Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-1999 PC MinutesU?SS/6 o. -,L-./ ~ --'....' MINUTES Plcmning Commission Cit ~ of Orange September 20, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m,PRESENT:ABSENT:STAFF PF: ESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith Commissioners Pruett, Romero j f"'f E- S r:"l ~~Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary Y}~~:";:f ~ 1,, 1 J -IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of September 8, 1999 Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Minutl3s of September 8, 1999.AYES: NOES:ABSTAINED:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith None Commissioner Carlton Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2297-99 - SAEED SAMMY MEDAL! (INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES)A request to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of an existing restaurant. The site is located at 707 North Tustin Street. (This item was continued from the August 16,1999 meeting.)NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition to this project. The full presentation of the staff report was waived, and the pLblic hearing was opened.M31issa Hernandez, represented Saeed Sammy Medali, 707 North Tustin Street. Staff made several field inspections relative to the alleged parking problems; however, they did not find parking to be a problElm by th'9 employees or customers of the restaurant. All of the employees park in IHOP's parking lot.The public hearing was closed.Although Commissioner Carlton was absent from the previous hearing, she has read all of the material and is in a position to vote on this item.Commissioner Smith stated this is an application for beer and wine supplemental to the existing menu. It appears to her that the parking lot is meeting the needs of the business, and it is under parked during the day time hours. The staff reports says the majority of the cars that were parked on Mayfair belong to the 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1999 residents who live in the neighborhood. IHOP is changing its image and is hoping to be more of an alii- day restaurant. She did not have a problem with approving the conditional use permit.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Pel"mit 2297-99 with conditions 1 through 13 as listed in staff's memorandum dated September 7, 1999,finding that the proposed use will not bring deterioration to the neighborhood; that it is based on sound principles of land use; it is not creating special problems; and the permit is granted to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTIONCARRIEDNEWHEARING IN RE:3. VARIANCE 2070-99 - CHRIS AND NICOLE MICHAELIS A proposal to allow the removal of an existing one-car garage and the construction of a 1 1/ 2 story, two-car garage, with a 408 sq. ft. studio apartment. The applicant requests a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from the required 10 feet to 5 feet to protect an 80 year old avocado tree in the back yard area. The site is located at 288 North Center Street and is in the Orange Old Towne Historic District.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1611-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Mr Jones stated the Commission received two letters: one dated September 8 from Tom and Terry Matuzak, who were opposed to the project, and another letter dated September 14 from Lorna Greenhill and Mark Benkendorf at 280 North Center Street, the property immediately south of the project.Commissioner Smith noted this property is the only one on the block that is zoned R-3.Mr Jones said that was correct. On both sides of Palm Avenue for a couple of blocks, the end propmties are, zoned R-3.Commissioner Smith asked how many units could be built on that site if the original dwelling was demolished?Mr. Jones responded it would be 2+ units, which would be rounded down to 2 units since they don't qualify for three.Th'3 public hearing was opened.6Q.plicants Chris and Nicole Michaelis, 288 North Center Street, are seeking permission to build a new structure, which would enhance the neighborhood and also comply with the historic standards of Old Towne. The existing garage is in disrepair and needs to be removed, The new proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and will tie in with the existing structure at the front of the property. They plan to use the second story unit for storage, and perhaps in the future, use it as living space for their children or,as a rental unit. The Design Review Committee gave their project a favorable recommendation. He explained the existing structure has a 16 foot setback. They have been told they must move it back four more feet to comply with the setback requirements. They are asking Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1999 st'ucture further to the west (rear lot). They do not plan to rent the second story unit now, but if thElY do, they want their plans approved so that they can move forward with them at some point in the future. The garage doors, as depicted in the renderings, appear to be the roll up metal doors. But they intend to use sliding doors or wood doors, to keep it within the historical context of Old Towne. Chairman Bosch said the garage doors look like sliding bi-pass doors. He also wants to see somElthing other than the metal roll-up doors. He was struck by the owners' proposal to preserve the existing historic avocado tree, It appears they could place the building on the lot without requesting the variance for the sE,tback from the west property line, but to do so, would destroy the tree. One of the key elements is gEttting the open space to be maximized, but in this case there is a historical artifact which is very important to the neighborhood. The second part of his concern, is relative to the size of the accessory unit. The square footage is less than the minimum. He wanted to know if that was for both the entry portion on the ground floor plus the second level, or whether those had been added together, The smaller bathroom downstairs would not be part of the unit, but the entry, entry closet and stairway would be part of the square footage of the unit. He thought maybe they were within the parameters for the square footage and if that is the case, a variance would not be required for the area.MI". Jones said the analysis in the staff report indicates that the apartment's entrance and storage ar, ea on thl3 first floor is approximately 75 square feet, and that there is 368 square feet with the bath, kitchen and living area on the second floor. The 443 square foot is a combination of the downstairs and upstairs.Mr. Michaelis said they designed the structure to minimize the impact of it. They are asking for the variance to go further back on the property for their own personal needs, but they tried to design the addition in such a way to minimize the impact of height, which is impacting the square footage. They like the old avocado tree and it also softens the effect of the garage.Chairman Bosch did not have difficulty with the finding that there is a hardship relative to the avocado tree because it is an integral part of maintaining the historic streetscape along Palm Avenue. Also, the structure on the other side of the property line, although it is pre-existing, doesn't conform and that provides a hardship as well in terms of the beneficial use of that part of their lot. He is having trouble finding justification for the finding on the square footage of the unit being less, other than by choice, than that required by code. He appreciates the well designed building, It keeps the scale down, keeps the ridge line down and does all those things necessary to help tie in to the design of the front, but still that doesn't necessarily state that the applicants couldn't do that with a slightly larger building. The ordinance requirement is in the way, which the Commission legally must make a finding for the variance.Commissioner Smith proposed one finding that by keeping the structure to a smaller size is that it keeps thH property in scale to the front building, which makes it compatible with the rhythm and flow of the property itself. In looking at the proposal from the front, she wondered if it shouldn't have some kind of porch treatment at the front door. If this were added, would it count into the square footage?Mr. Jones replied no, The exterior space does not count in the square footage.Public Comments:Lorna Greenhill, 280 North Center, spoke in favor of the project. She is delighted the building is not as large as it could be. The project is designed nicely and it's not too massive.Frank Ambers, 264 North Center, said it makes sense for the proposed addition to be smaller. It sets a good precedent for other projects in Old Towne and it is a good example for the community.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if there were different setback regulations. It looks like the setback from the north edge of the sidewalk to the garage is about Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1999 Mr. Jones explained the setback for the structure is 20 feet from the property line to accommodate a 10 foot landscaped setback and a parking space that needs to be provided on the site, which must sit within that 10 foot landscaped area. There needs to be a 10x20 parking space when a second unit is creatEld on thEl property. The protection of the tree drives both variances because as long as they are encroaGhing into the rear side yard, even by making the structure larger, they will be extending into the rear yard area for a larger area. Commissioner Smith thought this kind of project should have a variance. It has a smaller original structure at the front, and the applicant is trying to keep the second unit in scale with the existing house. ThElre is thEl potential of demolishing the existing structure, as well as the dilapidated garage, and building a brand new, much bigger unit. This particular applicant is to be congratulated for building across the street from a lar'~e University. The applicants are willing to build with wood siding, wood windows and garage doors to mElet the Old Towne architectural features, and to preserve the old tree. She sees the 2 story garage, 1 -1/2 feet off the property line, which has been there for at least 30 years, as a hardship. She thought thElY could condition the project so that there would be no occupancy of the storage area until the parking space is added. Chairman Bosch said the tree is very significant and relaxation of the westerly setback because of the! tree and also because the immediate neighbor has a privilege with virtually no setback whatsoever to a full 2- story living unit over a garage on the adjacent property. There is a significantly greater percentage of open space on this lot with much less driveway involved than there would be if this were a mid-bloclk lot.Because of the impacts of the structure on the lot immediately adjacent, and because of the net3d to mitigate impacts and preserve the existing tree, the Commission could justify the findings for the variances. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration 1611-99 and finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact 011 the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Variance 2070-99 with conditions 1 through 6, modifying condition 3: "The design of the replacement structure garage/apartment) materials, colors and finishes be compatible with the existing Bungalow. Wood windows, doors and wood garage doors shall be utilized. And that overhead garage doors shall not be allowed." Add condition 7, "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval from the Design Review Committee of a landscape plan for the proposed total development of thE! project as presented." Add condition 8, "This approval shall allow development of the new garagE! and 1 1 /2 story space for utilization of storage without implementation of the additional outside parking space;however, prior to any completion or conversion of the second level space to an accessory second unit,the remainder of the DRC approved landscape plan, including outside parking space, must be implemented concurrently with the build out and prior to occupancy of the accessory un it." The Commission finds that because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,shape, topography, location and surroundings, that the presence of a historic 80+ year old avocado tree in the center of the developable area of the site restricts available area for replacement construction of a garage without damaging the avocado tree and that the landscape resources of significant valueto the mc.intenance of the historical context of the neighborhood, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and other identical zone classification. The variance is subject to conditions which will assure that the authOl'ized adjustment, in this case, looking at both the reduction in both findings, the reduction of Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1999 setback due to the avocado tree and also due to the presence on the west property line of a 2..story dwelling unit over a garage immediately within the normal setback area, which deprives the subject property a full and beneficial utilization of the property. The conditions assure that the adjustments shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject project is located. AVES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 4. REVIEW OF ZONING CRITERIA TO ADDRESS OVERSIZE GARAGES IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES The City Council has asked that the Planning Commission study building mass and volume criteria in single family residential zones as it relates to oversize garages. Mr. Jones stated the City Council had asked that the Planning Commission study building mass and volume criteria in single family residential zones. This issue was raised because of the recent construction of an oversized garage and large garage door to accommodate a truck and trailer in a single family neighborhood. Staff has reviewed the general issue of building mass in the R-1 zones. Floor area ratios were established in 1995 as part of the zoning code update to attempt to adequately control bulk and mass issues. To a large extent, the City does not see many projects with that as an issue, Staff also discussed with a few other cities in the County how they attempt to address these kind of issues in single family zones. Ilrvine developed as a planned community. Their CC&R's do not allow anything greater than the standard garages. Santa Ana and Anaheim have dealt with these issues somewhat differently over the years and have specific language in their ordinances to address them.Staff recommends using the Minor Site Plan Review to look at the projects proposing the oversize garages and large garage doors, above the standard 7 foot height. The Commission may want to look at changing the height of the garage doors to 8 feet, because they are also somewhat typical and would not have an adverse impact. Mr. Jones thought maybe only one or two proposals for the oversized garages come through a year.Chairman Bosch thought this review should apply to the R-2 zones as well; not just the R- 1 zones. He dicn't mind setting the height a little higher because the size of the vehicles over the years has changed.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch and seconded by Commissioner Smith, to direct staff to prepam the neGessary ordinance amendment, with clarification that it would apply to all residential zones and to structures with a door height of over 8 feet, and set a public hearing, AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1999 IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a joint study session with the City Council on Wednesday, September 29, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the East Orange General Plan, The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Smith None Commissioners Pruett, Romero MOTION CARRIED Isld 6