Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-1998 PC MinutesCV!S5j~ C ;1~6. C,.:J 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange August 17,1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 59-98 - TUSTIN & COLLINS CORNING DEVELOPMENT (ORANGE CENTER) 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.Negative Declaration 1567-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Recommendation: Continue this item to Wednesday, September 9, 1998. NOTE: Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE:APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FORTHE MEETING OF AUGUST 3,1998 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of August 3, 1998, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2228-98, VARIANCE 1554-98 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 98-11-LYNDAWHITMIRE A proposal to demolish a one car garage and construct a two story second unit, over a new three car garage, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. Also requested is a variance in the required side yard setback to accommodate future street widening and an administrative adjustment allowing a parking space with a width of less than 10 feet. The site is located at 493 South Orange Street.This item was continued from the July 6, and July 20, 1998 hearings.)NOTE:Negative Declaration 1561-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Mr. Jones presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. The project was continued to allow the applicants an opportunity to revise their plans in response to the Commission's concerns relative to the siting and design of the new garage and second unit. The Commission had requested a number of items to be addressed. including that the size and bulk of the project be reduced by constructing a garagefootprint to meet the City's minimum code standards. The Commission also asked staff to look for ways to minimize or eliminate any need for a variance, and to consider an administrative adjustment for the open parking space. and identify facts about the size of the existing house and the floor area ratio of the property with the second unit included. The applicants have submitted revised plans which modify the project somewhat in an attempt to address the Commission's concerns. The changes to the project are as follows: The garage footprint dimensions have changed from the July 20 submittal. The footprint dimensions have changed from approximately 22 feet in depth to 35 feet in width to 24 feet by 31 1/2 feet. The size of the second unit has increased slightly from the original dimensions of approximately 22 feet by 35 feet to approximately 24 feet by 35 feet. The open parking space which previously had been shown within the setback area on the south side of the second unit garage structure has been relocated to the north side, and that is where the administrative adjustment request comes in. There is only 8 1/2 feet dimension between the north property line and the garage structure. The stairs to the second unit have been reversed from the original proposal and their visibility has been reduced. The applicant's architect has submitted a letter on behalf of the applicants. which also proposes some revisions to the project.The size of the existing structure is approximately 1,564 square feet. The total lot area, including the 10 foot dimension that the City is requiring for dedication, is 6,325 square feet. Staff has estimated the floor area ratio with the new structure at approximately ,5. The maximum allowed in the zone is .7. Using the administrative adjustment would reduce one of the two variance requests. The remaining variance is for the structure to be at the zero lot line, if the City ever took the additional 10 feet of right-of-way. The applicant cannot construct a second unit and meet the parking requirements without a variance.The public hearing was opened.ADDlicants. Scott Fike and Lvnda Whitmire. 493 South Oranae Street. made some revisions to their plans,but they could not make some of the revisions the Commission asked of them. They ended up redesigning the project by changing the parking space and the stairs. The closet provides some balance and articulation on the north side, but it may look obtrusive over the open parking space. They are willing to reduce this to the main outline of the structure. The overall size has been reduced by a few square feet. The second unit is small. but adequate and the Design Review Board has approvedthe overall bulk and mass. They haven't been able to find a way to minimize or eliminate a variance because they have 40 feet north and south, and they need 40 feet to build the 3- car enclosed garage and the one open space.They still think the FAR is below the maximum allowed, and if they take out the closet, the FAR will be reduced to 4.7 or 4.8. The utility pole is now an issue and they will have to relocate the pole at a cost of 4,800. which will be incurred by the homeowners. The one pop out Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Fike did not think it was fair to compare two different properties. The FAR is SOOIO and the maximum allowed is 70%. The height of their second story structure is 25 feet. The attic in their house is 17 or 18 feet and the ceilings are quite high. If they need to delete the bay windows from the new structure, that can be done. Their project will help remove some of the street parking. A precedent has been set on previous projects under the current municipal code for second story additions. The limiting factor is the requirement for the four (4) parking spaces. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Romero's concern still remains with the bulk and mass of the project, and to look for ways to minimize or eliminate the variance. He didn't have a problem with the FAR. Mr. Hohnbaum addressed the question of the encroachment into the 10 foot width. The City has no intent to cause an encroachment into the existing structure; however, for any new construction, it needs to remain outside of the 10 foot dedication. Mr. Jones stated there is no fence requirement for the property in the R-2 zone. There is a requirement of 350 square feet per unit for open space, which would be 700 square feet for this property. The applicants exceed this requirement.The Commission and staff discussed open space requirements, parking requirements for accessory second units, and the FAR before and after the take. If the take were to occur, the visual impact would be a.62 FAR; without the take, it would be a.50 FAR.Commissioner Smith thought this was a hard piece of property to work with and needs to be considered the same as the property across the street. The City cannot arbitrarily change its mind in mid stream about how one piece of property is treated and five years later, how the property across the street is treated.Because, then five (5) years later, who ever owns that property, it's really dangerous for them. The City needs to be consistent in its decision making process. These decisions need to be treated as if the 10 foot take will be taken. Th9 10 feet must be honored as a dedication just like it was across the street. In this particular neighborhood, this large structure is too high of a FAR on this property, even though .70 is allowed. It is far too large for the neighboring structures; it breaks up the rhythm of the neighborhood and the bulk and mass still remains too large. She had hoped the applicants would reduce the size of the apartment as well as the garage. The articulation is nice and it is more attractive than the flat walls, She would rather see a smaller unit overall, over a 2-car garage with an open space. The size of the second structure is the problem. There isn't much open space for the second unit, which is a hardship to the renters of that unit. One of the big barriers is the requirement for the four (4) parking spaces.Chairman Bosch agreed with Commissioner Smith's comments. He didn't have a problem with the FAR,but it's only one of quite a number of very objective parameters, all of which must be met. The bigger issue is the overwhelming bulk and mass of the project on the site. It's possible to design a dwelling unit atop the garage at the rear of the property that conforms to the1 1/2 stories. The difficulty for the CUP can be overcome. He's not sure if two bedrooms can be built, given the bulk of the building. He was disheartened to see the expansion of the footprint of the garage towards the existing dwelling because it reduced the amount of livable space available for the second unit, after one deducts the stairway and access sidewalk below that which meets the standards for the second unit. The height of the building is satisfactory. It would not necessarily be less with a one-bedroom unit or accessory second unit. The objective question is how does one meet the development standards on the property. Getting rid of the encroachments into the setbacks still leaves the problem with the variance because of the need for the irrevocable right of dedication. The hardship that is aeated is not one that is caused by the property, but is one caused by too much building wanting to be placed on the property. He would like to say the variance is due to the proposed take, and that is taking away land that should be available Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 but that is an existing condition and a part of the deal that came with the land. He had a hard time finding the requirements under State law relative to the variance. The Commission further discussed proposed materials for the second unit, setback requirements, taking access off of LaVeta, attaching the second unit to the existing house, widening of LaVeta, and the problem of the four parking spaces. It was detennined that accessory dwelling second units are only allowed in the R-1 zones per O. M.C. Section 17.14.030 under Pennitted Uses, which complies with the Government Code.Chainnan Bosch asked staff if there is a possibility of attempting to modify the Master Plan of Arterial Highways regarding the widening of LaVeta.Mr. Hohnbaum explained the code is requesting width greater than a study that was more recently completed. There are a number of streets throughout Orange that require such administrative changes in the code. And, that effort is slated for completion by the year 2000. There is an intent to reduce the need to widen LaVeta, and to reduce the impact on the existing structures.The Commission stated they must deny the project; however, the applicant may be able to move forward with their project in a couple of years with citizen input relative to the LaVeta widening project. Citizen involvement does get results in changing the standards and codes.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Romero, because the development, as proposed. is not consistent in scale and size, a bulk and mass issue with the surrounding development,although the context has been appropriately developed, and because the increase in the footprint of the garage has not retained a historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space, a special emphasis on livable open space for the second unit, and because the impacts of the required irrevocable dedication of LaVeta Avenue to confonn to the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways prevents meeting the development standards on site, without reducing the open space and creating overbearing bulk and mass to the current proposal, the Commission moves to deny approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1561- 98. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero. Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny without prejudice Conditional Use Permit 2228-98, Variance 2053-98 and Administrative Adjustment 98-11. The Commission could not find sufficient findings to grant the variance.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith commended the applicants on the architectural design, the use of materials, the intention to improve the neighborhood and keeping with the Old Towne Design Standards. She encouraged the applicants to meet their neighbors and move forward with the City's codification of detennining the width of LaVeta. And. encouraged the applicants to consider bringing this proposal forward once the LaVeta standard has been set. The variance and existing conditions with the arterial dedication is what denied the project -- not the architectural detail, planning and use of materials.Mr. Jones informed the applicants of the final action by the Commission, and explained Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 4. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2044-93 - ROOKIES A proposal to modify conditions of an approved conditional use permit allowing live entertainment and the sale of alcoholic beverages. The site is located at 970 North Tustin Street. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The public hearing was opened. ADDlicant. Mark Donaldson. 2127 East Adams Avenue, requested to change conditions 5 and 6 relating to security and minors being allowed in the restaurant after 10:00 PM. They will provide security when there is live entertainment and occupancy exceeds 25 people. They have been contacted by the schools' booster clubs to come in after football games for pizza and sodas. Many times the games are not over until 9:30 or 10:00 PM. They request that minors be allowed in the restaurant until 12 AM. The Commission, staff and applicant discussed the enforcement of minors at the restaurant. The team is under the guardianship of their coach or "responsible adult" while on the premises. Commissioner Smith referred to condition 7 not allowing any person under the age of 18 years to remain upon the premises between the hours of 8:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday; however, there is year round schooling. This condition should be deleted. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Modification to Conditional Use Permit 2044-93 - Rookies Pub & Restaurant, with the conditions listed in the staff report, modifying condition 5 te only require one licensed, uniformed security guard when there is live entertainment and the occupancy exceeds 25 people after hours of darkness. The security officer shall be present during business hours until closing to deter crime within the parking area, and within the business. (Karaoke machines and/or balloon artists are excluded.) Modify condition 6, by changing the age from 21 to 18, and adding "responsible adult" after the hour of 10:00 PM. And, delete condition 7. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 8:55 PM RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:00 PM 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15548-98; MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 55-98 - ROCK CREEK RANCH BEAZER HOMES)A proposal to develop approximately 5.5 acres with 66 attached townhouses. The site is located at the southwest corner of Walnut Avenue and Prospect Street.NOTE: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration 1531-97 evaluated the environmental impacts of this project. 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition to the project. This is a final phase of the Rock Creek development. The development process was approved about 15 years ago. Since that time, Beazer Development has been developing the area north of Walnut Avenue, on both sides of Prospect. Last year, the Commission approved development plans for 131 townhomes on the east side of Prospect, south of Walnut. Also at that time, the Commission approved a boundary zone change for this property and a precise alignment for the Walnut/Spring Street connection that determined the eventual construction of the Walnut bridge connection to Prospect. Traffic will then go south on Prospect to Spring Street. The proposal is for 66 units and this Is the final phase of the development that is under construction on the east side of Prospect Street. The proposed number of units. the building setbacks, and the recreational areas conform to the City's land use elements and the development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Contained in the staff report were some comments from the applicant regarding the recommendation from the Design Review Board on the project. The applicant had several concerns about the conditions from ORB. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant. James O'Mallev. Beazer Homes. 1100 Town & Countrv #100. handed out a graphic of the project to the Commission. He explained this is a build out of their Rock Creek Ranch development. The Cambridge I development has 131 units and is under construction now. The zoning and site plan layout for the proposed site was previously approved. The green area shown on the graphic is a concept for an open space/recreational use. It's just an idea of how it may appear, if built as an active recreational site. He referred to attachment 1 in the staff report. They request that four of the twelve items be deleted only for the reason that they want to keep continuity in the Cambridge I area with the Cambridge II area. They are not changing the architecture; they don't feel they should change the landscape architecture and hardscape either. They request that items 2,4,6 and 11 be deleted. He also referred to condition 14 in the staff report. They request the words in the last sentence be deleted: "to the drive entry for the Tract to the north and modifications." Keep the sentence: "This includes modifications to the traffic signal." They also asked that condition 2 be deleted. Commissioner Smith asked why Beazer Homes wanted Items 2, 4, 6 and 11 deleted. She also wondered where they came up with the name of Cambridge I and Cambridge II. There is a Cambridge Street in Orange and she thought people would confuse the name of the development with the street. She wanted to know why Beaztlf did not want to go back to ORB for final approval. Mr. O'Malley replied the items do not coordinate with the previous design comments that were made in the 131 acre tract. It's important to keep the continuity with what they are building now and what they will be building across the street. The comments deter from the aesthetics and landscape impacts on the project. The project name is purely a theme for the area. There is no reason to go back to the ORB because they would be adhering to the design input. They're asking for the same design parameters and details on the new tract as it was given on the old tract. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know about the open space/park area. Mr. O'Malley said the open space site was originally a pit and they are filling it. Recently, the City has moved forward on providing a technical analysis to see whether the site can be developed for a park and recreational use, and how much it would cost to make those improvements. Chairman Bosch referred back to Mr. O'Malley's request for landscaping and ORB approval. Page 5 of the staff report gives ORB's proposed conditions and they are different from the landscape/architectural consultant. He went through the items to make sure everyone was in agreement. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 Public comments Samuel Meeks. 406 North Swidler. had two questions that were answered relative to other areas being developed after the current project is completed and the use of the open space. The residents want to see a recreational use type of open space in the area. Three Deoole sDOke in oODOsition to the oroiect Valerie Venegas, 3907 East Spring Street. Betty Jensen, 3721 East Spring Street. Nancy Gaisbauer, 287 North Olympia Way. They were opposed to the project because they do not need additional dwelling units or density in their area. Issues include traffic, congestion and impacts to the existing schools. Everyone wants a park in the area and they encourage community involvement in designing a park, such as Kids Kingdom up in Redding. Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. O'Malley reiterated this is the build out phase for Beazer Homes in the area. The open space is under stUdy by the City. Last year when the property was re-zoned, it was down zoned from 15 units per acre mobile homes to 12 units per acre townhomes. Their first phase of homes went on sale a month ago and they provided 18 homes for new families in 1 hour 40 minutes. There is the same park idea in Davis,California as the one in Redding. He supports these types of parks, and will provide pictures to Gary Wann on both park concepts.The public hearing was closed.The Commission discussed the cross walks, pedestrian crossings and childrens' safety, as well as the site plan and trees. They are in favor of as much park land as the City can get. They asked staff to comment on the role of the ORB, and for the status of the traffic signal at Spring and Prospect.Mr. Jones explained the ORB is the authorized designated City body to review and either take action or make recommendations on landscape plans. The Planning Commission and City Council do have the ability to determine whether or not these return to the ORB. There is no requirement that the final plans go back to the ORB if the Commission is confident of staff's understanding of the Planning Commission' s recommendations and conditions as they apply to staff review of the final plans.Mr. Hohnbaum updated the Commission on the traffic signal at Spring and Prospect. It was conditioned as part of the first phase of Cambridge I. Beazer was required to supply funds to the City for the ultimate construction of that signal. The signal is scheduled in the City's current fiscal year work plan and should be completed by June of next year.It was noted the potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been previously addressed by approved Mitigated Negative Declaration 1531-97.Moved by Commissioner Bosch. seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 15548-98 and Minor Site Plan Review 55- 98, including conditions 1-40 with a revision to condition 14 to reword the last sentence to state: " This includes modifications to the traffic signal." And. that the conditions of approval of the Design Review Board (On Page 5 of the staff report) be modified to delete Item 1, which are the three trees in the paseo area because the paseo area at that point is inadequate to support the trees. Retain condition 3, with the pedestrian crossings with the intent that they be enhanced pavement and not painted speed bumps, and that they relate to connecting the access sidewalks along the main drive to the paseos adjacent to the recreation area. That condition 5 be deleted, tree wells be deleted in front of buildings #1,2,5,11,12,13, and 14 because Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1998 of the specific landscape location. And that condition 10 be deleted and retain the 45' spacing on Prospect because of the preferential aesthetic of equal spacing to the existing trees. And, grant staff the authority to review final landscaping plans prior to issuance of permits for landscaping rather than returning to the DRB. It is found that the project will not cause deterioration of neighboring land uses. The project conforms to City of Orange Development Standards and applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. The project will not cause significant negative environmental impacts. On and off- site circulation are adequate to support the project. City and other publiC services are available and adequate to serve the project. And, the project is compatible with the community aesthetics, all of which have been established by the General Plan Amendment, zoning. development of standards for the overall Rock Creek community and by the specific site and landscape plans and architectural design for the tract map and site plan. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED 6. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPEAL #447 (REGARDING VARIANCE 2054- 98) -OUTBACK-TAFT An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding installation of a wall sign and a pole sign in excess of area allowed by code. The project is located south of Taft and east of Tustin Street.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Act,per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15311(a).Mr. Godlewski presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. This was heard by the Zoning Administrator to review a proposal to have an increased wall sign, letter height, and a 50 foot free-standing sign on a self-storage project. The Zoning Administrator required the applicant to bring the wall signs into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and he allowed a free-standing sign, 160 square feet in area, which is allowed by code. The code requires the sign to be no higher than 15 feet; the applicant was requesting a 50 foot tall sign and the Zoning Administrator approved a 35 foot tall sign based on the findings that the project site is an unique site in its location and its difficulty in advertising for the type of usethat it is. The apprv'Jal of the project was appealed by Councilman Alvarez, on behalf of the neighborhood to the east. It was appealed because of the following reasons: The type of business does not need this type of exposure to the freeway; the height and location of the sign will add to the deterioration of the area due to the proximity to the billboard and gas station signs that are along the freeway; the location of the sign at the southbound off ramp for Katella Avenue adds to the deterioration of the area; and approval of the sign could create a precedent by opening the opportunities for more signs along the 55 Freeway, causing it to appear full of billboards. Mr. Godlewski has not had any personal contact with the neighbors in the area, and had only received the application through the process of appeal.NOTE: The public hearing was opened. The appellant was not present.Bruce Jordan. 34700 Pacific Coast Hiahwav. Dana Point. is the architect for the project. He put together some graphics to illustrate the sight lines at which they believe to be the substance of the appeal. For orientation, the project is on the west side of the freeway and the neighbors are on the other side, and they vary in distance from the subject property of a minimum 300 feet up to 2, 000 feet. They believe the residents on the east side of the freeway will not be able to see the subject sign. The project needs signage to the freeway as does other businesses oriented along the freeway. They have a recreational vehicle component to the storage facility and it is M-1 property. The project is located an equal distance between Lincoln and Katella and it is not served by the freeway off ramps. There are no billboards or gas station signs anywhere near their proposed sign. Their project has 1,200 feet of Planning Commission Minutes August 17. 1998 Freeway. The signage that is north and south of this is at least 1/4 mile away. The project is not located anywhere near the Katella off ramp. It is at least 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile away. The basis for the appeal is factually incorrect. There are a number of signs that can be seen from the freeway that have been approved and have probably received variances for excess height. The freeway is about 22 feet above the subject property. The sign is below the freeway level and needs exposure, which creates a hardship for this property. They are not asking for any special right or privilege. Commissioner Smith noted the storage facility is located on Edison property and she needed to abstain from discussion due to a conflict of interest. She excused herself from the meeting. The public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the sight lines of the graphic illustration and the height of the proposed sign. The stated reasons for the appeal had nothing to do with vision from the residences to the site. The issues related to the proximity to Katella Avenue where there are signs, which were approved under a previous sign ordinance that allowed taller signs. The Commission had approved some newer signs that replaced older signs. That precedent does not apply in this case. This is a new use; not an existing use or remodel of an existing use. It's not the replacement of an existing non-conforming sign for which there is a hardship. The project is more oriented towards community storage needs that would serve the Northeast OrangeNilla Park area and not just those people passing through the community.Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Appeal No. 447 regarding Variance 2054-98 - Outback Self-Storage, with the finding that the uniqueness of the property relative to this use and site does not provide the findings of a hardship related to the property as it relates to previous approvals. and would be inconsistent with the previous application of the intent of the Sign Ordinance relative to pre-existing signs and freeway service oriented commercial uses in the City of Orange adjacent to the 55 Freeway. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero None Commissioners Pruett, Smith MOTION CARRIEDCommissioner Smith retui:1ed to the meeting. IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero. to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 10: 20 p. m. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION