Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1998 PC MinutesC!tts5;~ C- ~ 560. G-. Q. 3 MINLJrES Planning Commission City of Orange September 9,1998 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cariton, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Romero STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, and Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of August 17, 1998 as written.AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioner Romero Commissioner Pruett t ~ f _I It MOTION CARRIED 1] 2. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 59-98 - TUSTIN & COLLINS CORNING DEVELOPMENT (ORANGE CENTER) j'. .' lo.l A proposal to demolish a 1,200 sq. ft. retail building and construct a new 7,386 sq. ft. retail development.The site is located at 940 North Tustin Street.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1567-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the August 17, 1998 public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Major Site Plan Review 59-98 to the meeting of October 5, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2069-94 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH A request for a two (2) year extension of a conditional use permit and six (6) months for other conditional use permits allowing modular classrooms on an elementary school campus. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to grant a one (1) year extension for Conditional Use Permit 2069-94 and deny all other extensions until the year 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 4. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 58-98 - RALPH & LINDA ZEHNER Proposed demolition of an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and one and one-half story construction of two (2) duplexes and one (1) cottage unit and a single story garage for seven (7) vehicles to be located behind an existing single family home. The site is located at 630 East Culver Avenue.Negative Declaration 1540-97 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.John Godlewski, Senior Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. This project was continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 1998 to allow the applicant to modify his plan to address specific concerns raised by the Commission. At the same meeting, the Commission asked for clarification regarding cumulative impact that might be caused by imposition of Design Standards. In reworking the site plan to address the Commission's concerns, the applicant has redesigned the cottage unit and relocated it over the seven-car garage; thus, increasing the setbacks that were perceived as "tight" in the previous plan. All of the new units now indicate a shed type dormer rather than the pitched dormers of the previous plan. Larger windows have been added to the living rooms and round columns replace square columns of the previous submittal. The building materials are basically the same as previously submitted.NOTE:It is staff's opinion that the site plan is greatly improved by moving the cottage unit over the garages; open space usability and "flow" are greatly improved. The addition of the shed type dormer, however, appears to add to the perceived size of the structures and the 1 1/2 story extension over the garages unnecessarily adds to the mass of the structure.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Raloh Zehner. 630 East Culver, described the revisions he made on his project and asked the Commission for their comments.Commissioner Smith questioned the height of the garage, screens, the shed, fire sprinklers in the units and why Mr. Zehner added bulk and mass at the front of the garage for decoration. She also told him the Commission does not rule on paint colors.Mr. Zehner answered Commissioner Smith's questions, and did not feel the decoration added to the bulk and mass.Commissioner Carlton asked Mr. Zehner to clarify how the tenant in the cottage above the garage is going to gain access. She asked if he could put in a door in the easterly garage as a matter of convenience for the tenant, instead of having to walk all the way around.Mr. Zehner showed how a tenant would access the unit; however, he agreed to a door in Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 Commissioner Pruett questioned the size of the shed since they have added a wash room. Mr. Zehner believed the shed was reduced in size by eight (8) feet. Seven (7) oeoole sooke in favor of the oroiect: Carl Harnack, 546 East Culver. Darlene Beer, 642 East Culver. Herb Runnells, 816 East Culver. Lee Painter, 577 East Culver. T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman Avenue. Mike Keller, 632 East Culver. Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver. The speakers favored the project because the revised plans are more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They did not object to the metal clad windows or doors. They would like to look at houses rather than weeds on the property. The revised plans meet the City's requirements and is consistent with the neighborhood. Seven (7) oeoole sooke in oooosition to the oroiect: Martha Phelan, 375 South Pine Street. Mattie Unk, 801 East Culver. Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange. Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive. Bill Hyndman, 391 South Harwood. Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver. Dwain Raney, 368 South Cambridge. A petition of 277 signatures was previously submitted, opposing this project. The project is still too much for the neighborhood. Apartments do not belong in the neighborhood. Chalynn Circle is an example of poor planning and they do not want to see the decline of Culver Street. If the project is approved, it will set a precedent for others. The addition of five (5) units to the lot will destroy the quality of the neighborhood, and it will not protect or stabilize the property values of the neighbors. The Design Standards of the overall building is not being met. The garage unit is unacceptable. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter from Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, opposing the project. Aoolicant's resoonse: Mr. Zehner responded to the residents' concerns. Trash will be carried out every week; trash trucks will not be entering the property. His project meets the 1 1/2 story requirement and meets the intent of the General Plan. He does not believe his project is setting a precedent. The units are in his back yard and will not be seen from the street. They are preserving the front house, and the new buildings are complimentary to the streetscape and blend in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Smith appreciated the effort Mr. Zehner has put into his project. But, she does not understand how this preserves the front building. She is looking at this project as a separate development on the property. She had hoped for a little more architectural detail on the buildings. It is not a true Craftsman-style design.Commissioner Carlton asked what Mr. Zehner's intent was in 1993 when his street was re- zonec: Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 Mr. Zehner said his intent was to bring their properties on Culver into parity with their neighbors. Culver Street is surrounded by R-2 zoning.Chairman Bosch referred to the dormers. His concernisn't the floor area, but the proper design relationship. The footprint of the building has not changed on the ground, but the second level has increased. He thought the dormers were too wide and are out of proportion with the first floor of the building. From his architectural opinion, he liked smaller dormers upstairs, and preferred the gable dormer to the shed dormer, if the windows are appropriately proportioned for the size of the dormer. The shed dormer is just too massive.Mr. Zehner tried to design a livable unit that is similar to the area. He counted 16 other houses that were exactly like his. He could extend the roof out another 11/2 feet to blend in better. He understood the Chairman's concerns and can reduce the size of the dormers.Commissioner Pruett's concern is relative to the garage and the structure that is above it. If the bulk and mass are taken away from the garage, the project will end up with a shed dormer that goes all the way across the 4-car garage. That presents some problems from the standpoint of how that fits into the Craftsman style. This becomes an important issue because it will be seen from the street. He will also encourage the concept of garage door openers.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith liked the site plan much better. She believed this is a precedent- setting project; the first big build out in this neighborhood. It needs to be a premiere project because it will set the tone for everything else that follows. She was not comfortable in moving forward with this plan without more elevations of the exact floor plan and the exact elevations that will be built with the window trim, screen doors and all of the architectural details that are so important to the historic neighborhood. She wanted to see more detailed plans before giving approval. She does not consider the apartments to be a Craftsman style, especially with the modern building materials. She was troubled by the large, 3, 000 square foot garage building. It does not echo anything in the Old Towne neighborhood. She is encouraged by the applicant's willingness to apply new materials to the shed and to reduce the size by 8 feet. The structure,however, does not fit in with theproject. She didn't think the project maintains the single family ambiance of the neighborhood, but they are strapped by the zoning which allows this type of development. She questioned the safety of the people who will live there, as fire trucks will not be able to access the property. She likes the fact the front house is being retained and improved. There should be wood windows. There is a discrepancy of style between the front house and the new units so there needs to be some clarification. She would like to see the screen door design. If this were her project, she would eliminate the fifth unit, and put the money back into the materials for the sake of the neighborhood and historic compatibility. It needs to be clarified on the dormers -- gable vs. shed dormers. She prefers the gable dormer, but is not sure what that does to the living space. The shed dormer adds bulk and mass and makes it appear as a 2-story structure. She likes the idea of the cement being removed in the front and grass being replaced, but she didn't like the central piece of the project being solid cement. She didn't know if the units had air conditioning.Commissioner Carlton thought there will be a precedent set with this project. She read a section of the CEQA guidelines regarding the cumulative impacts.Commissioner Pruett agreed that without complete, detailed plans, it's rather difficult to take action. Plans become an integral part of the record. He believed the precedent is related to the mitigating measures.What is acceptable in terms of bulk and mass and architectural design with the neighborhood. Multiple development on the property is allowed by the zone. The area over the garage is adding to the bulk and mass and needs to be eliminated. The shed also needs to be reduced in size. Removal of trash from the property on a weekly basis is perceived as a Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 Chairman Bosch said it was important to reiterate that he felt held hostage by the zoning. It was not appropriate to change the zoning when it occurred, but it is the law. The project meets the development standards under the General Plan and zone in that regard. They still must take the Mitigated Negative Declaration into consideration, along with the Design Standards before approving the Minor Site Plan Review. He was in favor of gabled dormers, of eliminating the non-functional dormer (in terms of space)over the garages, of Mr. Zehner's agreeing to the stipulation to decrease the existing shed by 8 feet in length. He believed the siding and roofing to match the adjacent existing dwelling is appropriate.Reasonable paint schemes can be applied to the project. The sliders at the rear of the units on the ground floor are concealed by private yard fencing and prevent them from being a negative impact on the historical context of the neighborhood. There should be a horizontal bar in the windows and the screens need to have similar treatment that matches the windows. He concurs with the concept of the high profile Class A shingles and the exposed rafters. However, the last drawings are not consistent in that they do not show the exposed rafters; they show fascias at the dormers on the second level, which is inconsistent. In addition to preferring the gable dormers, to the point of rejecting the shed dormers, that the dormer width be retained to the narrower width that it was in the previous iteration. Although, on the previous iteration for the duplex units, the windows were inappropriately proportioned for the dormer. He concurred with the automatic garage door openers and it appears the intent is to have sectional overhead doors, which would be appropriate. Carrot Wood trees are not a problem; they are better than Magnolia trees. He struggled with the multiple garage with the unit over it. Obviously, eliminating the dormer over the garage will help that building substantially. That means the livable unit upstairs will still have some type of projection in the area of the garage. That is something that will need to be studied in design. He is struggling with the comments about not having a historic precedent of the dwelling unit over a multiple car garage. Although, there are many historical multiple car garages in Old Towne primarily associated with multiple family dwellings, or the old carriage house type of context. He didn't know how to solve that.Detailed plans are needed for approval.Commissioner Pruett liked the revised plan, but shares the concern of the garage and bulk and mass.More detailed plans are needed with the changes noted in order to move forward. It is important for the applicant to understand that the Commission is judging the context of the project as it relates to the bulk and mass of existing buildings in the neighborhood.Commissioner Smith encouraged the painting of the front building a different color from the new units.The new units don't have to match each other either. She is concerned about the size of the garage building, and is also concerned about who lives above the garages. The shape of the garage is awkward.There needs to be compatibility with this neighborhood and she is worried about letting a building of this size (7 garages) be approved. It looks like the 3-car garage is over-sized; it is deeper. It would be better to separate the two buildings out because it would look like a collection of smaller buildings than the one massive, 3,000 square footbuilding. She didn't think Mr. Zehner was getting the best guidance from his architect.Commissioner Carlton wanted the garage reduced in size to allow for more open space, but this is not feasible since the owner wanted a 2-car garage for the front house. This is a catch 22 proposal; however,the owner has every right to develop his property. High standards are required because this will be precedent-setting for the neighborhood.Chairman Bosch asked the applicant if he were willing to come back to the Commission and provide full documentation and detailed plans, given the very specific points heard at this meeting.Mr. Zehner agreed to come back in one month if he is allowed some latitude in Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Minor Site Plan Review 58-98 to the meeting of October 5, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m.IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 5. VARIANCE 2052-98 - LA REINA MARKET An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request to allow the installation of wall signs exceeding the maximum area allowed by code.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.A staff report was not presented as there was no opposition to this item.The public hearing was opened.Frank Salazar. 2203 East Center Street. did not feel the lettering for their sign was a problem. They took the one sign down on the south elevation facing Collins. He showed pictures of their signage. They wash their signs every other week and keep their property and building neat and clean.Chairman Bosch spoke about the variance request and the findings that are necessary to determine a hardship. He had difficulty seeing with regard to the pre-existing building how there is a hardship. It appears the signage was put up without a permit. The Commission thought the signs needed to comply with the existing sign code. Mr. Salazar needs to talk with staff on the amount of lineal footage he can have, and it may take more than the elimination of one word to be in compliance. Victor Salazar, 1277 East Santa Ana Street, read O.M.C. Section 17.36.080 Wall Signs - Area. They have 72 feet of building frontage. (This equates to a total of 108 sq. ft. of sign area allowed for both elevations combined.) He did not understand the code requirements.Chainnan Bosch suggested Mr. Salazar talk with staff about the signage requirements.The public hearing was closed.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to deny Appeal No. 446.AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2237-98 - CERTIFIED FARMER'S MARKET A proposal to allow an open air retail "farmer's market" (certified by California Department of Food and Agriculture) every Thursday from 2:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. on the existing parking lot area at the northwest corner of Almond Avenue and Glassell Street.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e) and 15311(c).A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened.ADDlicant. Dan Jensen. 178 South Glassell. was available to answer questions.Commissioner Carlton questioned the hours of operation from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. She wondered why theydidn'tstart earlier.Mr. Jensen said they might change their hours at the end of October when daylight savings ends. Many ofthevendorsareinCostaMesaonThursdaymorningsandtheywantedtoaccommodatetheirschedules. They realize they must close when it gets dark.The Commission thought it would be better to have earlier hours and then the owner could have the flexibility of choosing when he wanted to open and close.Staff believed it was the applicant's choice to have those hours from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; staff did not have any concerns if the times were changed.Mr. Jensen understood the Commission's concem and did not have a problem with an earlier starting time.Commissioner Smith raised the question of responsibility of maintenance for the parkway on Almond. The Pepper trees were removed some years ago, and she was told they would be replaced by the City. But,they' ve never been replaced. There is nothing in the parkway except for weeds and it looks junky.The public hearing was closed.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2237- 98, with conditions 1-4 as listed in the staff report, amending condition 1 to state: "Sales hours are limited to Thursdays to a maximum of six daylight hours. Sales hours may be extended until 8:00 p. m.during summer daylight hours. However, extensions beyond these hours are subject toPlanningCommissionreviewandapproval, and may be further subject to security lighting requirementsduringeveninguse." Per O.M.C. Section 17.10.030, Subsection "F", the Commission finds this permit to be granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. It is granted in that it does not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans forthearea. And, it is granted subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, nottheindividualwelfareofanyparticular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1998 Commissioner Smith would like staff to investigate the maintenance policy of the City and would like a follow-up report. She suggested that the Economic Development Office be informed because she knows there is a Downtown Revitalization Program in effect, and perhaps there might be some funding that could be transferred over.Mr. Hohnbaum will follow up with Commissioner Smith's request.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the meeting of September 14, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p. m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED Isld