Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange February 5, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Minutes of January 15, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13901, ZONE CHANGE 1068, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1589, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1143 - BURNETT/EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: The applicant is proposing the following: 1. General Plan Ame ndment to redesignate a portion of the site from open space to low density residential, and a portion from open space and low density residential to local commercial. 2. Zone Change application from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential minimum lot size 7,000 square feet) to PC Planned Community) and C-1 (Local Business). 3. Conditional Use Permit application to allow the creation of 160 single family lots without direct street frontage. 4. Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property and to allow the creation of 160 single family lots, two commercial parcels, public and private streets and greenbelt areas. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1143 has been prepared for this Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 2 This item has been previously heard by the Planning Commission on the following dates: August 21, 1989, September 11, 1989 Study Session, September 18, 1989, October 9, 1989, December 11, 1989 Study Session, and December 27, 1989 Public Hearing. The City Council referred the revised plan to the Planning Commission at their January 16, 1990 hearing. Chairman Hart excused himself from the hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chairman Master chaired the meeting. He stated this was not a public hearing, but a review (at the request of the City Council) to give them a report on the Commission's consideration on Plan B. Mr. Godlewski said on December 27, 1989 the Planning Commission had denied development plans previously submitted by the applicant of a 160 single f amily homes on 4,500 square foot minimum lot size. The plan included La Veta Street from Cambridge through to Tustin. For future reference this plan will be referred to as Plan A. This recommendation went on to the City Council. On January 16, 1990 the Council was presented with a revised plan, Plan B, showing minimum 5,000 square foot lots, a greenbelt rather than La Veta, and the applicant tried to incorporate many of the comments that were made by the Commission at it's December 27 meeting as what they would have preferred in a plan. The Plan B was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for a report. The Council is looking for the Commission's comments and what has been submitted to them and will consider both the A and B plans at their February 20, 1990 meeting. The information concerning Plan B was submitted to staff after the Council decision to have a report from the Commission. The packet of information was given to the Commission late last Friday. Commissioner Greek thought their input to Council on Plan A should indicate the Commission had reviewed Plan A and asked the applicant if he had any revisions or wanted time to submit any revisions or changes to the plan. The applicant, at that time, did not want to submit revisions; that they preferred the Commission take action. The action taken on Plan A was a denial. The staff report indicates that any action on Plan B should include an amendment to the Circulation Element under the General Plan if Plan B is utilized. If the City Council is going to consider Plan B, he recommends they follow through on a normal submittal -- have the applicant submit it as a new plan, rather than having it submitted as a revision to the original plan. Plan B needs to be submitted for the normal public hearing process prior to anyone taking action. The Amendme nt to the Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 3 Circulation Element of the General Plan should be initiated as part of Plan B. Commissioner Bosch also feels process is important. They should also the address the issues with regard to the E.I.R. Commissioner Scott concurs and feels this would give the applicant an opportunity to answer the questions that the staff has raised. Commissioner Master said Action taken on Plan A considered on Plan B, requesting the process because of the situation prior to any action taken Plan B raised additional questions. and subsequent action that might be with the inclusion of an applicant ing of a General Plan Amendment with La Veta, it should be resolved on Plan B. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission report to the City Council that: (1) They have reviewed Plan A and asked the applicant if he wanted to make any revisions or changes to the plan. The applicant did not want to submit revisions; they preferred the Commission take action. The action taken was a denial. (2) Any action on Plan B should include an amendment to the Circulation Element under the General Plan. (3) If the City Council is going to consider Plan B, it needs to be submitted for the normal public hearing process (as a new plan rather than a revision). AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart returned to the meeting. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1797-89 - PAC TEL CELLULAR A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a cellular phone antenna structure higher than the maximum 30 foot height permitted in the C-2 (General Business) District. The antenna is proposed to be 60 feet in height, and located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of the 55 (Costa Mesa/Newport Beach) Freeway, addressed 1922 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1323-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the December 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting.) Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 4 Ms. Wolff stated at the last meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to work with the neighbors to resolve their concerns on this proposal. The applicant met with the neighbors and tried to resolve their concerns. The report indicated the concerns included the construction of a wall between the applicant's property and the existing residences, and also the addition of some additional landscaping in the residents rear yard. Staff has revised the list of conditions. There are two conditions in the January 24, 1990 memorandum, #4 and #5, which should be pulled out. These conditions have been stipulated to by the applicant: He has agreed to build a 7'2" block wall along the western property line of the southern pan handled portion of the site and the applicant has agreed to landscape the rear yards of the western side of that block wall. The other conditions that have been added as a result of the concerns are that the hours of servicing on the underground equipment room would be done during the normal operating hours of the primary business on the site, and that all service vehicles would park up near the front of the site rather than near the residential area. Chairman Hart was not present at the December 27 meeting; however, he has reviewed the Minutes and staff report, and felt he was sufficiently informed to act on this matter. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Bill North, 2355 Main Street, Irvine, Director of Engineering. He did meet with they agreed to the conditions as stated by was one additional item they agreed t remove the temporary shelter until after built, which was stated in said conditions. Other speakers Pac Tel Cellular the neighbors and Ms. Wolff. There o: They would not the wall would be Jerry Wolf, 1121 Dorsetshire, Santa Ana, was in concurrence with what Mr. North has stated. They were in opposition, but have now changed their position. They are now in favor of Pac Tel Cellular, based on the conditions they have agreed to. Stewart Berkshire, 1770 West owns the property to the south wasn't informed of the December contacted by Pac Tel Cellular. across his property, which was is held by the original seller His property was sold f first; 3alboa Blvd., Newport Beach, of the pan handle area. He 27 meeting and has not been He spoke about an easement 20 feet wide. The easement of both pieces of property. then he sold this property, Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 5 which otherwise would have been landlocked. He sold it to Mr. Margolin who owned the adjacent property and was able to combine both properties and have access on Chapman Avenue. Mr. Margolin believes he owns the easement across Mr. Berkshire's property. The easement is specifically for access to that property. He objected to the easement because of traffic accessing his property. The antenna is going to add to the congestion in the parking area of Midas Muffler. He wants protection from this eventuality. A letter was submitted outlining the points he made. Chairman Hart was not certain if this was the City's concern. The City was not involved with the easement over his property. Commissioner Greek stated the antenna was not being constructed in the easement nor the pan handle. It's being constructed on the northeast corner of the Midas Muffler property. Mr. Berkshire said the easement gives access to the Midas property and believes it should be addressed. Chairman Hart did not see how that would apply to this application. It is not an issue on this particular hearing. Peggy Roberts, 215 South Park Lane, thinks the Midas parking lot is very small. The antenna will cause a lack of parking space for their customers. They will lose their customers. The repair trucks will be doing repairs during the day. The owner may want to open that easement road for the repair trucks to come through So. Park Lane Street. Who knows what traffic will be coming through there onto Chapman. Why doesn't Pac Tel build their antenna on state property away from residential properties? James Snyder, 127 South Wayfield, thought Pac Tel really worked with the residents when they realized there was a problem, to come to a mutual agreement that everyone is happy with. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked about re-wording Conditions 4 and 5. Ms. Wolff suggested list of conditions, a Conditions 4 and 5 applicant stipulates western property line the site; and that landscaping materials those Conditions be pulled out of the nd Conditions 6-11 be re-numbered, 4-9. be taken out and stated that the to provide a 7'2" block wall along the of the southern pan handled portion of the applicant stipulates to provide to be planted along the western side Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 6 of that block wall. These two items have been a private agreement between the applicant and residents and is probably best if the City does not get involved in requiring these types of things. However, they should be made part of the public record to acknowledge these have been agreed to and will be accomplished. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1323-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1797-89 with Conditions 1-9, deleting Conditions 4 and 5, and re-numbering Conditions 6-11 to conform, because the applicant has stipulated to provide the 7'2" block wall at the western property line of the southern pan handle and to landscape the western side of that block wall. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1800-89 - SERGIO AND SHELLEY DELGADILLO: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow an office building in the M-1 zone on property located on the east side of Cypress Street between Sycamore and Palm Avenues, addressed 353 North Cypress Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1325-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the December 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting.) Ms. Wolff stated the applicant has submitted a revised set of plans that re-orients the building location from that which was seen by the Planning Commission on December 27, 1989. He has also relocated the parking on site to provide a better working circulation system. In re-orienting the building, the applicant has created a rear yard area with vehicular access that looks like it will be used as an exterior storage area. If this is the intent of the applicant, the Planning Commission would need to fold into the Conditional Use Permit request, a request also to utilize an outdoor storage area that is within 300 feet of a residential zone. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 7 The public hearing was opened. Applicant Earl Mellott, 1035 North Armando Street, Anaheim, represented the applicant. He has read the conditions and has no objections. They determined the rear yard could be used as storage since they can't build in that area. They are intending to use the area as open storage. Commissioner Bosch asked what would be stored as there was concern with some control over potentially hazardous materials, fire and safety controls near the property line. Commissioner Scott said the plans indicated there was a 6'8" high block wall on the northerly property line. Then there is another 42" high concrete block wall. He believes with the difference in zoning that it is a six foot minimum, with a 42" only in the front yard setback, which would be the 20 foot landscape, as far as protection for the neighbors. Mr. Mellott said that was their intent; he agreed to that. Sergio Delgadillo, 6225 E. Camino Manzano, Anaheim, said he will be storing light, portable air compressors. There will be an office with the air compressors and small air tools. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1325-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1800-89, including the provisions for outdoor storage, easterly of the office building, with the inclusion that the material to be stored are air compressors and air tools that will be below the 6'8" block wall, and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The site plan shall be amended to indicate a minimum 6' high block wall to the setback area on the north property line as stipulated in Condition 2. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 8 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-89, ORANGE PARR ACRES PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE 1119-89 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14105 TRIDER CORPORATION: The applicant is requesting approval of the following application: General Plan Amendment 3-89 and Orange Park Acres Plan Amendment - To amend the Orange Park Acres Plan, which is part of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. Current designation of the property is "Open Space and Recreation Tennis Club)". Proposed designations are Low and Medium, Low Density Residential or other designations as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Zone Change 1119-89 - To reclassify the property from the R-O zone (Recreation- Open Space) to R-1-40 zone (Single Family Residential, minimum 43,560 square foot lot size), and R-1-15 zone Single Family Residential minimum 15,000 square foot lot size), or other classification as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Tentative Tract 14105 - To subdivide the property for single family residential uses. Subject property is approximately 6 acres in size, located south of Santiago Canyon Road, and east of Jamestown Way, and is currently used as the Santiago Tennis and Swim Club. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1315 has been prepared for this project. An indefinite continuance was granted by the Planning Commission at the October 2, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. This item has been readvertised.) The public hearing was opened. Applicant James Crosby, 1820 E. Deer #120, Santa Ana, represented the applicant as the Civil Engineer. The revised conditions are acceptable and there were no problems. Those speaking in favor Bob Walters, 20012 Gray Lane, serves on the Orange Park Acres Planning Commission. They met on this property to Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 9 discuss the issues at hand. They made a careful review of the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan as it relates to the project and with the final version that has emerged, it meets the technicality of the Orange Park Acres Plan. They requested all properties by full acres by the current definition, and allow two smaller properties smaller than one acre in size, which conforms to the O.P.A. Specific Plan. Orange Park Acres Planning Commission supports the project. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive #200, Newport Beach, represented Beezer Development West, the co-venture with Sully Miller in the property immediately to the east. They have no view either for or against the application, except they have reviewed the tract conditions concerning the Beezer/Sully Miller properties and they're satisfied they do not impede on their future planning operations. Lauren Bacaro, 11202 Meads, spoke in favor of the alignment of the recreational trail easement on the property and the notations the staff and the developer have agreed to regarding those recreational trails. Those speaking in opposition Ted Martens, 1492 North Portsmouth Circle, thought the approval of the project would mean the elimination of another recreational facility in the City of Orange. The facility is now a tennis and swim club. There are approximately 400 families who are members of the club. He would like to see the club retained and not eliminated. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked if under evaluation 23, requiring a 32' paved street section rather than 28' if that would affect a reduction in the lot size? (The answer is no.) Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1315-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 3-89, Orange Park Acres Plan Amendment, Zone Change 1119-89 and Tentative Tract Map 14105, with the 30 conditions as stated in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 10 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS VARIANCE 1874-90 - GENERAL ELECTRIC REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, I NC . A Variance proposal to allow a reduction in required off-street parking on a 4.44 acre parcel of land in the C-P Commercial Professional) District. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Eckhoff Street and Orangewood Avenue, addressed 2100 and 2200 Orangewood Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Richard Schlutz, 3265 Minnesota Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated they were the original architects on these buildings. In 1980 when the buildings went up, they were built in accordance with the current handicapped access laws. Since then, the laws have changed. There is grade level parking that extends to the complete first level on both buildings. There is an elevator that comes down to the parking level and there are four existing handicap spaces. The problem is that the code now requires a higher clearance. Instead of 7 feet, it is now 8'2". They were asked to provide handicap access into the building according to current laws. He is working with the handicap specialist for the State of California and they were able to find a way to locate those adjacent to the building outside the line of the building. A ramp for each building would be an excess of 50 feet long. In adding the two ramps, they would lose five cars just adding the ramps to the front entries. By providing the spaces as shown now, they lose 7 spaces without detriment to the entry plazas. Commissioner Bosch's understanding was that the State Handicap Compliance Office did not allow handicapped parkers to cross behind any vehicles other than their own or any cross drive aisles. Mr. Schlutz reviewed this plan with the Building Department. They insisted that they not go behind any cars. They actually don't cross behind any parking spaces, but do cross drive aisles. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 11 Commissioner Greek wanted some clarification on statement 13, Page 3 of the staff report. The system could have been developed to satisfy all requirements, but the architect decided to not go with those recommendations. Why was this unreasonable? He would like to postpone the hearing until a decision has been reached. Ms. Wolff responded reviewed the plans. that it would be po: not require the lo: actually laying out detail, but felt it than what is being sr the Building Department plan checker had In considering the site plan, he feels sible to design a ramp system that would s of any parking. He did not spend time a system to work out the numbers and could be accomplished in a better manner own on the plans now. The applicant presented some graphics and discussed the project with the Commission. He explained the parking situation and required ramps. Chairman Hart asked if they were familiar with the suggestion of the Building Department about alternate ramp possibilities? They responded yes and that's how they came up with their solution. They lost five parking spaces instead of seven. They are talking about two spaces. The Commission and applicant discussed different layouts and alternatives for handicapped ramps. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission postpone action on Variance 1874-90 and continue the public hearing to February 14, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in order for the Building Official to provide them with a sketch indicating his ideas in order to compare them with the architect's ideas before making a final decision on the handicap ramp. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1120-90 - DONALD ST. JEAN: A request to rezone subject property from the O-P (Office Professional) District to the R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) or other zone classification as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, in order to facilitate the construction of two additional dwelling units on the site. Subject property is a 6,600 square foot parcel located on the west side of Grand Street, approximately 100 feet sou th of Almond Avenue, addressed 212 South Grand Street. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 12 NOTE: Negative Declaration 1331-90 has been prepared for this project. Planning Commissioners have received in their packets copies of a site plan that is proposed to be developed should the Zone Change be approved. The site plan is for illustration only. The Zone Change request is in front of the Commission for consideration and the site plan issues will be worked out at a later time. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Donald St. Jean, 700 East Lake Drive, was not aware that the site plan was not being considered. He was told to submit a site plan as well as a Zone Change application. Ms. Wolff described the process to the applicant. A site plan will need to be prepared and reviewed. The plans are reviewed by the Environmental Review Board and go through the Building plan check process. It is often helpful to have a site plan at a hearing to see an example of what is being discussed and how the property might be used in conformance with the zoning standards. However, what the Commission will be considering is the basic underlying zoning for the property. The plans will be utilized at a later date. The application is also subject to Design Review Board review and approval as well. Mr. St. Jean desires to develop the property as a personal residence with two new rental units in the back. Along with the two new units, he proposes a 160 square foot addition to the existing home. The home dates back to 1905 and it's a historic home. It will be improved and added on to conform with the historic aesthetics. Residential zoning is consistent with both the land use and the zoning of the surrounding properties, as well as the City's General Plan designation for the medium density residential. There are three adjacent parcels which are zoned R-4, which is what he is requesting. He's trying to make his project consistent with the development standards with the City's General Plan and trying to improve and preserve the existing historic structure as a single family home with two additional units in the back. Those speaking in opposition Patricia Ricci, 618 East Culver, was opposed to making this R-4 because of the density. It would make that a very densely developed piece of property. Because it is in the historic district, it should be a less densely developed property. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 13 Rebuttal Mr. St. Jean stated the current zoning is 0-P. The area, in his opinion, does not lend itself to Office-Professional. It's an inside lot, it has a 50' width, which is against City codes. The square footage for an 0-P lot to be developed by code is 7,000 square feet and he's under that at 6,600 square feet. He can't see the property being developed as an office. The neighbors wouldn't be treated well if it were 0-P. His parcel is non-conforming for 0-P zoning. The lot is surrounded by residential properties and he doesn't see it benefiting the neighbors at all. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch shares the concern about density. He would rather see this developed as residential, than see it as a business intruding into the residential area or even combined with the lot facing Almond and ending up a parking lot. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1331-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Zone Change 1120-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek re-iterated to the applicant the Commission approved only the Zone Change request; not the plot plan. They found several problems with the plot plan and they would have not approved it had it been part of the application. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1811-90 WILSON FAMILY LIVING, INC.: A proposed Conditional Use Permit center in the M-2 zone, and a request the parking facility on a 28,403 squ located on the west side of Glassell Olive Road and Blueridge Road, Glassell Street. to allow a counseling to allow shared use of are foot parcel of land Street between Orange- addressed 1800 North Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 14 NOTE: Negative Declaration 1329-90 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Terry Jacobson, 44 Plaza Square, Member of the Board for Wilson Family Living, has reviewed the conditions as recommended by staff and have found them acceptable. He was here to answer any questions and asked the Commission for their consideration under Condition 2 which regards the TSIP fee. He was not clear as to the amount of the fee. Wilson Family Living is a non-profit organization and asked for consideration of that fact in terms of the fee. Chairman Hart stated the reason the fee is required is because of the change in use and the Commission did not have power to waive the fee. That is a function of the City Council. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1329-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1811-90, with Conditions 1-11 as stated in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1813-90 - BRENT HELLBUSCH AND ANTHONY RADLETZ: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a two-story second dwelling unit over a garage in the R-2-6 RCD) Residential Duplex District, Residential Combining District Overlay. Subject property is a 6,100 square foot lot located on the south side of Van Bibber Avenue, approximately 100 feet west of Harwood Street, addressed 584 East Van Bibber Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 15 NOTE: This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The property is within the R-2-6 RCD zone. These designations mean that duplexes are permitted; however, the Residential Combining District Overlay Zone indicates that single story construction is permitted by right. And any two story construction is subject to approval as a discretionary permit by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the RCD designation is to "preserve the established harmony, character and scale of the existing neighborhood and to permit the orderly transition of the existing older development to a newer, more efficient use while the preserving the structures and landmarks which are historically significant to the area." This proposal consists of a detached structure to be constructed behind an existing single f amily home. The existing home is one story. It was built as a small bungalow approximately 600 square feet in size in 1921. At a later time, a room addition was built on the rear of the structure which increased the size of that original home. The new structure shows a first story which would contain a two car garage and a storage area, and a second floor which would contain a two bedroom, two bath living unit, 816 square feet in size. That living unit would also have an outdoor patio and an exterior stairway used to access the residence. Parking for four cars would be provided on site; two are within the garage and two are shown on either side of the driveway. Staff has received four letters in opposition to this proposal. Those letters are part of the file and have been delivered to the Planning Commission previous to the meeting. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Anthony Kadletz, 584 East Van Bibber, has lived and owned his home for the last year and a half. He is not trying to do anything detrimental to the community by building this unit two story. He lives next door to a two story unit duplex. The house he is proposing is the same height as the existing houses or smaller. The neighbors do not want construction at all. By building two stories, he can get an extra parking spot, which is required. Those speaking in favor Brent Helibusch, 8652 Palos Verdes Avenue, Westminster, co-owner of the property with Mr. Kadletz. They have spent considerable time and effort in researching what would be Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 16 the best way to present this project. They feel they have developed a plan that best suits the property and the neighborhood. He has reviewed some of the older C.U.P.'s that were denied and the reason for that is they affected the privacy of the neighbors by the fact there would be exposed stairways and windows overlooking the property. He submitted pictures to the Commission showing the neighborhood. In checking the title company's records, the residence next door to them is a two story duplex. Their property is much smaller than those surrounding it. The traffic situation on the street was also addressed. They propose considerable off-street parking as required by code. One of the reasons for traffic congestion, is because some of the buildings do not provide for off-street parking at all. Most of the street is fairly quiet and there's not much traffic anyway. Rarl Bonham, 575 Van Bibber, lives directly across the street from the proposed project. After reviewing the plans, it would not be a sore thumb; you could barely see the addition from his house. It would add landscape and trees to the air, which is a big plus for the community. It would not detract from the aesthetics of the area. There is one two-story next door to him, which is taller than the unit he's proposing to build. The house next to it is one of the older homes that is built upon a high raised floor -- a one story, but it has the high roof level -- so it wouldn't detract from the skyline. The plans clearly show the windows would not violate anyone's privacy. He's in favor of the project and it would be the best, most efficient use of the lot. Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver, agrees the house on the corner is quite tall. If you go down Culver, there is a unit above a garage that's maybe two doors down and behind them. On Washington, they also have an unit over a garage so it's not that this area has single stories. If the applicant complies with all City codes and regulations, that he should be allowed to build an unit on his property. Those speaking in opposition Robin Reams, 637 East Van Bibber, directly across the street from the proposed unit. They believe the two story dwelling unit to be inconsistent with the existing houses on Van Bibber, which with the exception of the two story duplex, are single story dwellings. The two story dwelling is the original farm house, which preceded the other houses by a number of years. This house is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, which places it in a class of its own. As stated in the staff report, the proposed structure is on a lot with substandard width. There are no Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 17 alleys to the rear of the residences on that side of the street. The only approach to the rear is by a 10 foot driveway. The configuration is such that any deviation from assigned parking could block access. Their major concern is the parking problem on the street. She also spoke on behalf of the Trapizonian's and submitted their letter for the record. Jennifer Esparza, 559 East Van Bibber, wanted to live on a street where is was basically homeowners and single family dwellings. There are a lot of problems with cars at night because many of the homes do not have driveways or garages. This will be an invasion of everyone's surrounding properties. She hopes to preserve Old Towne by not allowing this dwelling to be built. Robert Espanoza, 363 South Harwood, is opposed to the project. They came to Orange from Santa Ana and loved the neighborhood because of the character, the scale of the buildings and the neighborhood quality. The f amily lifestyle that has been developing or has been part of the area was a big factor for them to purchase their residence. He is opposed to the over development of the area. Raren Copeland, 530 Van Bibber, is a tenant living in one of the original duplexes on the street. There are approximately 24 houses on their street. Right now there are 6 rental units behind the houses -- a pretty good ratio. Fortunately most of the second units are on the side of the street where they have alley access, which accommodates a lot of the cars and traffic. She objects to the cars on the street. The driveway is too narrow and she knows those tenants will be parking on the street. The people behind her h ave been allowed to build a two story unit and during the summer when she is in her back yard she listens to their music -- it's a very congested kind of attitude, which reminds her of living in an apartment. She is opposed to any more development on her street. Patricia Ricci, 618 East Culver, was opposed to the density in Old Towne of the second units on lots that are not big enough for second units. She is also opposed to the transient population in the schools; it's detrimental to the educational system. The Old Towne area should be preserved as a historic district. Eventually the area will become a residential slum. James Hicks, 576 Van Bibber, was opposed to the two story dwelling that would overlook into his yard; he would not have any privacy. Lily Fidder, 536 Van Bibber, was opposed to the two story. The City has already refused two on the same street for Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 18 exactly the same project. If this one is granted, the City is going against their own wishes. Gail Philips, 560 Van Bibber, added her comments regarding the duplex that was an old Victorian. That duplex backs up to her property; it's ugly. The aesthetic value is why she lives here. Rebuttal Most of the arguments are basically against the zoning of the area. There is no question about the zoning. When the Planning Commission previously approved the two additional second story units that were overturned by the City Council, it was requested at that time that staff do a study into the re-zoning of the neighborhood or limiting it to single story. That has been almost four years ago; no action has been taken. Regarding their narrow driveway, on the site plan it is 10 feet because of code requirements. There is a 17'/18' space there and plenty of room for a driveway to be wider. Additional storage space is provided so there would be plenty of room to park cars in the garage. He stated most of the houses on Van Bibber do not conform to the harmony of the neighborhood. The average lot on Van Bibber is 50 feet wide; their's is 48 feet wide. It's 127 feet long; 254 square f eet. The major problem seems to be blending, the old with the new. Each project needs to be looked at individually to address the issues to the best of the neighborhood. They could build a one story on their lot, but choose to build a two story because they believe it is the best for them and the neighborhood. Mr. Kadletz responded .this was his home they were talking about. He plans on staying; he's not a developer. He's not doing anything detrimental to the house. If he built a one story unit, he would eliminate a lot of greenbelt area and parking would be twice as bad. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked about the study that was made in 1986 regarding down zoning? Mr. McGee recalled some discussion during the public hearings at that time, but does not recall a specific request. He doesn't believe a study was done at that time. Commissioner Scott questioned to initiate a study, if a petition were submitted by the property owners on the street to have it re-zoned to R-1-6, they could submit it and it would go to Council. Staff would then be directed, if the Council chose to, review it and possibly initiate the down zoning? Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page IQ Mr. McGee stated that could be done. Commissioner Bosch said it was pointed out correctly that the zoning currently allows two units and that isn't the issue. The application is relevant to the two story unit. One of the impacts on this site is the uniqueness of the street and the variety of development upon it. There is a special character on the street that would be impacted by the development. The applicant indicated they could easily build one story, although they indicated they would lose more lawn and perhaps have more cemented driveway by doing that. Appropriate development of the site should take into account remedying old ills, as well as providing for new housing in the area. Development of two stories on the site would be detrimental in its relationship to the neighborhood, particularly to the west. That the existing farm house to the east doesn't set a precedent with regard to the type of unit proposed. And that a single story unit is appropr-fate for this site. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 1813-90 because of its potential for causing deterioration to the bordering land uses and its negative effect in its relationship to the existing community. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained the appeal process to the applicants. Commissioner Master commented on the previous potential studies for the area regarding zone changes. The option is available and should be pursued by the property owners if they feel that strongly about down zoning. Commissioner Bosch re-iterated in the interim, the second unit is allowed by right, but it's the second story that is the problem. He has supported second story developments in a number of parts of Old Towne where it seemed to be environmentally fit and didn't have a negative impact on the neighbors. But, again, this is a condition of an unique neighborhood. Ms. Wolff offered her assistance to the homeowners to help direct them through the process of filling out the proper application forms for zoning. Planning Commission Minutes Fe bruary 5, 1990 - Page 20 IN RE: N EW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1814-89 - LEE AND YANG ARCHITECTS: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 59 unit motel in the C-2 zone (General Business District). Subject property is a 39,200 square foot parcel located on the south side of Chapman Avenue just east of the 57 Freeway, addressed 2330 West Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1328-89 has been prepared for this project. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. This proposal is located on a site which contains two parcels. Those parcels together total 36,000 square feet. An existing 20 unit motel is located on one of the parcels; the other parcel is undeveloped. This proposal would require the removal of the existing motel and construction of a 59 unit motel on the larger total site. Motels are permitted in the City's commercial zones only upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This project consists of two, two-story buildings. One would contain the motel office, the lobby and the resident manager's unit. The other building (the larger of the two) would contain the 59 guest rooms. A parking lot is provided for 61 cars and parking would be in conformance to the zoning standards. Set backs, landscaping and a block wall are also shown to be in conformance with the zoning ordinance and those are proposed to separate the project from the adjacent residential areas. Design Review Board approval would be required if this proposal were approved by the Planning Commission. All access to the property is from Ch apma n Avenue . The public hearing was opened. Applicant An-Chi Lee, 3711 Long Beach Blvd. #423, Long Beach, is the architect for this project. The major consideration is the neighbors to the rear of the property. They provided a 6' high block wall and will also provide a 10' wide landscaped area which will discourage people from walking in there. All the windows on the second floor, facing the rear property line are bathroom windows. They will be small windows with obscure glass, 6' above the floor for ventilation only. The reason they put the building parallel to the rear property line is because they tried to put the parking lot in front so the building will block all the noise and try to give the neighbors privacy to the rear. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 21 Those speaking in opposition A resident at 2335 West Rose Drive, had concerns about the two story motel. He wants to protect his privacy. A 6' high block wall is not high enough because people can still look over the wall into his back yard. Tom Cochran, 2345 West Mills Drive, was not opposed to the construction (it's a good idea and it would help the area); however, there are no other two story structures in the area. He asked that the applicant do something to obscure the vision from the upstairs units into the neighbors' back yards, as well as possibly considering a 8' to 10' block wall instead of a 6' block wall for security. Chairman Hart responded the height of the wall is governed by code. Ms. Wolff stated under the zoning code, a property division wall is 6' high. There are provisions by which the City Engineer or Planning Commission, if they desire, could approve up to 20~ higher, which would be 7'2". A wall higher than that would require a Variance. Commissioner Scott said the 6' high wall would be measured from the high grade side. If it were graded to the back, the wall could be higher than 6' (from the residential side) . Susan Allen, 2325 West Mills Drive, was not opposed to the motel, but her main concern is that she would like to see a taller wall and is concerned about the windows on the second floor overlooking her back yard. RP bu t t a 1 Mr. Lee thought the major concern was the privacy for the neighbors. He agrees to raise the block wall fence higher to whatever the code allows. They will put in landscaping. The bathroom windows are for ventilation only; it will be real small with obscure glass. Commissioner Bosch said it appears from the south exterior elevation that the suite at the southwest corner of the property would have two larger windows that would face to the south towards the Mills Drive property. How do you propose to prevent vision from those windows? Mr. Lee responded they do need natural light and ventilation for that unit. He proposes to raise up the roof and put in a window. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 22 Commissioner Bosch said there were several parking spaces under the southerly building, with an opening from those parking spaces to the small rear yard adjacent to the south property line. Although you're proposing control to prevent criminal access and lack of privacy elsewhere at the ends of that yard, what would you do to prevent access through that area? Mr. Lee responded under one of the conditions they are required to put up gates to secure all those areas. Commissioner Master asked if Mr. Lee had considered a single story motel along the property line? Mr. Lee said it would be hard to do. If they put the building in front, it would create a lot of noise to the rear. They could only get a few units if it were one story. It would also reduce the neighbors' privacy. Commissioner Master was thinking about the bulk of the building. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch supports a higher wall along the rear property. line, even though the grade is elevated a bit. His main concern back there is keeping the building to a lower Neigh t, yet the grading raises it up and the two buildings run the entire length of the site in a solid, unbroken wall. He would have felt better if there had been an attempt to develop a bit more construction along the west property line by the freeway, which migh t buffer noise into the site somewhat and could have lowered the scale against the entire adjacent neighborhood. He was pleased to see the renovation of the existing motel; it will be a great improvement. But his concern is the mass at the rear. He recognizes the applicant is meeting the development standards of the zoning ordinance with regard to that setback, but then it's a solid wall from side to side. Commissioner Greek was in favor of motel on this particular property, but the building were constructed along line. It seems like there is some could have been used. He favors the with the plot plan. the utilization of a would feel better if the westerly property space left open that use, but has concern The Commission asked the applicant if he would like to consider looking at a revised design in order to mitigate the Commission's concerns relative to the building mass along the south property line. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 23 Commissioner Bosch gave the applicant some direction as to building layout. He would not object to seeing some two story on the property line. The solid, continuous wall is the problem. You may need some two story to block visual privacy intrusion from the access balcony across the property line once you have the one story element, unless the roof is high enough on that one story to block that. The Commission is looking for some variety so there isn't this huge wall the whole length of the site. Revised plans would need to be received by February 16, 1990 in order for the Commission to review them at their March 5, 1990 meeting. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, based on the applicant's concurrence, the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1814-89 to their meeting of March 5, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Greek asked about a Negative Declaration they received from Mr. Carnes for the Orange Resource Recycling Facility. They received it for "information only", but he was concerned. that this was a lot of information for a Negative Declaration and they need to rush it through for 21 days and there is a lot of concern; there's a lot of problems with it. Ms. Wolff responded staff asked for a 21 day review period and it was denied by the State so they will be going with a full 30 day review period. There will be a Conditional Use Permit to review. Staff wanted the Commission to have that at the same time they sent it out for public review so if the Commission had any comments, staff could respond to their comments. Commissioner Greek thought this should require a focused E.I.R. as opposed to a Negative Declaration. Ms. Wolff said State agencies will be approving this application. Staff feels that all impacts can be adequately mitigated. With the implementation of mitigation measures, they did not feel that it would have an impact on the environment. Commissioner Scott, in reading the report, said it did not restrict the recycling center just to Orange, which it should. If the operator of this recycling center goes out Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 1990 - Page 24 and solicits trucks from neighboring cities, it would have a tremendous impact in that area. He would like to see that addressed that it would be limited to refuge that is generated in the City of Orange. Ms. Wolff will work the Commissioners' comments into the staff report. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to a regular public hearing Wednesday, February 14, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room regarding the Yorba Park Medical Center and the G.E. Real Estate Equities, Inc.; then to adjourn to a subsequent study session after the hearing regarding the community resource center. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. sld