project. The public hearing was opened. Les Persohn. 424 East Bav Street. Costa Mesa, is interested in purchasing the property from the owner, who has permitted him to make an application for a zone change. He outlined his letter to the City of the positive aspects in the fact that the present use could present an opportunity to create additional noise as a result of the agricultural use, A residential use will create a mitigating factor in that it will be aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 The public hearing was closed. It was noted that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Bosch to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1206-00, finding that the recommendation is in conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by the California Government Code. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2344-00. RAY GILlNSKY (SOLO TIRE) A request to allow U-Haul truck rentals as a use similar in character to other commercial uses listed for the Commercial Zone. The site is located at 144 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition to this item. The public hearing was opened. Rhonda McCune. 5681 Beach Boulevard. Buena Park, consultant, is working with the applicant. Mr. Gilinsky felt he had some excess parking and wants to utilize that space with U-Haul trucks. They are asking for six (6) spaces at the rear of the lot. They are not making any changes to the building or elevation, but they needed to reconfigure the parking spaces per staff's request, to provide for a 30 foot throat for ingress/egress. They do not plan to put up sign age or banners at the front of the business. The Commission and Mr. Gilinsky talked about the size of the U-Haul trucks, truck rentals and personal cars being left at the site for a couple of hours. Mr. Gilinskyexplained usually alternative arrangements are made and vehicles are not left over night. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith supports local business and is in favor of approving the use. Chairman Bosch is concerned about potential growth of the business and he appreciates the consideration to limit the number of parking spaces to six stalls and having that included in the conditional use permit. as well as the expiration of the use on site were the underlying business to relocate without coming back for a conditional use permit review. It's important to be assured that a conditional use permit is required in each similar case to assure that there can't be growth to absorb parking beyond that required to support the business on the site. It was noted that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve Conditional Use Permit 2344-00, 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. 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 is 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: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2347-00 AND VARIANCE 2088-00 - LIS GIUSTO A request to allow the construction of a new 1 1/2 story accessory second unit over a new two-car garage/workshop. Applicant is requesting a variance to reduce required setbacks and to reduce the minimum floor area required for the accessory second unit. The site is located at 374 North Cambridge Street and is located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. There was no opposition to this item. The public hearing was opened. Lis Giusto. 202 South Kathleen Lane, seeks a variance to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks, as well as the minimum floor area requirement for the upstairs unit. They want the primary house to be the main focus on the property; not the garage. They want the garage to be set back as far as it is allowed. The stairs are to be built on the interior of the garage rather than the exterior. They want to maintain the visual appearance and character of the neighborhood. As they will be sharing the property, they want to maintain as much yard as they can. Commissioner Carlton asked if there were plans to rehabilitation the existing residence, referring to condition 2. Ms. Giusto explained they wanted to remove the asbestos siding and replace it with cedar siding. They plan to have two columns on the front porch, keeping it very simple. Commissioner Smilh asked if the dormer size was reduced per DRC's recommendation of June 7, 2000. Ms. Giusto replied yes, that is why they are seeking the variance. They chose not to have a dormer on the side facing their neighbors' yard. Commissioner Smith stated that any work done on the front of the existing residence requires approval by the City. Ms. Giusto replied that was recently brought to her attention. Mr. Godlewski explained the applicant needs to come in to the City and talk to Dan Ryan about the approval process for any modifications done to the historic structure. Chairman Bosch stated the Commission was looking at the Alternate A plan with the smaller unit. He wanted to know if the square footagE'! of the unit included the stairway. Ms. Giusto did not believe so. He applauded putting the stairway inside the garage and he wanted to make sure they were not intruding into the diminished floor space. He was concerned with the number of variances being requested. He appreciates that the applicant wants to maximize the open space by shoving the building over and reducing the scope of the building by setting back the unit above. Technically, there is space available to maintain the 5 foot side yard setback. He believed the applicant was creating the hardship in terms of the strict application of the zoning ordinance because the garage is proposed to be 24 feet wide. A two-car garage only has to be 20 feet wide. He believes the applicant is asking for a quality of life issue relative to the size of the garage that exceeds the code requirement, and asking the City to grant a variance. He thought the dwelling space was being given up to create a good architectural proportion. He does not believe there is a hardship to support a variance and several precedents are being set, which could cause some detriment to the City. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith agrees with reducing the number of variances. This type of project sets a precedent in asking for three variances. She suggested reducing the building by 2 feet to meet the 3 foot setback on the side. She agrees to reducing the size of the required habitable floor area, in having to maintain those other setbacks. She would like to work with the applicant. The street gets the garage door and 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 does not benefit from the project. The garage door needs to be conditioned because it is not in character with the design of the building. Commissioner Carlton could live with a 5 foot setback at the rear of the property if some of her adjustments were made. She didn't like the accessory living unit being less than the minimum square footage. It appears that the dormer is off-balanced and she wondered if something could be done. She has a problem with the reduction in the floor area. Commissioner Romero suggested a continuance to allow the architect to reconsider the garage structure and minimize the variance requests. Chairman Bosch had a problem with the square footage reduction as well because there was no hardship. He appreciated the plans showing the existing residence and how well the project blends in. The five foot reduction in the rear yard doesn't compromise life safety because the design of the building and the setback of the second floor doesn't impinge upon air circulation, light or privacy of the neighboring property. But, it funills the intent of having a usable yard area by placing that usability in the main back yard area, rather than secluding it behind the building where it is of no use to anybody. The Commission might be able to draw a legally supportable justification for how that alternative method of compliance, without meeting the strict intent of the zoning ordinance. provides a benefit to the community in that regard. The two setback requirements are too much. Something has to be done on the side yard to keep that to 5 feet. Commissioner Pruett thought a dormer on the other side of the structure could be explored without invading the privacy of the neighbors. The Commission asked the applicant if she were willing to consider a continuance to explore the concerns expressed and look at methods to resolve the problems. Ms. Giusto agreed to a continuance. Chairman Bosch summarized the Commission's concerns: 1) Too many variances that are not supported by hardships not caused by the applicant. The variance to the rear setback may be supportable given the benefit that is gained by combining open space and the side yard setback. The garage side setback reduction below 5 feet doesn't appear to be supportable. 2) The square footage of the dwelling unit is a concern. The dormer is helpful to maintain design continuity. The Commission hopes there can be an increase in floor area and a reduction in garage width. 3) A garage door needs to fit in with the materials and style of the residence. 5) Give some consideration to putting a dormer on the north side of the garage to add more square footage. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Conditional Use Permit 2347-00 and Variance 2088-00 to the meeting of September 18, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 7. PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1207-00 - MUSKOKA DEVELOPMENT A request to pre-zone two 1-acre parcels of land to the City's R-1-4Q (Single Family Residential, minimum 1 acre lot size) Zoning Classification. The properties are currently in an unincorporated area of Orange County. This application has been filed to allow for annexation of the properties to the City. The site is located on the west side of Meads Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Santiago Canyon Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 Mr. Godlewski stated the applicant is proposing to construct two homes on the property, each located on a separate 1 acre parcel. The property is located within the Orange Park Acres area and the lots comply with the proposed zoning. The public hearing was opened. Georoe Kerns of Salkin Enoineerino, 1215 East Chaoman Avenue, represented Muskoka Development. The parcel fronts on Meads Avenue and is contiguous to the City on the north and to the east. The proposed zoning is substantially the same as what exists in the County of Orange. Plans have been processed and approved in the County and it is their intent to construct two homes as shown on the grading plans. The parcel map has already been recorded. The parcel to the west has access via the easement. Public comments Tom Anderson, 1392 North Stallion Street. Doug Schirripa, 10388 South Randall Street. Mark Sandford, 10591 South Meads Avenue. Spoke on behalf of the OPA Association. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres. Chuck McNees, 11211 Orange Park Boulevard. The speakers have been watching this piece of land for many years. The neighbors were not called together to talk about development on this property. There are concerns about the lifestyle. There is a water course that runs along the north edge of the property and they thought this was a trail easement. There were questions about hooking up to the sewer and annexing into the City. They do not want curb and gutters on the street or sidewalks. The question was asked if the property could be re-zoned to less than 1 acre lots. OPA has concerns about the trail that runs north-south on Meads Avenue, which links the main part of OPA to the north part of Santiago Canyon Road and to the parks. No consideration has been made for trail easements on this property to continue the trail. OPA is willing to work with the applicant on trying to solve the trail issues. Trail issues need to be resolved prior to annexation. Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Kerns said the project went through the County's process and public hearings. There is an approved street plan with a sidewalk, which was required by the County of Orange and a bond has been posted for that. He asked if they could use the City's sewer by signing a letter and posting a bond without having to annex. Mr. Hohnbaum explained that there were two ways to connect to the City's sewer. The first would be to annex, but the second way is to enter into a sewer agreement with the City of Orange for connectIon to the sewer without having to annex. Mr. Kerns stated it would be in his client's best interest to ask for a continuance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Pre-Zone Change 1207-00 to the meeting of September 18, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Bennvhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Granoe Park Acres, suggested the Commissioners talk into the microphones because he can't understand what is being said. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2000 Chuck McNees. 11211 OranCle Park Boulevard, talked about the conditional use permit for Holy Sepulcher Cemetery. He thanked the Commission for their comments on the trails and easements because staff is now discussing these issues and are beginning to work on plans. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 8