Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange September 16, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, 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 SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to approve the Minutes of September 4, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1851-91 - SHELL OIL COMPANY: A proposed modification to an approved Conditional Use Permit which allowed the establishment of an automotive service station with an automated self-service car wash in the C-1 (Limited Business District) zone. The applicant requests to modify the conditions of approval to allow the installation of an air blower inside the existing car wash structure. The site is located on the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Esplanade Street, addressed 4035 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1351-91 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the September 4, 1991 meeting. At that time the Planning Commission had some technical questions regarding a noise study and continued the hearing to get some answers to their questions. The full reading of the staff report was waived as there was Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 2 Applicant Hiram A. DeFries, 23276 South Pointe Drive, #204, Laguna Hills, represented the dealer at that station. Two weeks ago he stipulated to a continuance in order to discuss the technical aspects of the sound study that was performed. He introduced their sound engineer. Rick Colia, Colia Acoustics, 3300 West Coast Highway, Suite B, Newport Beach, was present to answer technical questions relating to the sound study. Commissioner Master voiced the concern about the frequency of the dryer and the level that is monitored. What was the instrumentation used in determining the frequency spectrum? Mr. Colia responded a weighted spectrum, dba. Is there a particular frequency emitted from the dryer that stands out among others that could be detected? There is not a dominate frequency; there is a range of frequencies that are most prominent and they range from 500 hertz to 2,000 hertz. In that range, the deviation is about 2 to 3 decibels. How does that compare to what the ambient noise is in that area? The ambient noise is traffic noise. The predominant noise level in traffic noise is about 1,000 hertz. That is the middle range of where they are. There is not one pure tone that would be predominant. Commissioner's Master concern is that there be a post test for the installation to verify or substantiate there is no added or noted noise above the ambient. What if the ambient should be lowered for whatever reason? Chairman Bosch was concerned about a better definition of continuous equivalent sound level. His concern is to see that they're not providing a noise generating source, which although below the ambient continuous sound level, may in fact, raise the amount of time in any hour or any period during the operating hours when at that peak. It may have a higher constant that could have a negative impact on the neighbors if the shielding doesn't work effectively. Mr. Colia said they used the equivalent sound level; it's the average noise level over a specified time. When they did the measurements of the car wash, they took the average LAQ over the time of the duration of the car wash run (about one and half minutes) . So the noise level was measured at that time. The Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 3 ambient noise level was also measured in LAQ so they could have the same ratings. Noise does fluctuate over time as does the amount of traffic. Commissioner Murphy questioned the measurements on the car wash itself with the blower, or did that include the entire sequence? Mr. Colia responded the noise levels specified in the report were just of the blower. That sequence is only for that time period. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master suggested adding another condition to have a post test after installation and a repeat of that post test six months thereafter. This would provide proof of evaluation or proof of concept, and would verify the adequacy of the mitigation measure. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to accept Negative Declaration 1351-91 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, finding that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1851-91 subject to the staff report condition 1 with the addition of condition 2 that there shall be a required post test of acoustical performance of the blower after installation and a second test six months after installation to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures in conformance with the blower noise emissions to the City ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff pointed out all other conditions existing on this project -- Conditional Use Permit 1208, Conditional Use Permit 1794 and Variance 1873 -- will still apply to the project. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1918-91 - FAYE LILLAND: A request to allow an accessory second dwelling unit in the R-1-6 Single Family Residential - Minimum Lot Size 6,000 square feet) district. Subject property is located on the west side of Cambridge Street between Adams and Collins Avenues, addressed 990 Old Orchard Lane, a private road. Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 4 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. One letter was received in opposition signed by residents of 936, 958 and 980 Old Orchard Lane. There was opposition expressed from the audience so the full staff report was presented. The property is located off of Old Orchard Lane, which is a private street located west of Cambridge. Old Orchard intersects and runs perpendicular to Cambridge for approximately 150 feet and makes a 90 degree bend to the south and runs parallel to Cambridge for several hundred feet. Six single family lots are located on Old Orchard. The application's request by the property owner is to construct an accessory second living unit on the property. This type of use and construction is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and City Council. The property is approximately 1/3 acre, which is twice the minimum lot size permitted in this zone. The property contains a single family residence and a detached garage. The proposal is to specifically construct a one bedroom, 625 square foot living unit above an existing garage with a storage room. An outdoor stairway and deck would provide access to that unit. The secondary living unit has been designed so that windows will be located on only two sides and those sides which face the yard area and the existing house on the property. Windows do not face outward to adjacent properties. Two additional parking spaces will also be provided on the property. The development does comply with all the applicable zoning requirements. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Dana Lilland, 13885 Browning Avenue, Tustin, was not aware of the public hearing until three hours ago. He represented his mother, who lives on the subject property. His father built the existing house 26 years ago. He passed away two years ago and his mother has remained in her home. The family felt it was a little too much to maintain so they decided to build an apartment over the garage for the mother to live in. The son and his family would buy the house and move into it. The two families would live on the same property. He tried to design the structure to where it would be the least intrusive to their neighbors. The overall height of the structure is approximately 23 feet, which is about two feet higher than the main house. It also sits over 100 feet back from the front of the street. As far as the impact on the Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 5 neighborhood, they tried to talk to as many of the neighbors as possible. They knew there would be some objection, but the letter in opposition to their project is a surprise. There won't be any additional traffic other than what has been there for the 26 year history of the existing family. He has noticed other units within a three or four block distance that are similar to his proposed "granny flat". Those speaking in opposition Dale Websey, 975 Harwood, precedent. He objects overlook his back yard. approximately 30 feet frog Lillands will be living windows. He feels the back yard. thought this project would be setting a to this because the new unit would If he looks over his fence, he's n his garage. No one knows how long the there and the next owners could put in new addition will be unsightly from his Marjorie Corso, 997 North Harwood, heard about this project when notified by the City. The applicants have not talked to them. The new addition will also be in their backyard and she's opposed to it. She did not mind if the Lillands built a one story unit. RPhu ttal Mr. Lilland plans on living in the house for a long time, but he understands that's not a guarantee. In response to the windows, a building permit would need to be pulled, triggering a review of the conditions. He apologized for not speaking to the neighbors directly in back of them. Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Lilland if he had a chance to review the staff report and the recommended conditions? Mr. Lilland did not receive a copy of the staff report. He was given a copy and reviewed it briefly. Regarding condition 1, paving the north driveway, he prefers not to do that because the drainage of the site. When the street was originally cut, everything drained from the east to west. A lot of water has a tendency to sit on the side so that it allows percolation into the ground. But if it is required, he will do it and put in drains or whatever is needed to accommodate that. Chairman Bosch believes the driveway standard is the policy of the City because required parking is being provided and part of that must be paved. Chairman Bosch wondered if a single story unit was considered for the site, not only to improve access to the unit, but reduce the height and potential impact on the neighbors? Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 6 Mr. Lilland tried to consider this project from all angles and they did consider a single story dwelling. The family couldn't agree on a plan that would fit the property and house itself without taking up the entire back yard. He also has future plans to build a pool in the back yard. In one corner of the yard there is a 60 year old orange tree which they do not want to destroy. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart suggested amending condition 3 if they were to approve the project, restricting the windows -- that they not be allowed on the south and west sides of the unit. This would be part of the deed restriction. Chairman Bosch was concerned about the two story vs. having a way to do a single story for the same thing. The existing neighborhood includes only single story homes, at least in terms of the visual aspects. He feels the project is admirable, but wished there was a single story way to do it. Commissioner Master also had reservations about the two story unit. Commissioner Cathcart said it was a shame they're not able to work together to achieve a common goal; it would be nice if this were a one story project, but he also understands the family's desire to save open space and landscape area. Commissioner Scott said if this was the expansion of the single family residence, it would comply with the zoning laws. The proposed addition over the garage was below 30 feet. Preservation of the landscaped area and open space is very important. He complimented the Lilland's for an attractive home. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1918-91 subject to the conditions as listed, amending Condition 3 that no future windows be allowed on the south and west sides. AYES: Commissioners Murphy, Scott NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master MOTION FAILED Chairman Bosch felt other alternatives were available. Certain compromises and sacrifices have to be made in order to preserve aspects of a living environment and lifestyle. He hopes for a single story solution. Commissioner Master asked the applicant if he were willing to reconsider an alternative solution? Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 7 Mr. Lilland prefers to build a second story on his existing residence without going through a hearing process. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to deny without prejudice Conditional Use Permit 1918-91. MOTION RESCINDED Commissioner Murphy thought the applicant was unfamiliar with the process. He suggested explaining the alternative scenario. If the applicant desired to work with the Commission to seek a continuance to give time to seek alternative solutions and bring it back to the Commission for consideration in hopes it would meet everyone's requirements. The applicant agreed to a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1918-91 to November 4, 1991 to allow the applicant to come back with an alternative plan. Communication with the neighbors might also be in the applicant's best interests. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1799-89 - HAMBARIAN PROPERTIES: A request for modifications to the site plan and conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 1799-89, with regard to the Orange Disposal Recycling Facility. Subject property is located on the northwest corner of Grove Avenue and Glassell Street, addressed 2050 North Glassell Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1324-89 has been previously accepted for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Mark Matais, J.R. Miller & Associates, 3020 Saturn, Suite 100, Brea, responded to staff's comments in the staff report; specifically, item 11, where there is concern about the 20 foot setback off of Glassell. This facility will be run by Orange Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 8 Disposal. Hours of operation will be set by Orange Disposal. They are committed to running a safe facility and they will ensure the gates along Glassell will be opened or trucks to stay in that area so they are not exceeding out into the street. They will post hours for the public. The only people arriving early at the facility will be their own trucks and they will be on site to open the gates (5:30 a.m.). They feel the reduced setback for the gate is not a concern. Commissioner Cathcart asked what kind of trucks the employees have? Mr. Matais responded the facility manager will be the first one on the site to open up. Employees will enter the site off of Grove and will be in standard pick up trucks. There will not be large trucks coming to the site until 8:30 a.m. Commissioner Scott asked if the applicant has had an opportunity to read the staff's evaluation of the project? (Yes. ) He asked about the final landscaping plan that should be submitted to D.R.B. prior to issuance of a building permit? To his knowledge, the applicant has not submitted that landscaping plan. Mr. Matais stated that was correct. There was another consultant involved originally. They have been hired since then to take over the design of this building. Since the September 5 date, the plans have been submitted to D.R.B. They were submitted Thursday for their review (building elevations and landscape design) . Commissioner Scott thought there was some conflict between a 6 foot and 8 foot wall. Do the plans call for an 8 foot wall? Mr. Matais responded all screening along Grove, Glassell and the west property line will be 8 foot high concrete block wall. Commissioner Cathcart said Condition 31 should be modified to conform with the 8 foot wall. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch noted Condition 25 refers to "should" twice and needs to be changed to "shall". Condition 1 calls for project developed as per the plans dated August 9, 1991 and approved by the Planning Commission. He pointed out recommended Condition 14, which by its asterisk relates to a mitigation measure carried over from the original 16 mitigation measures in the Conditional Use Permit approved with the original project, actually calls for the 40 foot throated distance. Apparently it was a mitigation measure of the E.I.R. (Correct.) What would be the impact if we tried to change that given it's a mitigation measure of the E.I.R.? Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 9 Ms. Wolff explained the negative declaration is not only the prepared text, but also the discussion at the public hearing and any other new information that is provided. If the Commission wishes to change that, that can be done in the hearing by making findings that eliminating that would not have a significant impact on the environment, and stating a reason for that. Mr. Herrick said it should also be noted that the item was noticed for this hearing with reference to the environmental documentation so that due process is taken care of, if in fact there is an amendment. Commissioner Cathcart personally wanted to see the throat diminished to 20 feet. The only reason was that he wanted all trash and obnoxiousness enclosed by their fence and not left on a 40 foot throat. If you give someone 40 feet to park, someone will park there. He would like to minimize the amount of concrete exposed to Glassell. Chairman Bosch interjected the plans call for a steel picket fence. Even when the gate is closed on weekends, the view will still be exposed. On the other hand, the throat might by having a return wall for the throat, reduce the visual impact on the street. Commissioner Scott visited Anaheim Disposal and with a 20 foot throat, it would only allow two cars in tandem. He questioned whether a 20 foot throat would be deep enough? More people are going to participate and become involved in this program. Commissioner Murphy echoed the issues raised by Commissioner Cathcart with the thought that hopefully the design and circulation can handle the appropriate amount of recycling or toxic removal based on the number of public parking spaces. He feels reasonably confident that they don't need the types of setbacks and it's better to keep it on the inside rather than the outside from a gating standpoint. Chairman Bosch wrapped up the discussion, noting the Commission may want to mention the negative declaration, particularly if there is any intent to change a condition that was a mitigation measure to it; to make a finding that in fact that the testimony and discussion would indicate that the mitigation measure is no longer necessary. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to modify the findings of the Environmental Review Board regarding Negative Declaration 1324-89 that the finding on Page 10, #$ -- stipulation to provide a minimum 40 foot throated Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1991 - Page 10 distance between the proposed gates and required right-of-way line at the main entry on Glassell Street be deemed unnecessary due to the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, MMOTION CARRIED NOES: None Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve modifications to Conditional Use Permit 1799-89 with the stipulation that Condition 14 on Page 9 be amended to a 20 foot throat; Condition 25 be changed to read "shall" in lieu of should"; and Condition 31 be modified to reflect an 8 foot height. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, MMOTION CARRIED NOES: None Commissioner Master asked if there were a State review or Health Department review of the site? Mr. Carnes responded that the County Sanitation Department and State Waste Management both review the site annually. The facility must obtain a permit through both of those agencies in order to be in operation. IN RE:OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Scott commented he has submitted his recommended suggestions to changes regarding the Landscape Ordinance to Commissioner Cathcart. He suggested the others submit their comments as well prior to the study session. IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a joint study session September 26, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the Zoning Ordinance. It was noted for the record a study session will be held Monday, September 23, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. to review the Landscape Ordinance and the Growth Management E1 eme nt, which wa s r ecently added. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott MOTION CARRIED NOES: None The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. sld