Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 7. 1994 March 21, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of March 7, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2055-94, VARIANCE 1963-94 -CITY OF ORANGE A request for a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of a residential structure to anon-residential use, and a variance to allow a reduction in on-site parking standards. Subject property is addressed 488 South Glassell Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1450-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting.) There was no opposition to this item. Chris Carnes from the Planning staff and Bob Stolhand from the Engineering staff, were present to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Cathcart needed clarification. If a variance would not be granted, what would be the outcome of this project if the C.U.P. were approved? Mr. Carnes responded if the C.U.P. were approved to convert the house without the variance, staff anticipates there would be a parking problem in the neighborhood. The house would create a substantial size office -- approximately 2100 square feet. Typically, that requires 7 to 8 parking spaces. Since the site can only provide three spaces (no matter how the lot is designed in the back yard) five spaces would need to be found either next door at the medical office building or around the corner on Olive Street. The best alternative would be for the City to purchase the property to the west and combine both properties to provide parking for the project. However, the City, at this time, cannot plan for that. The City may not be able to purchase the property for several years. Commissioner Cathcart was concerned that it would create a parking problem academically on a pre- conceived idea or it causes a hardship in reality. If someone buys or rents that space and they need five parking places, where will they park? Three parking spaces is nothing when considering a 2100 square foot commercial office building. Isn't the City building in a problem? Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1994 Mr. Carnes said it was the best alternative to what is out there now. To leave the property as a house would create a bad living environment and circulation problem. The people would have access backing onto LaVeta. The house, converted to an office, subject to the limitations proposed, is the best alternative for the use of that property at this time. Commissioner Smith asked if the parking spaces, as they were arranged, required to back out on LaVeta? Mr. Carnes responded it was one way parking. People would be required to back out towards the north. The closest space to the northern property line would back out onto that medical office parking lot. The closest space to LaVeta would still back out towards the north, away from LaVeta. People would enter the parking lot from Glassell. Commissioner Smith asked if the City has entered into any discussion with the medical building for sharing parking spaces in that lot? Mr. Carnes said the City has worked out a tentative agreement on the access, but the medical office building doesn't have any extra parking to share with this property. Commissioner Walters asked what the requirement was when there are three spaces for a building of this size that one of the spaces be handicapped? Recognizing this is an issue of which is the worst option in the world vs. the next worst option, he thought there would be a condition that any present or future owner of the property, until the two streets are widened, be told there will be no on-street parking as soon as both streets are widened. Mr. Carnes replied one space would need to be handicapped. Thus, there would only be two parking spaces available. Mr. Johnson believed the City would need to notify potential owners/tenants under the full disclosure taws anyway. He didn't see that condition as a problem under the conditional use permit. Chairman Bosch asked how to avoid setting someone up to be entrapped on the property? He didn't want to see a resource demolished or part of it cut down, but he thought they were setting someone up. Mr. Johnson said staff would prefer having all the improvements in place when they sold it. Unfortunately, that will take some time. There's quite a few things that must happen before that can be accomplished. The City does not have the money to acquire the properties needed in order to make the full improvements. Chairman Bosch said under a variance they must find special circumstances that apply. Is the applicant indicating there is really no economic feasibility to this property for any use without a variance? As a residential property, it's really unusable. And, rather than remove any economic worthwhileness of the property at all, such a thing must be done. What other hardship can there be? It's aself-imposed one to a great extent because the City is the owner and applicant. It's not zoned for residential use. It's appropriate for conversion to office use, but that conversion is a voluntary action since residential use can continue there. It's not a forced conversion. On the other hand, they must allow some economic stability to the property. Mr. Soo-Hoo agreed that's a direction the Commission can look at as far as justifying a variance. He would feel ill at ease representing the applicant. Perhaps the Engineering Division can represent their position on this. Mr. Johnson said staff looked at the aspect of the use because there was an use there when the City bought the property; it was commercial use. It was a home occupation as opposed to a bonafied use under the specific zone. It was determined by moving the curbs closer, there was an impact that would make it undesirable to both residential and commercial use. Staff wanted to move forward with this request with the idea of the property being a business; not a residence. The public hearing was opened and then closed as no one wanted to speak. 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1994 Commissioner Cathcart thought if the two elements in the mitigated Negative Declaration were enforced, the project may be successful. Given the fact the applicant is purchasing the property in order to improve the overall traffic circulation of the City and intersection of LaVeta and Glassell, perhaps there is a justification for the variance with the economic hardship. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve mitigated Negative Declaration 1450-94, and find that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources with the adoption of the two mitigation measures. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2055-94 and Variance 1963-94, with the conditions as listed in the staff report, amending Condition 5 by deleting the last sentence, and adding a new condition to give notice to potential buyers/tenants regarding the limitations and conditions about the lack of parking on the property and that there will be no parking on the street. This is not a special condition; there is enough evidence to show the variance is required. To not allow the use, given the restrictions and mitigations, would be to deny economic use of the property. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Walters NOES: None The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. sld MOTION CARRIED 3