Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission March 2, 1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart STAFF: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10 AND FEBRUARY 19 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue the Minutes of February 10, 1992 and to approve the Minutes of February 19, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1948-91, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1402-91 CHOC REALTY AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY A request to allow the expansion of CHOC Hospital including building additions to the newly constructed hospital buildings, and existing office building at the northeast corner of Main Street and LaVeta Avenue, and the construction and operation of a temporary parking lot on the east side of Main Street, south of LaVeta Avenue. Subject property is located upon two sites: 1) the northeast corner of LaVeta and Main Street, and 2) the east side of Main Street 230 feet south of LaVeta Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1402-91 has been prepared for this project. Staff requests a continuance until March 16, 1992. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1948-91 and Negative Declaration 1402-91 to the meeting of March 16, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1950-92 -ALEX PHILLIP A proposal to construct a 2-story, second dwelling unit on property abutting single story development in the R-2-6 (Residential Duplex) zone. Subject property is located at 594 North Lemon Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to construct a second unit on property in the residential-duplex district. A conditional use permit is required because the second unit is to be two stories in height. When any proposed development in the R-2 zone abuts single story development on three sides, then the zoning code requires such development be one story in height. The zoning code does, however, permit two story development if a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. This property abuts a single story home on the south and a proposed single story duplex to the west. The existing home was recently demolished to make way for a new development which would be a single story duplex building. It is also abutting a single story industrial building on the Fiberite property to the north. Across the street to the east is the Killefer School facility and park. The property itself is just over 7,000 square feet in size, contains a small, single story house which is less than 750 square feet 2- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 and a detached structure. The application is to construct a 1200 square foot, three bedroom, 2-story house at the rear of the property, behind the existing home. The new house would have a 10 1/2 side yard setback from the southerly property line and a setback varying from 10 feet to 20 feet in the rear yard from the westerly property line. The new home would have an attached two-car garage. The project also includes demolition and replacement of the existing accessory structure with aone-car detached garage for the front house. The Design Review Board has reviewed this project twice. The project has been re- designed in accordance with the Design Review Board's recommendations in regards to reducing the bulk of the building and to shift a portion of the second story further toward the north, away from the residential area. Under the existing zoning and General Plan, the property owner is entitled to two units on the property since it is zoned for duplexes and a C.U.P. would not be required if the buildings were single story. Aside from the height issue, the project has complied with all zoning ordinance requirements. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Daniel Gehman, Owner/Builder Network, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Suite C-102, Irvine, is the architect for the project representing the owner. The project is proposed for a zone that allows two dwellings to be on one site. The house has been designed in such a way as to be complimentary to both the existing structure on the site and the houses surrounding it. They tried to exceed the requirements of the regular zoning ordinance in hopes that it would make the site more pleasant and enjoyable for the people who live there. Commissioner Bosch explained the reason the applicant was before the Commission was not relative to the potential of providing a second unit on the property, but relative to the height given that the surrounding residences were all single story. This causes a special condition where the applicant needs to demonstrate that the proposed project would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. He asked the applicant to address that aspect of the project. Mr. Gehman responded atwo-story residence allowed them to keep a maximum amount of open space on the site. It's the owner's goal to 3- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 upgrade the entire property. By building atwo-story unit, it allows them to also build atwo-car. garage. They were trying to maximize useable ground floor open space. The immediately adjacent neighbors do have single story homes; however, the Fiberite building is a very tall single story structure. There is a house on the corner of Lemon and Walnut which is very similar to what they propose. Those speakin in opposition Kellee Ruiz, 5 7 8 North Lemon Street, felt the builder has not taken the neighbors into consideration. Fiberite is a very large building and they have learned to accept the fact that it is in their neighborhood. There are no two-story buildings on their block, nor on the block on the back side of them. The proposed project will be built on a small lot. There is not enough space for a single story unit; that's why they are building up. The project will be detrimental to the neighborhood. She does not want to see two story units. She did not have a problem with aone- story unit. Beatrice Vega, 486 North Olive Street, opposed the project in her neighborhood. More density and traffic will not help the neighborhood. She didn't oppose a second dwelling -- just the size. Vince Rodriguez, 400 North Citrus, represented his parents who lived at 568 North Lemon. They shared the concern for the density of the neighborhood. Issues included traffic, lack of privacy and gang activity. Rebuttal Mr. Gehman said regardless of the size of the dwelling, they were required to provide the same number of parking spaces. They are exceeding the amount of covered parking. With the approval for aone- story unit, it would produce the same number of trips on a daily basis; traffic is not the issue, but rather the height of the building. They feel their project is in keeping with the neighborhood and will enhance the property considerably. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott acknowledged the Commission received a petition of 69 signatures opposing the project. 4- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 Commissioner Bosch expressed his concern about the two-story issue. It's true the parking meets the current zoning ordinance for the site. The height and privacy of the people is critical. The unit, as designed, proposes windows in every direction and looks into every yard. It's an imposition. The design of the site provides some reasonable private space for the new unit, but none for the front unit. The second story is an unnecessary imposition on the neighbors. The surrounding neighborhood is all single story and should remain so. Commissioner Scott could not understand the dimensions shown on the plot plan. It implies the driveway going back to the second unit as being 21 feet. But if the planters were removed, there would only be 12 feet, which is shown at the top. This would be considered a substandard measurement. Commissioner Bosch noted the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1950-92, given that the rights of the property owner to develop a second unit in conformance with the zoning ordinance exists without regard to the application for the C.U.P. in that they can build a single story second unit on the property; and since the conditional use permit should be granted upon sound principles of land use and should not be granted if it will cause deterioration of bordering land uses and must be considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plan for the area in which it is to be located in that the remainder of the residential area on the block consists of single family residences, that the proposal as presented to the Commission would in fact cause deterioration and have a negative impact upon the immediate area. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained the appeal procedure to the applicant. 5- Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING March 2, 1992 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14577, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1952-92, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1401-92 -THOMAS A. WILLIAMS A request for a tentative tract map for condominium purposes and to consolidate two parcels of land. The development project consists of 9 dwelling units in the R-3 (multi-family residential) zone. Subject property is located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 970 feet east of Glassell Street, and 400 feet west of Cottonwood Street, addressed 341 East Lincoln Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1401-91 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Robert Colin, 1247 North Glassell, handed the Commission exhibits of the project's elevations. This is a revised project and they're hoping to build 9 units, rather than the 11 units previously requested. They have designed four individual buildings to maintain an individuality among the tenants, giving space between the buildings for more privacy. Private space has also been provided at the rear of the property; open space for the front units. They propose a 6 foot high wall at the front units and understand an Administrative Adjustment is needed for the actual height of the wall. The wall will serve two purposes by enclosing a patio area for the residents and help diffuse noise from the street. He addressed the parking circulation and with some minor adjustments, can obtain at least two feet between the back of the parking spaces and garage doors. They propose six spaces for guest parking -- 2.6 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Colin reviewed the staff report and addressed staffs concerns (i.e., privacy wall at front patios, guest parking, vehicle turn around and the concern about the 4-way stop). He believed this plan was self-securing. People will be looking at each other, creating a Neighborhood Watch" atmosphere. He agreed with the conditions of approval. 6- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 Commissioner Bosch found one condition of approval that would be hard to do and asked staff to clarify it with the Fire Department -- Condition 11 where the O.F.D. requires their fire connection not be affixed to any building, and must be located at least 40 feet away from the building. Commissioner Bosch liked the way the private open spaces have been developed except for the front setbacks. He understands that now they are asking for an Administrative Adjustment that wasn't previously brought to the Commission. What are the limitations on the percentage? Ms. Wolff responded on a front yard setback the allowance would be 20%. Or, it's a 10% adjustment on other requirements. In terms of the wall height, it would be an additional 109%. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about the privacy into the front yards with a low wall. How did they intend to offset that given the 42 inch height? Ms. Wolff said the only way a 6 foot wall would work in the area is if the Commission determines an Administrative Adjustment were appropriate and they were willing to adjust the front yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet. Commissioner Bosch had serious concerns about the sight lines at the four way intersection in the middle of the site. There is a potential liability situation in that one is not able to see beyond that since there is no pedestrian sidewalk access from the street back to the rear units. How would the applicant suggest mitigating that? His other concern was with Unit 5A and the clearance between the guest parking spaces and sidewalk to get back into that unit. Fire access and life safety needs to be reviewed. It's too small of an area. How can that be mitigated? Mr. Colin said a hammer head was required to be put in. At that point they will address the buildings to get them back somewhat to provide space for a sidewalk and allow for more open space. He proposes to address Building 3A, but not to sacrafice the patio area to gain vision on the east side. Commissioner Murphy had specific concerns about the Police Department's issues with the project. Why is the applicant questioning the P.D.'s recommendations regarding entrances and garage openings? Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 Mr. Colin has talked with Jerry Burgess, Crime Prevention Bureau, and found out what they were looking for. He believes their design meets the Police Department's expectations. Tom Williams, owner of the project, 2630 Vista Point, said the project is zoned for apartments or condominiums and this has been his third time before the Commission. Originally they proposed 11 units but it has been scaled down to 9 units. The plans have been revised per the Commission's input, which enhances the project. The community has no opposition and he is seeking a favorable decision. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch was not opposed to the project. Remarkable steps have been made in a positive direction to turn the earlier submittals into something that really works. It's a difficult site. This use for the site is the best anyone could hope for given the alternatives the Commission might see proposed for it. He appreciated how the density has been brought down and the sensitivity to the neighboring condominium units. There's a few minor items which seem nit picky, but they're critical to being sure there is a safe, livable environment on this spot. He hopes conditions can be placed so that the minor items can be solved. His key concerns were the fire safety aspects of access to Unit SA and the lack of vision lines at several of the corners of the middle cross intersection drives on the site. He is not opposed to an Administrative Adjustment of the fence in order to provide livable privacy. He shares the concerns about input from the Police Department on making defensible space within the unit and hopes something can be developed to make that work. He'd look for a way to stipulate to adjustment of the interior cross drives to allow safe fire access and some vision at the corners, in addition to Mr. Colin's stipulation to slight off setting of the garage doors on the easterly and westerly pair of garages to give a little back out space to the parking next to them. Commissioner Scott noted in the staff report listed under Item 17, second paragraph, that the rear of the property is going to be raised two to three feet higher than the surrounding parcels. They're encompassed with a six foot high block wall. By putting in a retaining wall the privacy effect will be lost. Is there a condition requiring a 6 foot wall from the high grade side on condominium projects? s- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 Ms. Wolff responded there is not a requirement for a property line division wall because the zoning is the same on both sides of it. There is a definition of wall height, which measures that height from the high grade side. It's clearly understood that under the ordinance the six foot fence is measured from the high side. Commissioner Scott suggested adding a condition for a six foot block wall fence along the property lines measured from the high grade side. Commissioner Murphy shared the Commission's thoughts about liking a condominium development and appreciated the efforts thus far. But he still has concerns based on the public safety issues that were raised. He suggested a short continuance to allow some response to the issues raised at this hearing, as well as an additional comment from the public safety divisions to help clarify these issues. He encouraged the activity and development and hopefully there is a solution that can be addressed in a timely fashion. Commissioner Bosch suggested looking to the applicant for his stipulation of a continuance. Along with the Administrative Adjustment to allow the front setback and fence, the Commission should also include a condition that no air conditioning equipment or other mechanical equipment shall be located within the required front setback. The applicant stipulated to a continuance of two weeks. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Tentative Tract Map 14577, Conditional Use Permit 1952-92, an Administrative Adjustment and Negative Declaration 1401-92 to the meeting of March 16, 1992, as the first item on the Agenda. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 9- Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS March 2, 1992 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91-B, ZONE CHANGE 1112-89, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1294-89 - A & A VENTURES The City Council is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding a revised request by A & A ventures concerning a 3.9 acre property located on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road, approximately 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue. The Planning Commission last heard this item on December 2, 1991, at which time the applicant requested an amendment to the General Plan, to change the land use designation from Open Space to Low/Medium Density Residential (6-1 S units per acre) and apre-zone change to reclassify the property from the County of Orange AR-20,000-SR District Agriculture, minimum lot size 20,000 square feet, sign restricted) to the City R-2-8 District (Residential duplex, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The revised request is for a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre) and apre-zone change to R-1-6 (Single family residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet). The City Council requested the Commission's recommendation and comments on this item. Mr. Godlewski stated at the City Council meeting it was the Council's desire to have the Commission's input and have the item back before the Council within 45 days. In order to do this, staff put it on the Environmental Review Board's Agenda for their comments and put it on the Commission's Agenda for comments. He spoke with the applicant in the afternoon, this date. Staff did not specifically notify anyone of the hearing. The applicant was unaware of the item being discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting and requested a continuance to March 16, 1992. He was reminded of the Council's desire to get the item back in a timely manner. He was only going to add additional grading to show how they would propose to develop the property under R-1-6. Staff received a letter from Mr. Evans requesting he have an opportunity to speak. 10- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 Commissioner Scott said the Commission also received a letter from Ms. Grindle. Those speaking in opyosition Paul Evans, 242-19 Crawford Canyon Road, is the President of the Board of Directors of Stonehenge. They are strongly opposed to developing the hillside, which is directly opposite to them. The density is inconsistent with the country-like rural lifestyle of Crawford Canyon. A number of retaining walls would have to be built to maintain the 1:1 slopes. This is a great concern to them. Their development consists of 1 1/2 to 1 slopes and there have been occasions of severe damage because of the expansive soil. They are also concerned about traffic safety. Shirley Grindle, 19051 Glen Arran, did extensive research of the entire property down at the County since the City Council hearing. She gave the Commission a fact sheet and can back up her statements with documents. This piece of property was part of the Brigham Young property that was a 329 acre parcel of land that was negotiated in the East Orange General Plan which the City and County adopted. This parcel was part of the open space that was traded off by B.Y.U. for the developable areas on that property. When B.Y.U. sold the property to Baldwin, a tract map was submitted to the City of Orange and it included this parcel as the open space in accordance with the East Orange General Plan. However, a few months later a revised tract map was submitted and this parcel had been dropped off. It was dropped off because if he doesn't have this property that fronts Crawford Canyon Road, then he doesn't have to improve that road. It's obvious it was to his benefit -- he couldn't develop it; why should he have to improve Crawford Canyon Road so he dropped it off. She spent 10 hours at the County looking through the tax records, etc. In 1988 the four acres was bought by A&A for $12,500.00. That's not bad for rock. It was a property value placed on open space. She requested the Commission transmit to the City Council some more of the background on this property. This property was never planned for development. It's shown on the County's General Plan as open space and is zoned AR- 20,000. She believed this property should never be developed. She gave Mr. Godlewski the zoning map for the property, as well as the Mining Company restaurant that adjoins it. The restaurant is surrounded by a buffer zone (open space zone). 11- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 Commissioner Murphy asked if Ms. Grindle had the site plans or maps which could be submitted for the record? Staff had those plans/maps. Commissioner Master asked what the current theme was regarding open space in the County? Ms. Grindle could tell the Commission the County was in the process of accepting title to 30 acres of open space in the El Modena Hills adjoining it on the north side -- highest peak) . There was a period of time the County was not accepting open space, but that has passed. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, commented it was the first time in 20 or 25 years that she has been on the same side as Shirley Grindle. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, stated this project has been around for awhile and everyone is still opposed to it. It should remain as open space and not be developed. Greg Puckett, 242 South Crawford Canyon Road #31, addressed the issues of the 1:1 grade, traffic, parking, congestion and density. Ms. Grindle added the only redeeming asset for the City to allow development on the property is to achieve the improvement of Crawford Canyon Road. The County is never going to widen Crawford Canyon Road south of here because it is a narrow, winding road. It's long been accepted that it is just a political impossibility to widen that road. The problem with the road in this vicinity is crowding. Commissioner Scott said there was a possibility of two recommendations to the City Council. One, is to continue the item as requested by the applicant for a period of two weeks. However, the applicant is not present to stipulate to a continuance and waive the 30-45 days. Does that mean the Commission approved it in silence? Mr. Soo-Hoo responded the Government Code that regulates the procedure specifies that if the Planning Commission, after being referred an item by the City Council, does not respond within 40 days, then it is deemed an approval by the Planning Commission. He was not sure of the time frames, but if a continuance would jeopardize that 40 12- Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1992 days, there would be concern. He preferred to observe the developer's due process rights to rebut in order to make his presentation, but if there is a problem with time, that would be the main concern. Commissioner Scott said the other recommendation to the Council would either be to approve as submitted or denied as previously recommended. Even though Commissioner Murphy was concerned about the due process rights of the applicant, he said the compelling reasons heard at the meeting further substantiate the wisdom of their original decision and recommendation to the Council. That was to leave it as open space with a back side recommendation that at the very most it be zoned as R-1-20. That addresses the density issues that are of concern; it doesn't address all the environmental concerns though. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council that the Commission found the Negative Declaration to be inadequate for a host of compelling reasons and that the comments of the Commission that the R-1-20 zoning would be appropriate was based upon the assertion that the property was not open space as part of the original and adjacent approvals. Had they known that more clearly at the time, as learned at this meeting relative to the County records, it would have not stood. The Commission was concerned about the process, but this wasn't a public hearing per se. The applicant still has adequate protection because it still must be heard at the City Council level. There is no reason to change their denial of fact, but based upon the history that has been given, it strengthens the fact the property should remain as open space.There was no reason for that application to be before the Commission whatsoever to piece meal the property. It was further stated that the Commission should rescind its previous recommendation regarding the R-1-20 zoning if the land were to be developed. There is no appropriate development on this parcel; it should remain as open space. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 13- Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADTOURNMENT March 2, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, March 16, 1992; then adjourn to a study session to review the potential re-zoning of the Southwest Quadrant of Old Towne on Monday, March 23, 1992 in the Weimer Room at 5:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. sld 14-