Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1996 PC Minutesc--/, ' __ 4__'./ (A ,. f C::1!i{}(), ~,~ _ 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City 01 Orange September 4, 1996 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Jerry Bailey, Sr. Civil Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 8/19/96 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of 8/ 19/96 as recorded.AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. VARIANCE 2019-96 - HARRY SAUBERMAN The applicant is requesting waiver 01 the City's parking requirements to allow the expansion 01 the Carnitas Los Rel'es Restaurant, located in a strip commercial center addressed 251-273 South Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the Calilornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sec!ion 15303. This nem was continued Irom the July 15 and August 5, 1996 hearings.) Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the stall report to update the Commission from the previous hearings. The applicant is requesting to expand the Carnitas Los Reyes Restaurant from approximately 1200 square feet to 2200 square feet. It would move from the present location to two empty tenant spaces in the middle of the shopping center. The ellects of increasing the size of the restaurant is to increase the number 01 required parking spaces Irom 71 to 76 spaces. The subject site cannot provide that number 01 parking spaces so the applicant is requesting a variance to waive the additional parking required lor expandinQ the restaurant. The Commission, at the original hearing,requested the applicant to consider restricting the use 01 two 01 the northern tenant spaces to those uses that require less parking in a typical commercial or office use. The applicant, alter considering that, decided not to place that restriction on his property because he lelt it would be too much of a burden in the future to lind tenants lor the shopping center. The public hearing was re- opened. Aoolicant Harry Sauberman, 19 Bridgewood. Irvine, said his problem was not over utilization, but under utilization.The bUilding next to him is in loreclosure and is comprised 01 7 units, which is connected to hisbuildings.They have two tenants and five vacancies. He also has a number 01 vacancies and finds n very difficult to 1 r- Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 lease his property, which he bought in December as a loreclosure. He wished the City could be more understanding 01 the economic bad times in terms 01 people not wanting to rent south of Chapman. It's considered to be a less desirable area. He didn't understand the concern of having not enough parking spaces and the building causing a problem because it is overfilled. That doesn't seem to be the history.Vacancies there have gone on lor quite a long time. He could not allord to make lurther restrictions on trying to attract business tenants. He needs to open it up; not close it. He would like the Commission to consider his original proposal and hopes he can proceed with the variance. Chairman Bosch felt Mr. Sauberman had a lot 01 sympathy from the Commission. The trouble is that they must abide by the law. There are specific findings that must be made with regard to variances relative to a hardship and to demonstrate this won't cause a similar granting of privilege everywhere else where it could really upset things. The zoning ordinance wouldn1 be able to be upheld anymore. There must be a hardship that is not imposed by the design 01 the property or by economic conditions. Veryoltenstreetwideninllhastakenawaypropertyrights, or a radical change in the ordinance has removed a privilege that others In the same area enjoy; the parcel ha~ such an odd shape or bad access that it wouldbedeprivedofareasonableuseundertheordinance, or if the ordinance is bad, then it needs to be changed -- but not just granting the variance wnhout the findings.Mr. Sauberman said n was not clear to him. Staff's linding doesn't say it can't be done through a variance.Mr. Soo-Hoo explained by State law, as well as municipal ordinance, in order to allow a property owner to deviate from the zoning code provisions that other property owners must adhere to, the Commission must find that two elements exist: First 01 all, the Commission must find that there are specialcircumstancesthatareapplicabletotheproperty. The special circumstances need to consist 01 a physicalconstraint (size 01 property, shape 01 property, topography). The second element is that this specialcircumstancewillcausethestrictapplication01thezoningregulations (parking rellulations) to deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same vicinity and in the same zone. The Commission needs to extract from persons who wish to testily in this matter, lac!s that allow the Commission to find that the two elements exist. The applicant was advised properly by the staff thathemustshowthroughevidencethattheCommissionmayfindthetwoelementseXIst. It's a factual linding that needs to be made. Mr. Sauberman responded the special circumstance applicable to his property was the age of the property and the condition 01 the property compared to everything else around it. Because 01 the age01thebuilding, it was dillicult to rent to tenants. Mr. Soo-Hoo commented the Commission could consider that. The counter consideration is thatbyacceptingthatreasoninand01itselfwouldautomaticallyjustifyotherpropertiesthatareolder, andtheidea01avarianceistoverynarrowlybeconstruedinordertoensurethatvariancesarenotgivenon a blan ket basis.Chairman Bosch asked if this property were in the Redevelopment Area? Yes. it was within the Redevelopment Project Area and the Redevelopment Agency had a variety 01 programs that could be applied lor to assist in the physical improvements 01 the property. (Mr. Sauberman was tapped out in terms of loans; that would be out of the question.) There was a concern in looking at that as aphysicalparameterforgrantinga variance.Mr. Sauberman has put quite a bit 01 money into his property and has improved it quite a bit. He has a pride 01 ownership in maintaining the property. He leels he has done the best he can physically with the property.Commissioner Pruett said one 01 the questions he asked at the previous hearing was about theingressandegresswiththeadjoiningpropertytothesouth. There is currently an island; if removed it wouldgiveyouabout4parkingspaces. He suggested one of the things the applicant might want to do was totalktothepropertyownertoseeiftherecouldbesomemitigationfromthestandpointofthatislandtowheretheingressandegresscouldbeimprovedandgain4parkingspacestomeettheparking requirement.Mr. Sauberman had made a number 01 phone calls to the property owner without luck. It was difficult to approach them on this topic and he didn't want to depend on them lor help. He didn't see that as an option. 2 1 r-- Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Public Inout Will Chambers, 242 South Olive, passed out pic!ure boards and baby jars lull 01 discolored water to the Commission. He owns nearby property and has to put up with the smell and odor that comes from the restaurant. The employees dump their mop buckets and stock pots in the alley each day. He understands there are no floor drains or janitor sinks for the restaurant. He read Mr. Sauberman's letter in which it stated that he will provide a healthy and successlul shopping center. Grease and dirt have accumulated in the alley and on his property. He wants his wall steam cleaned to remove the grease and odor. Chairman Bosch pointed out the health and salety requirements must be met regardless of the zoningissues. Mop sinks and floor drains have been required by law in restaurants for years, including this restaurant. Rebuttal Mr. Sauberman responded except for some 01 the cardboard near the trash. bins, the center is neat and clean. The lot is well maintained, His property shines compared to the other surrounding businesses. He pointed out how empty the parking areas were. The shopping center is under utilized. In looking at the water in the pictures he saw quite a bit of llarbage Irom behind the mini-mart. Pic!ures #1, #2 and # 3 were not his property -- it belonged to the mim-mart. He assumed the building meets all building codes;the restaurant has been operating for a number of years. He has not received any complaints. There are sinks in the back of the restaurant.The public hearing was dosed.Chairman Bosch discussed Commissioner Pruett's observation and direction. There was a two-fold problem in this case. The parking code has changed since the time the center was originally built. It is delicient as it stands now. There have also been some outside impacts on the center as Commissioner Pruett pointed out. The arrangement of the Circle K area next door has caused a loss 01 parking on site.That's not a hardship imposed from outside; obviously it had to be done with the concurrence of the people involved prior to the current owner in the center. Between the two concerns of existing parking vs. code, and the increase being requested in parking, it is short about 15parkingspaces.Commissioner Pruett's suggestion would gain about 4 spaces, if fhere was cooperation Irom the adjoining property owner. He sUllgested looking at an administrative adjustment for the minor variance if some of the parking could be gained back. Re-striping 01 the parking lot might also gain some parking spaces.Commissioner Pruett asked about re-striping the parking lot. What was the rule in terms 01 spaces as it related to compact car spaces vs. lull car spaces?Mr. Carnes responded during the initial review on this projec! staff went throughtheabilitiestore-stripe the parking lot to gain spaces. Due to the site's design andexistingcompactspaces, the applicant would not gain any parking. The back has compact spaces now. The parking ordinance. however, does not allow compact spaces. The applicant would need to put in the universalparkingspacesize. He may lose spaces in the back with this requirement.Commissioner Carlton thought there was a lot 01 space in the back to park parallel to the fence, similar to the Cocoa Palms condos across Irom the Orange Mall. Could that be done here?Mr. Carnes explained there is a minimum 25 foot back up space required behind parking spaces, and he believed that was the dimension of the alleyway in the back. Parallel parking couldnotbeputinalongthebackwall. Cars backing out would have a tight maneuvering space.Commissioner Romero asked what the parking requirement would be lithe cars were at an angle in the back? And, the trash cans were placed against the building to allow more space? Would that then allow parallel parking at the wall?Mr. Carnes thought the access easement lor the property to the south and to the north runs along the wall - it's a 20 loot access easement. Parking could not be put in that easement. If angled Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 put along the back, you would gain in design, but would lose the number 01 spaces, which may be balanced out by putting parallel parking next to the wall. Commissioner Romero thought the loss was about two spaces on a typical conversion 01 straight compared to angled parking. Could the trash enclosures be put against the building? Mr. Cames replied they did not look at it from that design perspective because of the access easement. The trash enclosures could be placed against the building, although access space must be maintained in front of the trash bins for the trash trucks. Chairman Bosch said they must deal wilh this issue. The question becomes - are there findings within the constraint of the law available to the Commission, or not?Commissioner Smith didn~ want to lose track of the suggestion for an administrative adjustment rather than a variance, if the applicant would be agreeable to adding the lour parking spaces in the front where the triangular island is located. There would then be 11 spaces short. This isn' the lirst restaurant that has come before the Commission that has not had enough parking spaces. Several of those have been approved one way or the other.Chairman Bosch replied that was correct. A couple of them have become short because of the street widening that took away parking spaces, which is a hardship imposed from off the site.Mr. Jones stated the administrative adjustment section 01 the code allows the Zoning Administrator to allow deviation of all of the development standards up to a maximum 01 10% with a couple of findings.One, is that the issue of the permit would not compromise the intent 01 the code. The other one being that the reduction In standards would not be detrimental to the public, health, safety and general welfare.In this case, you would have to get within roughly 7 spaces 01 the required 76. The applicant would need at least 69 spaces in order to request the additional 1 0%.Commissioner Pruett said the site was developed with 61 spaces according to the staff report. That does not include the four that are in the triangular position. That would be 65 if the lour were taken into consideration. The site is non-conlorming in it's present use 01 71 parking spaces. The applicant wants to add another 5 spaces on top of what is already non-conlorming. What makes this non-conforming in terms 01 its current parking requirements? Were the vacant buildings approved for some other use that is no longer being used? Would that allect the parking count?Mr. Carnes explained in the original staff report there was an Exhibit A, which explained the parking requirement lor tenant spaces. They were all calculated based on 5 spaces per 1,000 for commercial uses. The best estimate he could give on why there is a Shortage of parking is the laundromat has a slightly increased parking requirement. If that space were stric!ly retail, it would be 11 parking spaces; it's 13. And, the elimination of the 4 parking spaces due to the odd easement at the southwest corner of the sne.Commissioner Smith said the parking code has changed since the building was built. Why are parking spaces delicient in the first place for this commercial center?Mr. Carnes said to the best of his knowledge for commercial developments, it has been 5 parking spaces per 1,000 for many years. He assumed when the center was built, it was 5 spaces per 1, 000. He didn~ think there were dillerent standards when the center was built. By converting the tenant space to a laundromat, it Increases the required parking by a lew spaces. When the pas station was built on the corner and the easement put in, that sliced off some parking spaces. The lot IS non- conlorming in regards to parking.Commissioner Smith said the laundromat is near a neighborhood where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic.Also, the use of the restaurant is another one that attrac!s pedestrians. The parking reqUirement is higher,but in reality there is more pedestrian trallic.Chairman Bosch said that would be true in the case 01 any market driven location 01 a laundromat or restaurant. No one would put in a laundromat miles away from a residential neighborhood and expec! it to be 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Commissioner Pruett struggled with the issue of hardship and meeting the required findings. It appears the parking has been approved in some way that has created a problem. The request is to add additional parking on top 01 it. He couldn~ get past that issue. Chairman Bosch couldn~ find a hardship either that was legitimate under the findings of State law and City code. An administrative adjustment would not work either in this case because they still must have findings. He couldn~ find a legitimate special circumstance as it relates to the physical constraints. His other concern was with regard to special privilege. The projects that were preVIously approved were not because 01 self-imposed economic constraints of the business. The approvals were pretty clear cut.Commissioner Smith asked if the laundromat use were changed to another use, would that change the requirement 01 parking spaces for the site? (By only a couple of spaces -- not enough to bring it into conformance. ) Commissioner Pruett said they previously granted a variance because 01 the size of the kitchen and it cut down on the square footage of the eating area. What are the tenant's plans for actual kitchen area vs. eating area? Chairman Bosch recollected at the lirst hearing they heard the restaurant has about 40 seats now and they propose 100 seats. There is nothing here that gives the Commission the legal grounds to lind a variance within the constraints imposed on the Planning Commission. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to deny Variance 2019-96 because the required findings 01 the Orange Municipal Code Section 17. 19.04O-E to wit: 1) special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which would deny the stric! application 01 the zoning ordinance enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone dassification; and 2) the variance needs conditions which will assure the adjustment shall not constitute a grant 01 special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zone cannot be found, given the testimony and discussion, as well as staff's investigation into the matter. Therelore, the required findings are unobtainable.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1507 -96 - CITY OF ORANGE Environmental assessment 01 a city storm drain construction projec!. The projec! has been proposed to alleviate flooding problems in the residential areas west of the Costa Mesa Freeway and in the prol' ect vicinity. The project is located on Milford Street from Sacramento StreetlSantiago Creek to Wa nut Avenue, Sycamore Avenue Irom MilIord Street to 450' west of Milford Street, and Walnut Avenue Irom Milford Street to Handy Street.Jerry Bailey, Public Works Department, explained the storm drain is designed to restrict flooding across the freeway and to alleviate the Ilooding on Walnut, and to eventually extend all the way to COllins to improve the drainage in the entire region east 01 the 55 Freeway. ThiS will eliminate flooding further to the west. The projec! is in the Capital Improvement Program approved for the City for this fiscal year.The public hearing was opened.pubnc Comment Richard Schwanz, 320 Milford Road, said there was a tagger in his neighborhood - USA. He was somewhat taken back by the flooding issue. He only remembers flooding in 1969. At that time the water only came up to the gutter; never into the street. There must have been detailed studies and he requested some inlormation on the real need for the storm drain. It's going to tear up their neighborhood for some time, which he is adverse to. A poster said there would be catch basins to be 5 1 Planning. Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 determined. That tells him this has not been studied entirely. Where are the catch basins going to go? If the storm drains are going to go into Santia\lo Creek, then Santa Ana should be aware 01 the projec!. He didn't see the real need for the storm drains to be put in and for spending money on something that may not be necessary. He objected to the mess the surveyors leave on the curbs and streets with their painting. Mr. Bailey understood Mr. Schwanz' concerns in regard to a storm drain this size going through a residential neighborhood. The justification and study for the storm drain is based on the maximum drainage. That is a comprehensive study that looks at the entire City. There are drainage patterns in the City and the study shows the best and most economical way to direct that water to the major channels that are operated by the County in the City. The Master Plan 01 Drainage indicates a storm drain in this particular location is the most effective even though n is very expensive. The drainage in the City of Orange typically falls quicker to the west than n does to the south. They don't have any County channels to the west, but there is the Santiago Creek immediately to the southeast. If they were to run the channel directly to the Santiago Creek on Walnut, n would be defying gravity because they have not found a way to get water to run uphill. Through a study of detailed surveying and analysis it was found that this is the best and most direc! path that will allow the water to flow out of the area. The paint on the streets used by the surveyors is dissolvable that will eventually go away in about 2 to 6 months. Staff understands there will be significant inconvenience to the residents. They condition their contractors to maintain access to all properties during construction excert lor when they are digging immediately in front of the residential driveways. Staff keeps in touch will al the residents and property owners in projec!s like this. Should there be any inconvenience or problems, residents can call Public Works and staff will respond to their complaints immediately. The ac!ual layout 01 the storm drain and catch basins is available at the Public Works counter and staff will gladly discuss the project with the residents. With regard to the overall flooding issue that is not on Milford: they recognize that sometimes storm drains will go through a portion 01 the neighborhood where flooding is not apparent. That is the purpose 01 the storm drain - to put the water underground and to make sure that it stays there. Staff does not anticipate any catch basins on MilIord because the water isn'tthere. The storm drain Is designed and it is scheduled to be construc!ed alter April 15, 1997.Another resident was also concerned about the potential flooding and storm drain issue, but did not come forward. She appreciated the inlormation and will seek further inlormation from staff.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Pruett pointed out the Commission was not approving or disapproving the project, but to consider and take ac!ion on the negative declaration.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration 1507- 96, as the project will not have an adverse impact on the environmant or wildlife resources. A YES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED It was explained that USA stood for Underground Service Alert and it has nothing to do with taggers. fN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Smith proclaimed this night in honor 01 Bob Bennyhoff's 75th birthday. He was the City's most laithful watchdog lor the citizens 01 Orange, and reminds the Commission of their duty from lime to time. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch. to proclaim this as "Bob Bennyhoff Night" and wish him a very happy birthday and a year of continued good health and prospemy. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, 10 adjourn to a joint studysessionwiththeDesignReviewBoard, scheduled lor 5:00 p.m. Monday, September 16, 1996 In the Weimer Room, to discuss the development review process and issues of mutual concem. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Isld 7 l r