Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange August 6, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JULY 16. 1990 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of July 16, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1860-90 - PETER BURTRAM: Staff requested a continuance to September 5, 1990. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1860-90 to their meeting of September 5, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1355 - CITY OF ORANGE: An environmental assessment of a proposed municipal water supply well at the northwest corner of Collins and Cam bridge. This item was continued from the July 16, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting.) At the previous meeting the Commission was asking for additional information and verification about the hours of operation and impacts the project would have on the neighboring residences. Staff revised the Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 2 Declaration to separate the anticipated impacts that would be due to the construction of the project vs. the operation of the project once construction is complete. Mitigation measures have been added. The proposal is to operate the drilling equipment not on a 24-hour per day cycle, but to end at 10 p.m. One of the mitigation measures would be the construction of a temporary noise attenuating wall around the property boundaries before construction begins. Other mitigation measures have to do with hours of construction. Commissioner Scott questioned the staff report's hours of operation until 10 p.m., but it also indicates they are going to drill 24 hours a day (under Plan A) . John Fonley, Water Superintendent, stated they have chosen to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; however, there will be a short period of time once the well is near completion to install the well casing and the gravel pack to prevent the well from caving in, and construction will take place 24 hours per day for two to three days. Total construction should take approximately two to three weeks. Commissioner Bosch asked if they needed to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if they find the remainder of the Negative Declaration is correct, in order to keep the process within the requirements of CEQA? Ms. Wolff explained there was not an option for a Statement of Overriding Considerations with a Negative Declaration. It was suggested to change the mitigation measure if the Commission finds that it is an acceptable impact. Mitigation measure #4 could be changed to reflect the fact that there would be two to three days of 24 hour drilling. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept Negative Declaration 1355, adding wordage to the end of mitigation measure #4: "except that drilling may occur for no more than four days, 24 hours per day, at the end of the drilling period in order to allow fill and casing of the h ole subject to proper notification of all affected residents no less than 72 hours before the start of the 24 hour drilling." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1802-89 - CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY: A proposal to allow the establishment of a heliport on the roof top of a seven story hospital building currently under Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 3 construction. The heliport will be used for an estimated twelve (12) emergency medical helicopter flights per month. Subject property is located on the west side of Pepper Street between LaVeta Avenue and Stewart Drive. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1325 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Lee Ambers, 6910 Hayvenhurst Avenue #102, Van Nuys, spoke on behalf of the applicant. This is an existing hospital which is well known and respected. They are expanding with a seven story building and are proposing to put in a licensed heliport on the roof of the new structure. The building will be completed in about 1 1/2 years, at which time they hope operations would be able to commence. The primary flight path will be from the 22 Freeway over the commercial area onto the heliport. Departure will be the reverse of that. The fact that the building is seven stories high, will help mitigate and reduce the noise on force at ground level. It is proposed that flights will avoid residential areas and it is strictly for medical emergencies. They anticipate approximately 12 flights per month, but cannot predict how many flights there would be for this type of use. U.C.L.A. Medical Center receives approximately eight flights per month. Chairman Master asked if Mr. Ambers was aware of helicopter use at St. Joseph Hospital? To Mr. Ambers' knowledge, there is none. The heliport will be an internal operation for CHOC. St. Joseph indicated they have no desire to use it. Commissioner Bosch stated that one of the conditions of approval recommended no helicopter refueling. Is there any intent to park helicopters at this location, or can the Commission limit parking of helicopters other than for drop off and pick up? Mr. Ambers said there was no intent to park helicopters, bu t in this type of operation, often times the helicopter comes and there is a period of time it has to wait for the patient; it could be for as long as 1/2 hour. He does not anticipate over-nigh t parking or long-term parking. There is no fuel available on site. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 4 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1325-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council the approval of Conditional Use Permit 1802-89 subject to conditions 1-14, amending condition 1 to read: "Helicopter refueling, basing, or long-term parking is prohibited at this heliport." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1858-90 - ROBERT SETTEN, SR.: A proposal to allow an accessory second unit in the R-1-6 zone on property located on the west side of Magnolia Street between Palm Avenue and Maple Avenue, addressed 282 North Magnolia Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. The property is a 7,800 square foot parcel and it now contains a single family residence at the front of the property, and an accessory building at the rear of the lot. The property is zoned R-1-6, single family residential. The existing single family residence on the property is approximately 1,064 square feet in size. The accessory is almost 2,000 square feet and includes a three-car garage. A permit was obtained for the construction of the accessory building. Notations in the file and on the permit indicate that the building was not to be used for a second residence. However, it appears the accessory building has been converted at some time since the issuance of the permit into three residential units. The final building approval occurred in 1985. As a result of Code Enforcement action, the applicant is now requesting approval of a conditional u se permit f or an accessory second unit to be created out of the existing floor area in the accessory building. In order to comply with the various regulations pertaining to accessory second units in a R-1 district, various portions of the existing building would need to be walled off and certain improvements would need to be physically removed. Other portions of the existing building would have to have restricted use as garage and storage areas. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 5 Staff is concerned with several aspects of the proposal. One is that the intent of the accessory second unit ordinance is to allow for the addition of small, less intrusive living units in the R-1 district. This structure is larger than the existing residence and has considerable bulk and mass. Another concern is that the conversion of the structure from three units to one would leave somewhat of an awkward arrangement of the rooms. The plans show that there would be no internal connection between the kitchen and living areas of the unit to be created. The conversion would also leave a considerable amount of floor area for storage or recreation purposes. That's something that would be fairly impossible to monitor on a daily basis. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Robert Setten, 282 North Magnolia, said at the time he built this building he wasn't thinking of having it as a residence. But as time went by, his family had some problems and they needed some place to live. On his own, he decided to convert the structure into living quarters. He is now requesting to convert the structure to a granny unit. He has read the conditions of approval and does not have a problem with them. He thought he had a permit to install his sauna because he was instructed by someone that he needed a globe around the light. He will take the sauna out if it is a problem. Chairman Master vaguely remembers when Mr. Setten came before the Commission back in 1978; there was concern then about the layout and bulk of the structure. At that time, the Commission was told it would only be used for storage and a rec room. Those speaking in opposition Jean Parsons, 273 North structure. She has had since the building was kitchen. The building residence; it does not other neighbors' yards. Maplewood, lives directly behind the difficulty with privacy in her yard built. It looks directly into her is even higher than the front allow for privacy in her yard or John Crawford, 238 North Magnolia, is opposed to the granny unit at this location. The staff report states exactly what the neighbors are afraid of; that it will be converted back into a three unit rental. Chairman Master commented the Commission has received two letters from Mrs. Carl Schumacher and Joan Kriewaldt in opposition to the project because of its bulk and the impact upon the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 6 John Koontz, 242 North Magnolia, watched this building being built and it was not being built as a rec room. From the beginning, it had three outside doors with no connecting doors inside. It's too large; it's not a granny unit. The structure is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Tim Tivenan, 271 North Magnolia, is concerned and opposed to this proposal. It has been used as a rental with several families living there. The traffic on their street has increased. It is obvious the proposal is being done in a way that it could be used again for more than one living unit. If he should sell the property, what would happen then? Scott Longren, 280 North California, said the existing structure is a detriment to the bordering areas because of its size. It already exceeds the maximum size floor area set forth by code. Rehuttal Mr. Setten has lived there for 28 of the opposition to his structure driving by on Magnolia, it's bleu you can't see it. When driving by He will wait for the Commission's with their findings. years. He was not aware because of its size. If ded in with the house and on Palm, it can be seen. decision and will comply Commissioner Scott was not on the Commission when the project was first reviewed, but he was associated with the City. Because he lives in the neighborhood, his recollection was that Mr. Setten would never convert the structure to a residential unit. It would only be for storage and recreational use. Then to turn around and see that this statement was violated (by converting the structure to residential use) , in his opinion, the owner has lost the faith of the neighborhood. When Mr. Setten took out the permit to build the garage, the two story was already in the permit. He admits it should not have been laid out as it was. By having the balcony at the front, it looks like a motel. They originally had one bathroom in their plans, but when under construction, the plumber talked him into adding another bathroom. There are three entries, but there are not three units. He did not intend to have anyone live in the structure, but things change. The other concern of the Commission was the bulk of the project and the possible conversion to multiple use occupancy. The staff report indicated three residential units had been converted from the accessory building. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 7 Mr. Setten said there were not three families living there. Chairman Master asked if Mr. Setten were living at that address? Mr. Setten said that was his voting address; he hasn't slept there, but that is his home. Commissioner Bosch asked how many people lived in the accessory building? Mr. Setten responded three people -- one family unit husband, wife and sister) . One family lives in the accessory building. His daughter and family (husband and two boys) live in the front house. There is no rent coming from the accessory building. Commissioner Greek thought they were getting away from the issue. The staff report indicates this is actually a 4 unit building and it's designed for four units. Commissioner Bosch said if they recommended approval, certain conditions would apply. But those conditions call for something radically different from the plans in front of them. He would have to take into account not only the effects of this as if there were no buildings standing, bu t in the conversion of a use, all the conditions in the staff report and submitted plans, still would not prove the owner would eliminate the problems. He needs an accurate plan in order to judge whether the project has assets that outweigh any of the liabilities. He didn't know whether the owner was prepared to modify his plans so that he could conform in terms of reducing the bulk and square footage. The existing plans do not illustrate what the final solution would be. Commissioner Greek stated the owner has created a four-plex out of a single family home, which is a direct violation. Based on what he has heard and on past history, it wouldn't be too long before he's back to the same thing -- another four-plex. Chairman Master said there was another concern about residency. Under the code, the owner has to live on the property as an occupant of one of the buildings. Mr. Setten intends to move back into the residence, but did not have a specific date. Chairman Master explained the owner was in violation of several statutes: residency and the building itself. He is exceeding the number of units allowed. He has violated the code regarding the renting of the structure. He's not a resident or occupant of the structures. As part of the C.U.P. conditions, if the owner moves away, the C.U.P. would be cancelled. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1990 - Page 8 Mr. Setten asked how long he would have to submit plans for appr ova 1? Commissioner Bosch said the first thing Mr. Setten would have to cease and desist the current illegal use in the rear building until such time it was determined whether a second unit would be granted at all. In answer to his question, it was up to him to tell the Commission how long it would take him to come back with a workable plan. He did not honestly know if Mr. Setten could come back with a workable plan as he would need to tear down a part of the second floor in order to get it down to a unit that would conform. Chairman Master said that Mr. Setten already had several code infractions that by itself jeopardize the legality in a recision of the original C.U.P. The public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the options of this proposal. All ordinances and laws have been ignored intentionally. This application is before the Commission because of Code Enforcement. It should not be continued. Commissioner Greek said the only way Mr. Setten could comply would be to move back into the front unit and convert the second unit to a recreation unit; then he could apply for a granny pad. He really can't apply for a granny pad now. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend the City Council den Conditional Use Permit 1858-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a study session August 13, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. to review the Specific Plan of Serrano Heights. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED There will be no study session this Wednesday evening. The report was just received. Staff needs to review that and get back to the Commission with their comments before meeting in a study session. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED