HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-1995 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission July 3, 1995
City of Orange
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Romero, Smith
ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett
STAFF
PRESENT: Vein Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;
Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE:
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue the Minutes of
June 19, 1995 to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Romero, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett
IN RE: NEW HEARING
1 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2114-95 -ROBERT SETTEN
A proposal to convert the second story of an accessory building into a dwelling unit on a single family
residential property. The site is located at 282 North Magnolia Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental (duality Act (CE(~A)
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this
project. The request before the Commission is to allow the conversion of an existing 2-story structure to
an accessory second unit. The 2-story structure is situated to the rear of the property, behind a single
story residence. The structure's first floor provides fora 2-car garage, a 1-car garage, and a laundry area.
A kitchen, constructed without benefit of a building permit, also exists on the ground floor, with a spiral
staircase which leads to a second floor bedroom and bathroom. Two additional rooms, each with outdoor
entrances and bathrooms, are on the second floor. The structure, with the plumbing improvements and
the spiral stairway was built through the building permit process. Permits were issued at different times
and there is a permit record at the back of the staff report. The structure is currently being used as a
residence, which is not authorized by the City. The applicant is before the Commission to gain approval
to use the structure as a residence. His proposal includes exterior and interior improvements to create a
second dwelling unit with less than 640 square feet, which is required by code, and to modify the
remaining areas to deter potential conversion to residential uses. The first floor modifications include
eliminating the kitchen area and separating with walls the laundry and workshop and spiral stairway.
External access to the workshop has been eliminated and the access is now through the garage. Interior
access to the spiral staircase has also been eliminated. The second floor modifications include creating
two covered patios by relocating the exterior walls inward from the building's edge which reduces the
interior living area. Then, the applicant is going to modify the interior floor area to create a residence
containing a kitchen, living room, one bedroom and one bathroom. The proposed exterior alterations will
maintain the existing roof line and style, the wood siding and window treatments. The
Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 1995
the front residence, will be painted a light gray tone. The proposal is consistent with the development
standards of the R-1-6 zone and the accessory second unit provisions. It conforms to the maximum
allowable floor area of 640 square feet. It conforms to the parking requirements and also to the height,
building setback and separation requirements. As outlined in the staff report, the property has been an
issue with the City's Code Enforcement Division because the structure has been used in the past to
provide for as many as three residential units, violating building and zoning codes. In 1990 the applicant
came before the Planning Commission and Ciry Council for approval of an accessory second unit request,
which was denied. The applicant has subsequently changed his proposal by modifying the interior and
exterior of the structure, and has submitted his new reqquest. During the process, Ms. Gander has
received two letters from the neighbor directly to the norfh and one letter from a resident who lives on
Palm Avenue. Both of them were in opposition. She also received 25 form letters signed in support of
the project. The letters were forwarded to the Commission and made part of the packet. She also
spoke to several neighbors about the project. A few have been in support, but the malonty of them are
opposed to the request. In general, neighbors are opposed to a second dwelling unit being allowed in
a single family neighborhood, as well as the fact one of the two residences can be rented out.
Neighbors are concerned about the number of cars and the parking situation on the street. They're upset
the structure was permitted to begin with, given its size and mass. She also heard from the neighbors to
the rear who are concerned about their privacy being invaded. The request is difficult. She received
some suggestions from callers about additional conditions if the Commission chooses to recommend
approval. A couple of them include setting a completion date or substantially change the roof line of the
structure and size of the structure. She also heard if the Commission is considering a negative
recommendation, that the plumbing and some of the electrical improvements be removed from the
structure. And that the exterior access to the second story rooms also be removed.
Commissioner Cathcart stated that whatever action is taken, it will be a recommendation to the City
Council.
The public hearing was opened.
A~ lip cant
Robert Setten, 282 North Magnolia Street, has lived at this address since 1962. He had all the permits
for the building; but now they have revised their plans so it would be 640 square feet. This will eliminate
a lot of the square footage upstairs. He and his wife are getting older and they would like to be close to
their family. They don't really want to buy another house or live in an apartment. They like the
neighborhood and want to remain there under the conditions they have applied for. He has read the
staff report and did not have a problem with the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if the Commission's recommendation to the City Council were to approve
the request and there was a restriction on the completion time, would he have a problem with that?
Mr. Setten answered within a reasonable time period, there would be no problem.
Commissioner Cathcart noted some of the people are opposed to the roof height (massive) and one of
the recommendations staff suggested was to lower the roof line. This is not listed in the conditions of the
staff report. What were the applicant's feelings on this?
Mr. Setten wanted to ask his architect to respond to this question.
Those sneaking in opposition
Gary Appel, attorneX and engineer, 17592 Irvine Blvd., Suite 112, Tustin, represented Pablo Valdivia
who was in opposition to this request. As an engineer, he had a problem with the drawings. He
believed they were intentionally misleading. There should be dimensions for the offset of the proposed
structure from the property line. The U.B.C. states there should be a 5 foot set off and the eaves
should only protrude two-thirds of the setback. He personally has viewed the property. Because of the
massive structure there is a tremendous amount of water run off from the roof. During heavy rains, sheets
of water flow down the roof and cascades over into his client's property. The code calls for a maximum of
8 feet to the adjoining structure, but the scale doesn't look like it meets that requirement. The problem is
the massiveness of the structure. The structure was obviously not constructed as a granny unit. He
questioned the number of showers/bathrooms. The building was designed and built as a tri-plex. His
client is agreeable to a granny unit being constructed on the property. The problem is the existing
Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 1995
structure is a tri-plex. It looks like a tri-plex or motel. The granny unit needs to meet code requirements
and be within 8 feet of the main residence. The offset of the eaves be two-thirds of the 5 foot offset.
The roof needs to be reduced in size to prevent a massive runoff of water. And, all the
showers/bathrooms and additional doors need to be removed in a timely manner, which was addressed
by the planner.
Commissioner Cathcart asked staff about the accessory second dwelling unit. He believed it may be
attached or detached, but if detached shall not be constructed I~ss, (or closer) than 8 feet from the main
residence.
Ms. Gander stated that was correct.
Cheryl Smith, 233 North Magnolia, was concerned about the size of the unit. She knows it's three units
and doesn't know if the owner is going to remove the showers, plumbing and balconies. They don't want
a rental back there. A granny unit is okay, but what is there is unacx:eptable.
Commissioner Cathcart informed the audience the applicant obtained building permits for his property as
it sits right now. The only difference is there might be a recommendation through the City Council to the
staff if the C.U.P. were not granted for the applicant to remove some of the plumbing and kitchen.
Terry Smith, 233 North Magnolia, was extremely upset and it bothered him how the City could allow
someone to build a tri-plex in a single family residential neighborhood. The person bwlt income-
producing property; he should move to another area. The residents do not want apartment dwellers in
their neighborhood. The neighbors want a reasonable reconciliation.
John Crawford, 238 North Magnolia, has been a resident for 18 years at this address and plans to retire
there. He understands the owner was to use the structure as a living dwelling. Actually, he's doing that
now and has done that for several years. The neighbors would like to see the neighborhood preserved.
The biggest objection is that the structure stands out in the neighborhood; it's an eyesore and
overwhelming for the lot size. It does not conform to the area; parking is a problem now and will continue
to be a problem.
Christina Koontz, 242 North Maggnolia, understands the kitchen and spiral staircase are illeggal, although he
has permits on the structure. Mr. Setten was not living on the property five years ago. He now is, as far
as they can tell. If you grant a C.U.P. to Mr. Setten, what is the guarantee to the neighbors? The City
will have given him another permit to use the way he says. But in five years, they will be back before the
City with additional complaints. It will become income property; how can they prove it is not being
rented? The neighbors have never been assured a permit was granted to Mr. Setten for a rumpus room
and a 3-car garage. Because every six months or so, Mr. Setten would come in for more building
permits and it ended up being the structure "they have to live with". She wanted to know who the 25
people were that were in support of the request. She doubted if they were people living in their block.
Is this the beginning of changing the zoning? She believed there would be many very unhappy people
if that happened.
The Commission shared the addresses of those in support of the C.U.P. request. Commissioner Smith
informed the audience all letters were a matter of public record and could be obtained from the Planning
staff.
Ken Koontz, 242 North Magnolia, believed the problem with the structure was its massive size. The
building should be reduced in size or totally removed from the property. There was some deception
when the permits were obtained. The structure does not make sense in that neighborhood; it doesn't
look right for a structure of that size to be in someone's back yard.
Richard Meadows, 444 North Shattuck, owns property at 291 North Maplewood, which is the corner of
Maplewood and Palm. His daughter rents the property from them. The Commission stated they
received a letter in support of the C.U.P. from 291 North Maplewood. His daughter did sign a petition
to give the applicant an opportunity to present his case before the Commission. But to his knowledge,
there was never a letter sent to approve the change.
The Commission gave Mr. Meadows a copy of the letter signed by his daughter, Cathy Smith.
3
Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 1995
Ms. Wilbur, 1208 East Palm, wrote a letter to the Commission. She believes her neighbor signed Mr.
Setten's petition because he was interested in building a second unit on his property. She was against
another family unit in her neighborhood. Parking and traffic on that street is a problem. She's sorry the
structure was built; it looks like a motel.
Scott Mulgren, 280 North California, encouraged stringent code requirements be enforced on this
structure and bring it into compliance. A definite time line was needed. He asked if the City could look
into the future and develop requirements and an ordinance incorporating guidelines for accessory
buildings on property situations such as this. Hopefully, the City will not allow a building to get this far to
begin with.
Ms. Gander said there have been some changes in that the City is under going a comprehensive update
to the Zoning Ordinance, which is pending final approval from the City Council. There are a few changes
that would prevent a large accessory structure like this. The first change is requiring accessory structures
not to exceed 50% of the principal structure. The second change is to adopt a floor area ratio (FAR)
requirement, which means the size of the building has to be a certain percentage of the lot. Those are
two things to control the mass and size of the structure.
Rebuttal
Thomas Terry, 840 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, was the applicant's architect. He appreciated what
the attorney/engineer had to say. There is an 8 foot separation between the buildings. As part of the
project, there will be gutters put in place (that are not currently connected). This will take care of the water
run off. In terms of traffic, there shouldn't be any more problems than exists now. By opening up the
decks and eliminating some of the square footage, and by virtue of a simple color change to a lighter
color, this will have a different appearance than it does now.
Commissioner Cathcart stated the Commission was in an uncomfortable position. They are stuck with
something that none of them are pleased with. How do they make it better? The mass of the second
unit is pretty large. Is there a way within the remodeling aspect of bringing it into code compliance of the
granny flat und, to lower the roof height?
Mr. Terry looked at that issue some time ago. It's currently a 4:12 pitch roof. To lower the roof would be
very expensive and if you change the pitch of the roof, it would not affect a feeling of massiveness one
way or the other. In changing the unit, there is considerable expense already.
Commissioner Smith asked if there were raingutters on the roof?
Mr. Terry believed there were, but the downspouts were not connected. That's part of the problem, but
could be rectified.
Commissioner Cathcart talked about the covered patio decks. What if the decks were not covered?
Then, the size of the roof could be reduced considerably to cover only the granny unit itself. It's not
uncommon to have an uncovered patio deck.
Mr. Terry thought it would have some structural ramifications because of the way it was designed. There
needs to be something supporting the structure.
The public hearing was dosed.
Commissioner Romero said there was a problem with the intent and what the property has actually been
used for. The concerns of the neighbors are valid. The garage could still remain as a workshop. It's a
historical problem -- what the property was used for, what the property was designed for, the permits
the applicant requested -- he didn't see any consistency from the homeowner.
Commissioner Smith sympathized with the neighbors and their feelings about the 2-story structure in a
single family neighborhood. She shared some of their concerns in trying to fend off development. She
thought it was an inevitable fact of life, according to the laws in the State of California, they're going to
see additional units built on single family properties. They're not even granny pads any more; they're
anybody" pads. As long as they conform to the size, parkin, and legal use of the property, anyone
with a single family home can build an "anybody" pad in their back yard. One thing not taken into
consideration is whether there is one unit or two units, a property is required to have a garage. This
4
Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 1995
property has garages and if there was only one house there, a garage would still be required. There are
many places in town with units over the garage. This is a large und. People were not paying as much
attention to scale 15 years ago as they are today. Even now on the books there is not a current law that
determines scale; it's pending. It will regulate floor area ratio for the first time in the 107 year old City of
Orange. When this was built, there was no attention paid to that. That's not the fault of the builder.
That's the law of the City. She agreed with the observation that if the C.U.P. were denied, the project
can stand exact)y as it exists with no improvements made to it. Therefore, she would be in favor of
approving the C.U.P. with conditions that would make it a better project and more livable and
appropriate to the neighborhood. A completion date should be set so it does not drag on for another
few years. Mr. Setten has shown very good will in coming forth, wanting to bring the project into
conformance. She would like to see an additional condition in that the rain gutters be repaired or
replaced to the maximum extent allowed or required to solve the water problem. She needed to hear
more about the removal of the roof over the patio area because that would reduce the visible part of the
mass of the building. She, personally, is opposed to second units and opposed to large bulk and
massing, but at the same time is in favor of peoples' property rights and being able to develop their
properties within the law. The Commission will try to assist the neighborhood and Mr. Setten in being
compatible according to the law. She apologized for whatever shoddy permits or bad work was done in
the past, but she has no control over that.
Commissioner Cathcart was sony the structure exists the way it does now, but there is nothing he could
do about it. He would like to see the C.U.P. expire in one year -- not two. One of the conditions states
the project shall occur in substantial compliance; he wanted to see it occur within full compliance with
approved plans because the applicant has not been in full compliance with the intent of the building code
for some time. He appreciated the applicant's architect beingg present: He commented the drawings are
not intentionally misleading anybody, but he thought proper dimensioning is always something that helps
people read the plans. There is no justification for water runoff on a neighbor's property. The City
doesn't have enough staff to enforce everything that goes on, but it's important to note the Commission
is trying, along with the staff, to develop some enforcement procedures to give the neighbors some
assurance. At this time, he was not sure if he could vote on the C.U.P. He noted the neighbors would
find it less obtrusive if the size of the roof were reduced significantly by uncovering the patios and
reducing the size of the roof down to what would cover the 640 square foot granny pad. He didn't want
to see an open-endness here. He would like the Commission to see the roof plans before going on
to the City Council. He asked if the applicant were willing .to come back at a later date to show a roof
design and elevation that would reduce tha size of the roof and to uncover the patio areas? He looked
to the applicant to see if he were willing to continue this item. (The applicant agreed to a continuance of
30 days. )
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use
Permit 2114-95, with the appl'icant's concurrence, to August 7, 1995.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Romero, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett
2 -- VARIANCE 1994-95 - ABDOL RAHIM FANNYAN (FOUR SEASONS CAFE)
A proposal to expand an existing restaurant by renovating an adjacent vacant tenant space, without
providing additional parking. The site is located at 1810 North Tustin Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
A staff report was not presented as there was no opposition to this request.
The public hearing was opened.
olicant
Max Amadi, 11842 Puryear Lane, Garden Grove, spoke on behalf of Mr. Fannyan. This is a simple
tenant improvement that has a minor conflict with the O.M.C. regarding parking. Staff is concerned about
the possible spill over of cars parking in the residential neighborhood or adjoining parking lots. He has
Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 1995
never had to park more than ti0 feet away from the business because the lot has never been full. The
reason for the expansion is because 50% of the floor area is devoted to the kitchen. They have an
unique Persian dirong business. Customers are crammed into the dining area because of the large
kitchen. He asked the Commission to took closely at the parking demand study they had prepared. They
hired a consultant to give them a professional opirnon on the parking situation. The site has a strange
geometrical shape. The center was built many years ago. Economically, the center is struggling. Less
people will be coming in to rent space in the center. The floor plan is rough until they heard the
Commission's thoughts. They're not planning to expand the business parse; the center does not
provide tenants with adequate space for a restaurant. They are not serving alcoholic beverages or will
not be providing entertainment. He thought a C.U.P. could have been applied for a mixed use of
common parking spaces rather than a variance. A variance is too harsh -- to make the most efficient use of
what is there than lust paving more land and creating some space that has no architectural character or
purpose except maybe for convenience. If the project were approved, it would at the most allow 100%
effidency for the use of parking.
Commissioner Cathcart thought the big issue was to find a spedal circumstance that would allow the
Commission to grant the variance, which would not be viewed as a special privilege. Most of the other
businesses to the north share parking spaces. But the center is blocked off by the block wall to the north
and then Briardale to the south. So there is no way for anyone parking on the other side to easily come
into the center. It is unique in that way because it is isolated behind a block wall. (Yes.) He would like to
see this work and he sees there are some interesting problems on the site. The parking layout -- how
many spaces could be picked up if the parking were re-designed from the way it exists now?
Mr. Amadi responded the parking spaces are permanently marked in terms of the way it has been
designed. They must get approval to relocate the signs. In order to get 8 parking spaces, it will take an
incredible amount of remodeling the entire center and he was not sure ~ the owner would agree to that.
Commissioner Cathcart asked that question because that can also go into the findings of why this
becomes unique and that you're now stuck with a sign that other people in the zone may not have to
contend with, which gives the Commission the opportunity to find an additional reason for a special
dra.~nstanoe.
Those sneaking in favor
Renee Burger, J8M Realty Company, 10540 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, manages the site. He
has been associated with the applicant for three years; he could say nothing but great things about him
as a tenant. The demands for parking at the center are mirnmal with the current tenant mix. People are at
the establishments for a short period of time. Parking spaces are not hard to find and additional spaces
are not needed. The expansion would benefit the center and the applicant, but will not infringe upon the
other tenants regarding parking.
The public hearing was dosed.
Commissioner Cathcart thought if they looked at the location of the center's sign in the middle of the site,
which limits and makes the site unique from other areas on Tustin and the fact the ethnic requirements of
the kitchen design require an expanded amount of square footage for the business, the odd shape of
the site due to Briardale, and the fact the site is isolated by the block wall to the north, makes this very
unique.
It was noted this project is categorically exempt from CE~A review.
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Variance 1994-95
for the reasons stated above by Commissioner Cathcart.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Romero, Smith
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett
c
Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 1995
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35
p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Romero, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett
sld
MOTION CARRIED
7