Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange January 21, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; Chris Carnes, Associate Planner; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart to excuse Commissioner Master's absence based extenuating circumstances with travel restrictions by his firm. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Scott, Cathcart, to continue approval Minutes to the next meeting, appropriate time for review. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cath NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master IN RE: NEW HEARINGS seconded by Commissioner of the January 7, 1991 February 4, 1991, to allow cart, Murphy, Scott MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1889-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1364-91 - STEWART BERKSHIRE: A request for a density bonus to allow a greater number of units on site than are permitted under the current General Plan designation of Low/Medium Density Residential (6-15 units/acre) . The site is now occupied by twelve apartments, and a total of 15 units are proposed. Subject property is located approximately 400 feet north of Washington Avenue at the end of Park Lane, addressed 180 South Park Lane. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1364-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1991 - Page 2 There was no opposition; therefore, a staff report was not presented. Ms. Wolff made a correction/addition to the staff report. Condition 25 needs to be added related to some comments in the staff report. It is to read: "Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with recorded proof that easement rights have been relinquished." Condition 3 (Page 9), fifth sentence, needs to be corrected to read "being rented to lower income..." rather than low income. Lower is the technical term used in State law. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission had received a letter dated January 16 from the applicant regarding existing rent schedules on the property. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Todd Schooler, 500 North Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, represented the applicant as his architect. He had questions about the conditions. Condition 2 -- if approved by the Commission, would the Design Review Board review their site design again? Chairman Bosch stated the D.R.B., subject to the Commission's approval and them overruling D.R.B.'s previous action, would still review the final site plan and landscape plans. This is standard practice. Mr. Schooler continued. Condition 3 -- is it necessary to do a monthly report or can it be done quarterly? Mr. Carnes responded the City's Housing Department receives monthly updates on two other lower income projects. The units were 25~ affordable units. Mr. Schooler stated almost all the units meet the affordable requirements. He felt it would be a lot of extra paperwork in having to get monthly reports from every single tenant. Commissioner Scott thought they were only looking at three units which would be affordable and those three would require record keeping. Mr. Schooler said that would be acceptable. Condition 4 -- they did not feel a six foot high block wall would be required and they're not sure why this is a condition. He talked to their acoustical engineer who was under the impression that it wasn't needed. Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1991 - Page 3 Commissioner Scott believed since they were going from one zone to another (freeway to residential) , a concrete wall is required. Mr. Schooler thought if the outside area was around 65 dba, it should meet most requirements. Chairman Bosch said the intent was to further assure mitigation, bu t the Commission would take the question into consideration. Mr. Schooler questioned the fire hydrant, Condition 13. Would it be possible to rewrite that to where they meet the Fire Department's requirements because there are other forms of mitigation that might not be as expensive (i.e., fire sprinklering). Chairman Bosch understood the conditions are applied based on the Fire Department's review of the project. Mr. Schooler made some changes to their design and pinned it to the wall. One of the conditions was to re-work the laundry facility, which they have done. There were also concerns about the parking spaces/landscaping. He pointed out their changes. He also showed on the plan how the property lines related to the buildings and how each unit could have their own yard. The proposed project does not meet the parking requirements. By amending their plan it meets all parking requirements. Those speaking in favor of project Stewart Berkshire, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, would be happy to answer any questions since he was the owner of the property. They modified the plans to address the Design Review Board's concerns. They ask to have some flexibility with the conditions such as the fire hydrants. He had no problem with the three affordable units and the required paperwork. Chairman Bosch asked if the three units would be the affordable units? Mr. Berkshire said the three units were not anticipated to be affordable. They have additional square footage over and above the other two bedroom units. He assumes a fair market rent for those units. The three affordable units would be from the existing 12 units, which would meet the requirements for low income families. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1991 - Page 4 Commissioner Cathcart did not feel comfortable with the comments made by the applicant regarding some of the conditions. He would rather see the conditions ironed out before casting a vote. Commissioner Murphy agreed and added his concern about the amended plans submitted on Friday. Would they be making a decision on the original proposal or the revised one? He was uncomfortable changing the conditions, especially anything to do with public safety and the fire aspect of it. Chairman Bosch stated the Commission would have to act on the application given to them. They could put conditions on it which might include the changes requested by the applicant. Commissioner Scott said the staff report indicated the units per acre was on the gross acres. Is this the normal way to calculate the acreage? Ms. Wolff responded affirmatively. In calculating the general plan density, staff used the street frontage. This is a bit unusual because there is an entire cul de sac which gets folded into the lot calculation. Commissioner Scott understood the applicant to eliminate one parking stall. Then, turn around and create a parking stall next to the relocated trash enclosure. Does that really encroach into the open space requirements? Ms. Wolff said it would take away from the strict numbers, but the point staff was trying to make in the report was whether the numbers actually comply with the code requirement for usable and contiguous open space. Yes, it does detract from the overall number. Chairman Bosch was concerned about the livability of the open space. The Commission has not had a chance to look at the small yards in detail to see if they provide a usable area, given what has to be done to protect the occupants of the dwelling units from acoustical impacts. He was willing to review the proposed plan revisions and allow staff to review it as well relative to other impacts on open space to see if it does improve the project. Another concern is safety and accessibility of the new dwelling units from the public street. The three new units are to be accessed from a walkway rather than through a vehicular drive area. Pedestrians have to walk something on the order of 100 feet or more from the nearest sidewalk to get to another sidewalk . Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1991 - Page 5 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1889-91 and Negative Declaration 1364-91 for 30 days, to the meeting of February 20, 1991, to resolve the concerns of the Commission and staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a study session on January 28, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss Community Department priority issues. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. s 1 d