Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission June 15,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve the Minutes of June 1, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Murphy MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1973-92 - ALBERTSON'S INC. A site plan review for a commercial center, in accordance with the requirements of the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan, and a conditional use permit request to allow the construction of a car wash and two drive-thru restaurants within the commercial center, and to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages from a proposed supermarket and drug store within the commercial center. Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Jamboree Road. NOTE The environmental impacts of this project have previously been analyzed by certified Environmental Impact Report 868. Albertson's has requested a continuance to the July 6 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1973-92 to the meeting of July 6, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDffIONAL USE PERMIT 1968-92 - LYNDON SWENSON A request for a proposed second story addition onto an existing residence in the R-2-6 (Residential-Duplex District) zone. Subject property is located at 520 North Orange Street. NOTE This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 State CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition to the proposed project. The application is for a conditional use permit to allow a second story addition onto an existing residence in the R-2-6 zone. The property currently has an existing unit in the back. The proposal is to build up on the existing single family structure in the front. The applicant is proposing to construct a little over 1,000 square foot second story addition. It will consist of three new bedrooms, two bathrooms, a large family room and a bar, sink and countertop in the family room area. The overall height of the addition will be approximately 30 feet. The front residence will be enlarged and almost doubled in size to over 2,000 square feet overall. It is proposed to remain as one single family dwelling unit. The Design Review Board reviewed the project at their meeting on April 22. They were concerned over the overall height in context with the surrounding properties. The three level of windows along the street elevation gave the appearance of a 3-story structure. The D.R.B. suggested the height of the structure be lowered and the roof line be re-studied and re- designed to match that of the existing rear apartment. The Environmental Review Board also reviewed the project and expressed some concern about the significant size increase of the front unit and was also concerned that the property could be further divided into sub- rentable units. To resolve that concern, the E.R.B. suggested a condition 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 which is included in the list of conditions that requires a deed restriction that states that there will be no more than two single family units on the property. The second story windows were also of concern on the sides of the property. One side is approximately 15 feet from the south property line, which will not be a problem. The other side, however, is only 6 1 /2 feet from the north property line and it overlooks an adjoining residential property to the north. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Lyndon Swenson, 520 North Orange, handed out a packet of papers to the Commission for their review and consideration. He wanted to set up the building to be compatible with solar energy. He designed the roof to comply with the height requirements. He also showed his plans to the Commission and explained the forced air furnace will be in the attic. There is 68 feet of duct work in the attic area making a third story impossible. To convert the attic to a third story, the bracing would need to be removed, which would cause the roof to collapse. The reason for the window is for added light and ventilation while working on the equipment. The existing roof is a structural nightmare. He hired a structural engineer who has guaranteed the design to withstand earthquakes and strong winds. It's his intention to have athree- bedroom house. Those speaking in opposition Ernest Jakel, owns the property at 528 North Orange. He thought the City was trying to get fee parking on Orange Street. He doesn't like the idea of fee parking because he would be subject to fines if he couldn't park off street. How much more parking is going to be required for this project? Will there be a physical inspection of the property prior to approval? Is this area going to be R-3 or R-4 or whatever it requires for more than two units? The new addition will impact the street with other parking problems. The height of the unit was also a concern. Mr. Glass responded to the parking restrictions on Orange Street. There was a petition that originated from the neighborhood requesting a permit parking program. This is similar to other streets around the College and in other areas of the City. It's not a fee program at 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 present. The City gives out the permits at no cost. However, the permits are given to the residents who live there; not to the owners. The owner would not have a permit to park there. He would have to rely on the residents giving him a guest pass. Mr. Godlewski said for two units, the code requires that you have two enclosed parking spaces and two open parking spaces as a very minimum. This project has one 1-car garage currently attached to the front unit and a 3-car garage in the back. That's a total of four which exceeds the requirement because all the parking spaces are garages. Mr. Godlewski also stated at this time there were no plans for a zone change in the immediate area. It's currently zoned with a mixture of zones. Rebuttal Mr. Swenson was just trying to go by code requirements. There are a total of 7 other places that are two stories in the 500 block of North Orange. Commissioner Bosch wanted Mr. Swenson to understand the code is a maximum. He was not required to build to what the code says. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch made a couple of comments. By adding the condition to make it clear that only two units are allowed on the property, it shouldn't be an issue. The condition is good in assuring fair and equal protection under the law throughout the community. His concern is with the size and mass of the unit. He didn't have a problem with people adding on to their homes in a style that fits the neighborhood. He appreciated the applicant's attempt to design a building that is generally in keeping with some of the architectural details of existing residences. He had a great difficulty with the height because it was higher than necessary to achieve his objectives. This pushes the limits on what, in a normal zone, would be allowed for two stories. He concurs with the problems of the Design Review Board. Commissioner Smith drove the neighborhood in the afternoon and noticed the building would be considerably larger than anything on the 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 street. She had some concerns about the zoning. She anticipated other development would not fill in to match this, given the R-1 zoning. Commissioner Murphy was concerned about the deterioration of bordering land uses and concurred that the bulk and mass on the property would put undue hardship on some of the other residences. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1968-92. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The appeal process was explained by Mr. Godlewski. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1969-92 -MARY JO COOMBS, TRUSTEE A request to allow the establishment of aself-storage facility with a caretaker's residential unit within the M-2 (Industrial) District. Subject property is located on the south side of Collins Avenue between Cypress and Parker Streets, west of the Santa Fe Railroad right-of- way, addressed 500 West Collins Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1409-92 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Ken Ward, 33791 Vista Grande, Monarch Beach, represented the applicant. He explained their proposal for aself-storage facility. Commissioner Bosch asked if he had read the staff report and conditions of approval? (Yes.) The public hearing was closed. 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to find in that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources, that Negative Declaration 1409- 92 be approved. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1969-92 with conditions 1-17 as listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1970-92 - MIRON CHOMYN A request to utilize an existing residence as a bed and breakfast inn, as defined by Orange Municipal Code Section 17.26.040. Subject property is located at 248 South Batavia Street. NOTE This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 State CEQA Guidelines. There was no opposition; therefore, a staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Jan Chomyn, 248 South Batavia, has read the staff report and conditions of approval. She requested that Condition 5 be waived regarding the dedication of property and improvements to Batavia Street. In this instance, they are not doing any physical changes, improvement or expansion. They don't anticipate any traffic impact whatsoever. It's unfair to give the City 7 feet of their property and then have to incur the cost of the improvements during street widening. She's under the impression there's a case law being considered that if 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 there is no proven impact on the traffic, that the City may not require that dedication. They are trying to maintain the historical integrity of their neighborhood. They are only opening up 3 bedrooms for guests. Mr. Johnson explained the street dedication improvement requirement. He has talked with the applicant and realizes their concern. It's a requirement that the City uses to get improvements completed. It's one of the police powers the City has. Mr. Herrick said there are recent cases in California which address the issue of street dedications and require that there be a traffic nexus. However, those cases are not in the context of a discretionary use permit approval. They are in the context of ordinance requirements and zoning matters. There is still some discretion on the part of the City to require certain types of dedications. Chairman Cathcart asked about the options available to the Planning Commission in the way of deciding on whether or not all the conditions should be adhered to? Mr. Herrick said because this is a matter which is presented as a condition of a discretionary permit rather than as an ordinance requirement, the Commission does have discretion to determine the issue. Some of the options would be to waive the requirements; to waive the improvement requirements that require the dedication; to require a bond or some other form in lieu of improvements; or to waive it altogether; or enforce it in total. Commissioner Bosch asked if there was a separation between the dedication issue and when the improvements occur or are paid for? Isn't there some relationship between dedication requirements relative to the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the obligations of the City under Measure M or other propositions relative to highway funds? Mr. Herrick responded yes. Measure M funds are dependent upon certain arterial segments rather than all streets on the Master Plan. There are certain requirements under Measure M that the City works in good faith towards implementing the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The two issues are separate. 7 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor June 15, 1992 Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, pointed out Ordinance 12.52 in the Orange Municipal Code states that any improvement of $15,000 or 500 square feet would require dedication. It's not really applicable to Measure M requirements since it is a discretionary judgment from Public Works. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alvarez concurred with the applicant regarding Condition 5. Looking at the uses that surround it and taking into consideration the historical value of the house, he thought the City would benefit greatly by having this use. He would be in favor of waiving the dedication and letting the owners dedicate at the time the work will be designated. Mr. Herrick said by getting the dedication now it avoids the necessity for eminent domain in the future. Commissioner Smith would like to see this project approved. There's already some very large projects on Batavia. The use is appropriate. She wasn't sure of the legality of waiving the improvement requirements. Chairman Cathcart said they were talking about the difference between paying for the improvements or bonding and/or dedication of said seven feet. It's the Commission's discretion to deal with those issues on a separate basis. Commissioner Bosch said there was very little improvement being asked for this property. He would debate whether this is a change of use relative to circulation whatsoever. He thought the Commission should find as its opinion that the TSIP would not be applicable for the increased use in this case because the use is not being changed. Similarly, the improvements being made to the property are relative to the proposed use and are marginal. This is a house being used as a house with some minor collateral, semi-commercial use. 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, noting that the project is categorically exempt, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1970-92 with conditions 1-9, deleting condition 5. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 971-92, VARIANCE 1 930-92, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT 92-15 - JAIPAUL SWAMIDASS A request to allow an accessory second unit in the R-1-6 zone, a variance application to allow an unenclosed parking space to be located between the residence and public right-of-way, and an administrative adjustment application to allow a 3.5 foot reduction in the required 20 foot rear yard setback. Subject property is located at 247 Sandpiper Circle. NOTE This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 State CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The conditional use permit is to allow an accessory second unit in the R-1 zone, the variance to allow an unenclosed parking space and the administrative adjustment of a 3 1 /2 foot reduction in the required rear yard setback. The actual size of the property is over 11,000 square feet. The existing residence is 2,577 square feet (both different measurements from the staff report). The staff report discusses the accessory second unit ordinance and the applicability of accessory second units. Of unique concern to this particular application is the parking space location and the request for the variance to allow it. Although there is adequate front yard setback meeting the minimum 20 foot setback requirement, the parking space is proposed to be located between the 20 foot setback and residence. The parking space is directly in front of the front door of the single family residence. Parking the vehicle behind a low wall outside there would require the front door of the residence to be nearly blocked by a parked vehicle. The applicant has also requested approval of an administrative adjustment to permit a 3 1 /2 foot reduction in the 20 foot rear yard setback. The property is irregularly shaped and 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 determining the actual rear property is the property line directly opposite the cul de sac. The proposed addition does come closer than the required ZO foot setback in that location and that is the reason for the request. There is a large amount of open space and open space is not the issue in this particular case, but rather the proximity to that one property line. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Jaipaul Swamidass, 247 Sandpiper Circle, said this was a unit for his in-laws. As far as the design of the property, it does not block the way; the space is large. There is direct access to the door even after parking. There will be a brick wall and landscaping; it will not be an eyesore. It will be practically non-visible from what you see on the street. Those speaking in opposition Greg Smith, 241 Sandpiper Circle, said the street in question is a very tightly circled cul de sac. There's very minimal parking on the street. This addition will impact parking. Parking in front of the front door is not a very attractive solution. There are concerns about the scope of the addition. It basically sits between their two houses. It is a 2- story unit and will be five feet from his property line. They're also concerned about the long-term impact of having a potential rental unit in the neighborhood. Without the owner's control over the property, there may be more traffic and parking problems than would even be anticipated. Rebuttal Mr. Swamidass understood how Mr. Smith felt about the situation of parking. There is a 3-car garage for parking and in front of that is another area for 3 cars to park. He does not foresee a handicap in terms of parking. Since the property does not lend itself for cars to park on the side of the house, he's restricted because of the nature of the layout. He's not asking for an exemption of City codes. He has designed the unit in such a way that none of the windows look into Mr. Smith's yard. He did not want to create an undue concern for his 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 neighbor because he's a good neighbor. He believes condition 1 will protect everyone. The proposed use is a granny flat in addition to his own residence. He cannot rent it as a two-unit apartment. Chairman Cathcart stated there was one additional condition that was not mentioned by staff and that is the TSIP fees. Mr. Glass explained the TSIP fees to the applicant. These fees were established by ordinance and are to fund citywide transportation improvements. In this particular case, when any unit is added, the approximate fee would be $400. Mr. Swamidass did not object to the added condition. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch thought it was important to reiterate that the TSIP fees in this case is not discretionary. It is put in as a condition only to remind people that it exists. He was concerned that the Commission be assured that the parking in front had enough clear access for adequate egress and access into the house relative to the Fire Department's concerns. He thought the ordinance, relative to parking outside the setback but between the street and house, is kind of interesting given how the City fails to enforce the proper use of garages for parking. He wondered how the ordinance really applies in this case. The parking space proposed is right on top of the setback, but its outside of it; the house is fairly close behind. When does it cease to become avariance -- SO feet or 100 feet? That one needs a little bit of work. The elevations are a bit hard to read. He appreciated the comment there are no windows designed on the proposed addition on the side of the neighbor's house. He was a bit concerned about the height of the roof in the area on the addition. It's a big house on a big lot. The applicant has the benefit of a cul de sac lot that gives a lot of open space and also has the curse of determining where the property line is. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, noting that the project is categorically exempt, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1971-92, Variance 1930-92 and Administrative Adjustment 92-15, with conditions 1-9, adding condition 10 noting that the applicant shall pay TSIP fees as 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 appropriate based upon City ordinance, and noting relative to the variance that a hardship exists in that the specific wording of the ordinance relative to parking between the rear line of the front yard setback and the house is vague and ambiguous relative to houses where the lot depth, width of driveway and placement of garages as in contemporary development in the City makes the question mute. And, also find that deterioration of bordering land uses and special problems would not be created in that the remainder of the proposal is within the discretionary allowances and development standards of existing City ordinances. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith NOES: Alvarez, Cathcart, Murphy MOTION DENIED Commission Discussion Commissioner Alvarez had a problem with the conditions; they do not exist. It's the design that is creating the need for the variance. If the design were more towards the rear or it didn't impact the neighbor to the south or if it were incorporated into the house as a room addition, he could probably vote in favor. He's disturbed that the precedent the Commission might set in terms of allowing parking in front of a front door; it brings to mind of people parking on their front lawns. He was also concerned about the size and mass. It's something that could have been avoided if the design had been more towards the rear. Commissioner Smith asked how many parking spaces were required for the project? Her understanding was four. (Correct.) There appears to be sufficient parking for the project. Any R-1 property is allowed to have a pad up to 640 square feet. (Correct.) Ed Gala, Assistant Planner, added in regards to parking code does not allow tandem parking. The parking in front of the garage doors does not count towards the code requirement. Commissioner Murphy asked the applicant for his concurrence to continue this item to look at an alternative solution. Chairman Cathcart did not have a problem with the parking, but had a problem with the 2-story addition being so close to the neighbor. 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 Mr. Swamidass concurred with a continuance and requested 70 days. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1971-92, Variance 1930-92 and Administrative Adjustment 92-15 to the meeting of September 9, 1992 and requested this item be first on the Agenda. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NHS: ~~ MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith excused herself from the meeting due to a previous commitment. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver, said he submitted a petition for re- zoning Culver Avenue in the southeast quadrant. They're requesting a change from R-1-6 to R-2-6 with no R-C-D overlay. The petitioners would appreciate if the Commission would direct Dan Ryan to also look at a zone change of R-3/R-4 with no R-C-D overlay. They are concerned about the fact that the southeast re- zone is mixed up with the southwest down zone process. These are two separate petitions located in .two separate quadrants with two different goals in mind. A decision should be made the night of the work shop. Chairman Cathcart said his request will be brought up at the July 8 work shop and have staff look into the matter. 2. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine Street, asked if bed and breakfast establishments were considered a commercial use? Commissioner Bosch said in his mind it was a very gray area. It's obvious people are staying there for a fee and it's still within a residential use. Mr. Herrick said the problem with bed and breakfast places is that it's right on the line between residential and commercial. Cities have the discretion to nominate it as either one. The majority of cities, like Orange, have found it to be a permitted use subject to a conditional use permit in a residential zone. 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1992 3. Ashley MacCarthy, 8247 East Star Pine Road, became aware of the Albertson's grocery store being built on Jamboree and Chapman. She was concerned about a third entrance off of White Oak Ridge which borders her back yard. Where does that stand? Chairman Cathcart explained the item has been continued from this meeting until July 6. It was suggested she contact the Planning staff to learn more about the proposed project. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a joint study session on June 17, 1992 at 4:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the Santa Fe Depot. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. sld 14