Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-1995 PC MinutesK L ~5 Gc:.C~. ~'MINUTES ;~,~ Planning Commission March 20, 1995 CityofOrangeMonday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-H00, Assistant City Attorney,GaryJohnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLE IANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAR H 6 1995 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of March6, 1995 as recorded.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2069-94 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH ANDSCHOOLModification of a previous approval of an expansion to the school, consisting of a request to allow either atemporaryclassroom (as previously approved) or a permanent building (as currently proposed) to be locatedonthesite. The applicant is also requesting the continued use of three other temporary classroomsforaperiodofatleastfiveyears. The site is located behind the music conservatory at 171SouthCenterStreet.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) per state CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-ChairmanCathcartchairedthehearing. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. Thepublichearingwasopened. Aoolicant Phillip Garring, 4608 Golden Eagle, is the Chairman of the congregation of St. John's Lutheran Church.The congregation met at a duly noticed congregational meeting on January 17, 1995 and by majority ofvoteapprovedtheproposedproject. They were asking for the Commission's approval of themodificationtotheirconditionalusepermit. Darrel Hebenstreit, Partner, Architects Orange, 1009 West 19th Street, Santa Ana, represented theapplicantastheirarchitectontheproject. He referred to one of the conditions in the staff report -- a 3'widelandscapeareaonthenorthsideofthebuilding, adjacent to the parking lot.1 Planning Commission Minutes Mazch 20, 1995 Commissioner Cathcart stated that was condition 4. Mr. Jones affirmed that was the correct condition.However, he understood the project does not require additional landscaping. He believed the conditionwasincludedbasedupontheTacttherewassomediscussionaboutsomelandscapingbeingprovided. Mr. Hebenstreit clarified the existing area is paved in asphalt (under the overhang of the cars in theparkinglot). They are propposing to patch and repair that same area with asphalt paving as part of theconstruction. They will not be planting additional landscape material. Mr. Jones stated if the Commission agreed to that, they would need to take appropriate action to deletecondition4. Commissioner Smith referred to the map included in the staff report (attachment #i). She believedthoughthemapwasincompleteasitdidnotshowallofthebuildings. It didn't show the Lamb's Lot daycarefadlity, the Youth House, nor the Library. Mr. Hebenstreit said that was correct. The map was issued as part of the required exhibits. He didnRbelieveitwasintendedtoshoweverybuildingthatexistsonthecampus. The basic intent was to showthebuildingsdirect) surrounding the proposed project and to identify the location of where the parcelswouldbe. The buildings were shown for general information only. Commissioner Smith believed it would give the Commission a better picture of what they were looking atwiththeadditionofstillanotherbuildingifallbuildingswereshownonthemap. When the CommissionlookedatSt. John's proposal for the modular units last summer, at that time they asked for a master siteplan. She was surprised to not sse it included in the package. She asked for the status on that masterplan. Mr. Hebenstreit was not directly involved in working on the master plan process. The proposed buildingistargetedonthemasterplan (currently being developed) in its proposed location as a future book andtapestorefacility. The master plan is still being developed and is not ready to be presented at thispointintime. It is not ready to be publicly introduced at a public hearing. Commissioner Cathcart thought it would be appropriate for staff to be aware of St. John's plans andinformationtohelptheCommissioninmakingsounddecisions. Mr. Jones said, to his knowledge, staff did not have any information about a master plan for St. John'sChurch. Mr. Garring said a master plan has been developed since 1990; he has seen the over views of the plan,which include properties the congregation does not yet own. Their intent is to submit their master plan totheCitywhenitisinfinalform. Timing and the ability to pay for the properties are issues thecongregationneedstoworkout. The proposed project is consistent with their master plan. It will beimmediatelyusedasaschoolclassroomandthenasavolunteerworkroom. Ultimately, it will become abookstoreinaboutfiveyears. Commissioner Cathcart said one of the original concerns of the City is that they have required ChapmanUniversitytoprovidethemwithamasterplanforanorganizedgrowthpattern. Prior to any additionalbuildingsoradditionalworkbeingdoneatSt. John's, the City really needs to see their master plan. The public hearing was dosed. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Commissioner Smith did not have a problem with St. John's request to extend the expiration dates forthethreeconditionalusepermits. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve final action on therequesttoextendtheexpirationdatesforConditionalUsePermit1485-85, Conditional UsePermit1698-88, and Conditional Use Permit 1991-92.AYES: CommissionersCathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman planninn C.omrriission AAinulAC March 20, 1995 Commissioner Smith was not in favor of deleting condition 4 -- she didn'tlike to see landscaping deleted from projects when adding buildings.Commissioner Cathcart replied since it was not a landscaped area now, and that it is an overhang, he didn' tlike to see development within a dirt pile. He would like to see in the future when they review the master plan, wheel stops -- stop the cars before getting to the potential landscape areas -- and ses some serous landscape. It would not hurt for them to maintain that area as it is now.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the modification to Conditional Use Permit 2069-94, with the deletion of condition 4.AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting.IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 1. 6 MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2072-94 -ORANGE HILL UPHOLSTERY The Planning Commission approved an upholstery shop in the C-1 (Limited Business) District and requested that the business be reviewed in six months to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. The business is located at 3624 East Chapman Avenue. Barry Cottle was present, along with Hector Gonzales, the tenant of the upholstery shop and they had nothing to add. Staff has not received any complaints and neither have they. Commissioner Cathcart commended the upholstery shop for being a tine neighbor and for complying with the conditions of approval. He saw no reason why the business shouldn't be allowed to continue. The report was received and filed. No further action was necessary. 2. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 01-95 (DRB #3020) -THOMAS PROPROFSKY AND HOWARD JAMES, APPLICANTS AND APPELLANTS The appeal of one condition related to the approval of a garage addition required for construction of a second dwelling unit. The property is located in an R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple-Family) District and the Old Towne District, at 261 South Olive Street.A staff report was not presented.Commissioner Cathcart would likestaff to clar'rfy to the applicants and the public what Dan Ryan's position is with the Design Review Board. Jim Donovan is the staff liaison and then there are the members of the Design Review Board. Dan Ryan's position needs to be clarified because the applicants do not know what his role is.Mr. Jones affirmed this would be done.The public hearingwas opened.A~oellant Robert Colin, 3810 East Palm, represented the appellant and they were appealing a portion oftheD.R.B.'s approval that pertains to the garage addition location. The D.R.B.'s approval created an intolerable living environment inside the house. He didn't believe it would meet the building code's light and ventilation requirements. Their approval included a new window in the front living room, but that would not add enough light and ventilation to the dining room, which sits further back. The approved garage location is sitting back 17 feet from the front building line (front of the porch) as March 20, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes 9 feet from the back of the house. The residents will end up with a 38 foot long driveway, creating a lot of hardscape. The D.R.B; did not like the idea of a carport. An open parking space was an alternative, but they were trying io avoid that. The roof line wilt be basically the same as the high gable endablehto Dan house. It is exactly the same roof line as on the house to the north. The roof Ime blends in with the neighborhood. The garage is the issue. The roposed arage location was not accep Ryan. He spoke about the aesthetics of the California style house and the importance of windows or ro posed tans with the neighbors and obtained light and ventilation. They took the time to review the p P P p their signatures on a petition in support of the poroosed garage wou d be an olttset tosthe existing houses licant's version of in the area having garages m the front. Thep p He also provided an exhibit of the D.R.B.'s version of light and ventilation and the app how it would be retained and work better. This is still a single family residence and he didn't believe a garage addition would be irreversible. s de ot~the lot andtpreserve the~fi epla a and vii dows~and leavertgas a separate structure?etback on the Mr. Colin responded they would need to come up with another parking space because ft would be a rental unit. Those soeakinc in favor of the aaoeal see happenfto ii would be somethingl~that would m~ake~t look bad. He~rperso ally didrnothwantto lose the window in the dining room. Commissioner Smith asked if there were windows on both sides of the fireplace now? ate Pthert' eplaelchimneyywould fae f1They decided tonremo~e tthe iireplaoe befohe anyl damage occursr A large door separates the living room from the dinng room, which would technically make it two rooms. Will Chambers, 242 South Olive, spoke on behalf of his neighbor, Mr. Allen, 253 South Olive. eY roved on this except for the location of the garage. Mr. were of the opinion everything had been app Both houses are Craftsman-style houses Allen's house had an addition built ontogit in 1945 (north side).and both would match if rovedras called forage were approved to be built in front. The neighbors wou like to see the p ans app Mr. Colin commented on the fireplace and windows in the living room. The fireplace was too hard to repair and it would cost major dollars. The window in the front lets m some light, but it is diffused. The dining room window lets in quite a bit of light.Commissioner Smith questioned the D.R.B.'s recommendation of a carport. H has been Mr. Colin' s e would nottworDk;Rhe propertyavalue would be lesseand it provided little protectionPorts. Staff also said The public hearing was dosed. ro osed by the Commissioner Pruett did not see a problem with setting the garage forward asp p applicant. It could be done in such a waiicantoconsilderd garage tdoor openers be partof~he p oject alas to the photos). He suggested the app well. romised the Commissioner Smithdidn't like the idea of the garage being placed up front because it comp architectural features of the historic house. A bad precedent was set for the house and garage across t e street. Either way, windows are being lost, as well as the chimney. A compromise has already been made on the street. She was worried about a precedent continuing on down th a iromithe street whether Commissioner Cathcart sided with the appellanotblem with,the garage beingaup front.it is set back or up front. He did not have a p Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1995 Chairman Bosch was saddened by the loss of the fireplace. He thought a carport would be worse than a garage. He also encouraged garage door openers, as suggested by Commissioner Pruett. He stressed plans and proposals were needed to discuss a project at the counter with staff; illustrations are the best approach. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sate CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council approval of D.R.B. Application No. 3020 and Appeal No. 01- 95.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 3. A REQUEST TO ALLOW APPLICATION FOR A CAT HOSPITAL IN THE OP ( OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) ZONE The Planning Commission is asked to make a determination as to whether a conditional use permit application can be accepted for a cat hospital in the OP zone.Victoria Valdez, DVM, 9 City Blvd. West, is looking to relocate her business. Her hospital is an all cat hospital. Her patients arrive in a carrier or their owners carry them. Noise is not an issue. The hospital would not present an unprofessional atmosphere. Being closer to residents will be better for cats as they hate to ride in cars. The building in question was built as a doctor's office and is set up to meet all of her needs. It has been vacant for gwte some time as doctors are locating their offices near hospitals.She would like very much to stay in Orange and more specifically, to be in Old Towne. In response to a question about lions and tigers, she is allergic to "big" cats and only sass small cats.Commissioner Smith asked if the cats would spend the night at the hospital?Dr. Valdez replied yes. Her business includes boarding cats. Employees do not work over night. The cats are left by themselves. She has 36 cages and 10 suites for a total of 46 patients.Commissioner Cathcart asked if there was a way to be very specific as to animal type to preclude opening a precedent for general animals?Mr. Soo-Hoo replied the code only recognizes animal hospitals. They would need to specifically identify or define the definition of " cat hospital".Dr. Valdez was willing to stipulate for cats only under a conditional use permit.Chairman Bosch explained the conditional use permit process.Public comments were received from four people who spoke in favor of the cat hospital being located in the OP zone and more specifically in OId Towne.The public hearing was dosed.The Commission appreciated the creativity of looking at different uses of zoning. They were in favor of seeing a conditional use permit application from Dr. Valdez. They need to carefully look at the site and clearly define the different impacts of the hospital -- number of animals, services, noise. The legal definition of "animal" hospital is a concern. The definition of a "cat" hospital is needed. The Commission will also need to consider the C.U.P. application to the specific property.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to allow a conditional use permit application for acat-only hospital in the OP zone.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None MOTION Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1995 IN RE: ADJOU~NT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, SmithNOES: None MOTION CARRIEDsld