HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-1997 PC MinutesJ .)' L-."~ "f \1 . r:,. ..~ .?\LA.-,,/ 'j! -..J MINUTESPlanning
Commission
City
of Orange
PRESENT:ABSENT:STAFF
PRESENT:
IN
RE:
October
6, 1997
Monday - 7:00
p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero,
Smith Commissioner Pruett John Godlewski,
Senior Planner
Ted Reynolds, Assistant City
Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City
Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
Lo ....,~CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL
OF
MINUTES FOR
THE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 3 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 1~~rr1J 1..:,lJ -Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by
Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of September 3, 1997 as written.AYES:
NOES:ABSTAINED:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Romero,
Smith
None
Commissioner
Carlton Commissioner Pruett MOTION
CARRIED
Moved by
Commissioner Smith, seconded by
Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of September 15, 1997 as written.AYES:
NOES:ABSTAINED:ABSENT:IN RE:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton,
Smith
None Commissioner
Romero Commissioner Pruett MOTION
CARRIED
NEW HEARINGS
2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1534-
97 - CITY
OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CalTrans will be widening State College
Blvd., (north of Chapman) and Chapman Avenue (east of The City Drive) as part of the
1-5 Freeway improvements. By agreement the City of Orange is required to widen the remaining approach legs
of the intersection. The project will require right-of-way acquisition on both sides of
both streets to facilitate additional travel and right-turn lanes. Construction will include new street pavement
sections, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, traffic signal modification, retaining walls and
miscellaneous landscaping.There was
no opposition to this item and the presentation of the full staff report was waived. Mr.Hohnbaum explained
this is one of two projects in the area. The first one is the critical intersection, which will make
those improvements to add six lanes through and the City is doing this in conjunction with CalTrans. The
second project is southerly down to the 22 Freeway -- a six fane widening -- and that project will fall closely
after the first The public hearing was
opened and closed. There were no public comments.Moved by Commissioner Smith,
seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1534-97.AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett
MOTION
CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2179-97 - SANTIAGO HILLS AUTO CENTER
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of an auto
service facility. The proposed facility would be built in conjunction with a car wash, mini-market, and
gas pumps. The site is located on the Southwest Corner of Chapman Avenue and Jamboree
Road.NOTE:The project's environmental impacts have been addressed by Environmental Impact
Report 868, which has been certified by the City Council in conjunction with the approval of
the Upper Peters Canyon Specific
Plan.There was no opposition; therefore, the full presentation of the staff regort was waived. Mr.
Godlewski said a letter was submitted to the Commission from the Engineering epartment, considering
access from Jamboree and
Chapman.The public hearing was
opened.
Aoolicant John Dilauro. Proiect Architect. 3347 Michelson #490. Irvine. represented the applicant. Under a
prior conditional use permit, the site has been approved for a gas station with a convenience store and
full service car wash. They would like to also add a lube and tune facility. He explained their
proposed facility and asked for favorable
consideration.Commissioner Smith asked the applicant to address the types of sounds that would be coming from
the lube and tune building. Is there any provision for sound attenuation in the walls of the
building?Mr. Dilauro said the machinery they would be using would be impact tools for tire rotations and they
will be doing very minor auto repairs. The walls will be insulated per the energy calculations and all work
will be done within the building. Landscaping will be planted in front of the building to absorb some of
the noise and there is already extensive planting on the site. They have read the staff report and
conditions of
approval.Commissioner Romero asked if the car wash would be hand wash or machine wash? Is the main intent
of the project a car wash or lube and
tube?Mr. Dilauro replied it was a combination of hand wash and the car moves through a track of spray jets
for water, rinse and wax, and it is hand dried. The main intent of the project is the gas station, with
the ancillary functions such as the car wash and lube and tube, as added incentives for the
customer.Chairman Bosch addressed the MWD pipeline that runs along the western edge of Jamboree
Road.There is a 20 foot dimension shown with an unidentified dash line in the landscape area. He wanted
to know if that were the setback to the retaining wall? Were they aware of a lack of surcharge
capability under that pipeline so that in designing their retaining wall on the site plan it avoids the
engineering problems associated with the pipeline? Have they received the City Traffic Engineer's letter
regarding u-turns on Jamboree Road? U-turns could not be allowed because of the traffic
movement on Jamboree Road and the
restrictions to that.Mr. Dilauro said they were out of the setback in that respect. They were willing to
cooperate with all approving bodies for this project. He was unaware of the letter from
the Traffic
Engineer.Public comments Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Oranoe Park Acres. endorsed this project. This was
part of the original master plan for the shopping center and they have been waiting several years for
this full service gas station and car wash. They were, however, opposed to u-
turns on Jamboree Road.The
public
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
Commissioner Carlton agreed this project was needed and the renderings are great. It fits in well with
the architecture.
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use
Permit 2179-97 with conditions
1-
4.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2189-97 -
ROMANELLA RESTAURANT A proposal to allow the sale and service of beer and wine in a new restaurant to be constructedaspartoftheCenturyTheaterentertainmentcomplex. The subject site is addressed 1623 West
Katella Avenue,
Suite #208.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Mitigated Negative Declaration 1501-96 previously addressed the environmental effects
related to a comprehensive
site development plan.There was no opposition to this item and the public
hearing
was opened.Aoolicant Harshad Desai. Vice President of Pizza EXDress California. 440 South Coast
Hichwav. Lacuna Beach.said this was a family restaurant. which serves wine and beer. They have two other
restaurants in Laguna Beach and Newport Beach. They agree to cease serving alcohol one
hour before closing.The public
hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith said it appears there is uniformity and continuity with this project atthenewCenturyStadiumPromenadeentertainmentcenter, and she favored moving
ahead with this.Chairman Bosch pointed out the ABC has specific criteria that staff is continuing to
explore with them relative to the patio type of seating and serving of alcoholic beverages outsidethebuilding. Regardless of that, this proposal has a patio for service that can only be entered from inside the
facility. This assures a higher level of
control for service.It was noted the project is categorically exempt
from CEQA review.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 2189-97, based on the required findings that this project will not compromise
principles of land use and it is a service required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of
bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located. Its effect
in the community or neighborhood is satisfactory and that all conditions which are listed in the staff
report are necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual
welfare,
of
the
applicant.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Romero, Smith None
Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED 5. ZONE CHANGE 1190-97; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2192-97
AND VARIANCE 2035.97 - GARY MEAD (
P.J.'S DEPOT EXPRESS)A proposal to amend the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan by changing "
Table 2, Permitted Uses" to allow commercial retail sales as an accessory function to a principal use within :
m enclosed building in areas designated as Public Facilities, only by Conditional Use Permit. In the alternative, the Planning Commission or City Council may determine that a portion of the Land Use
Map
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
Public Facilities. classification to "Santa Fe Depot Area Commercial". the property is situated on thewestsideofCypressStreet, adjacent to Atchison Street and Maple Avenue (addressed 190 NorthCypress).
NOTE:Negative Declaration 1529-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
of this
project.There was no opposition to this item and the presentation of the full staff report was
waived.The public hearing was
opened
Aoolicant Garv Mead owns the build in a on the corner of CVDress and MaDre Streets. He has owned thebuildingforaboutayearandhasconcludedtherearehundredsofpeopleadaywhoridethebusandtrainandtherearenofacilitiesforanyconvenienceitems. They request to make 500 square feet at the backoftheirindustrialbuildingtosellbakedgoods, convenience items and coffee to these people. Thebuildingislocatedadjacenttothebusterminalandnexttothe
depot.Commissioner Smith noticed there were two loading docks on the side of the building. Are bothdockstobefilled
in?Mr. Mead replied there is only one loading dock There is an open door at the other end of thebuilding,which they bring in and out their supplies for the packaging business. The loading dock that has therampisnon-usable because it is 20 feet long They cannot go out into the street because the busesmakeau-turn right there. They were going to cover over the loading dock and use that as theentrancetothestore. To the left of the door there is a handicap parking stall and cross walk where peoplecanwalk
back and forth.Commissioner Smith wanted to know if other people would drive
to this location?Mr. Mead said there was no signage, access or cars that come down there except peoplewhoridethetrainandvisitthebrewery. The other people sit across the street to ride the buses. Itwouldnotbeconduciveforpeopletodrivetothissmallconveniencestorewhenotherstoresaremuch
croser to them Commissioner Carlton asked about the
hours of operation.Mr. Mead planned to be open at approximately 5:00 a.m. and close in the evening at about6:00. The hours are directed to the arrival and departure times of the trains. They do not plan to beopenontheweekends
or at night.Commissioner Romero liked the idea of this convenience store. He asked if tablesorseatingareasweregoing
to be provided?Mr. Mead said they have two other locations in Orange. This convenience storeisdirectedtowardsmobilepeople. There is nothing at all within that four or five block area for anyone togetanything. They have directed their marketing plan to service the "to go. customer and they are notinterestedinpeoplesitting
and staying awhile.The public
hearing was closed Chairman Bosch said the staff report includes several potential options relative toazonechange,modifying the land use vs. adjustments to the Depot Specific Plan. He asked if staff couldgobackoverthoseoptionstoclarify
them for discussion.Mr. Godlewski stated there were two basic plans to facilitate the request. Rrst, there wouldbeazonechangetoamendthemapthatdesignatestheareacurrentlyasaPublicFacility. A more appropriate designation would be that of Depot Commercial. The zone change ogtion then would betoamendthemaptoshowtheareaasDepotCommercial. If it were amended to epotCommercial, no conditional use permit would be required. It would be an allowed use; however, the questionofparkingandavailableparkingwouldstillremainandtheCommissionwouldneedtomakeadetermination
as
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
findings for a variance to allow the use to take place, even though there is not sufficient parking on site to
support it. The other possibility would be to amend the text instead of the map. By amending the text,
there is a section where a CUP requirement could be added for retail uses in any of the designations in
the Specific Plan area. That also would be considered a zone change. The applicant would then need to
decide on a conditional use permit to see whether or not the use is appropriate in the zone and that also
would require a variance for parking. At the time the Specific Plan was being discussed, there were
discussions taking place that the property would be acquired by the City. It was assumed the City would
acquire the property and use it for parking for the depot area. Subsequent to the adoption of that map,
the purchase fell through with the City and Mr. Mead was able to purchase the property, However, the
zoning had already been decided. This allows existing uses to continue as non-conforming
uses.Commissioner Smith favored this project. In amending the map, a CUP would not be needed so
that cuts out one administrative step. The findings for a variance for parking are easy to come up with
given the fact the population the store would serve is mostly pedestrian. There is also a large City parking
lot at Lemon and Maple. By changing the map, it would bring this property into likeness with the
other commercial properties in the
area.Chairman Bosch would also like to handle this with a zone change and eliminate the need for a
conditional use permit. It was not appropriate, given the change in what has happened out there to continue
with the Public Facility zone on the property. With regard to the variance, it requires special findings. It
fits within the area and serves a basic need, He saw that as part of the findings for moving in favor of
the variance. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, primarily with regard to its
location and surroundings, where in serving a pedestrian population at a major transit center, the City is trying
to encourage through the very nature of the transit center a reduction in vehicular movements by utilization
of the bus and train, If the zoning ordinance with regard to parking were applied it would deprive
the property of privileges that others in the area might enjoy. This does not constitute a grant of
special privileges because the City has not limited others in the Public Facility zone with regard to this type
of use. By making the zone change to commercial use, the City has a precedent of other properties
within the Old Towne area within a few blocks having parking variances granted because of proximity to
the major public parking
lots Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative
Declaration 1529-97 in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact
on the environment or
wildlife
resources
AYES:
NOES ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Pruett
MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the
City Council to approve Zone Change 1190-97 and Variance 2035.97 with conditions 1.4 on the
Variance, with findings that because of the special circumst ances applicable to this property, specifically
its location or surroundings and in close proximity to public parking and its immediacy to a major transit center
in the City of Orange for rail and bus use, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other commercial properties in the immediate vicinity
who have been granted variances due to their proximity to the pedestrian area and to the public
parking facilities currently existing. This variance is sUb\'ect to the conditions noted and does not constitute or
grant a special privilege inconsistent with the imitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which such
property
is
situated,
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Pruett MOTION CARRIED It was noted the Conditional Use Permit was not required on this application. The
applicant withdrew his application for the CUP subject to the City Council's approval of the
Planning
Commission'
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15546; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2191-97; ZONE CHANGE
1192-97;AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-97 -
HEARTHSTONE DEVELOPMENT A proposal to develop 61 units on 6.51 acres of vacant land south of Taf1 Avenue, between
State Route 55 (Newport Freeway) and Morningside Street. The development proposal
includes two-story residential units, with some units located less than 70 feet from a single-
family residential zone. Approval of this proposal would require that the City of Orange change its General
Plan designations of the property (presently owned by the Edison Company) from OS (Open Space)
and LDR (low Density Residential), to LMDR (low-Medium Density Residential) and OS.
Zoning of the property woul~change from R-1-8 to R-3. The development proposal
includes a request to approve a Planned Unit Development with lots averaging 2,700 square feet. The
site is located East of the 55 (Newport)
Freeway on the South side of Taf1 Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1534-97
has been
prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Commissioner Smith excused herself from
the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full
staff report as there was opposition to this project.The surrounding properties have a general plan designation
of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's request is to redesignate the project
site to allow development of 10 units per acre.Development of this density is not consistent with
R-1 zoning so there is a corresponding zone change request to R-3, Multi-Family
Residential. However, this is not an apartment project. There is a specific
architectural proposal to construct a planned unit development of detached single-family residential structures on individual parcels
that vary in size from 2200 square feet upward. The proposal includes two story residential structures
with primary living areas on the lower levels and bedrooms on the upstairs level. This is not
an affordable housing project. The City is not participating, nor is the developer required to set aside any units
to qualified buyers. Homes will be offered for sale on the open market.The development
plan includes a small park intended for the residents of the community. The development is
organized along a primary access roadway that would intersect Taf1 Avenue, about 300 feet west of
Morningside Street. The developer will build a new concrete block division wall between the new and existing
homes along Morningside Street. In addition to a general plan and zone change request
the procedural requirements being addressed include a request to approve a conditional use permit to allow a
planned unit development, in which adjustments are made to minimum lot sizes or dimensions. Another
issue is that the development is proposed to include two-story units along the edge of a residential zone.
R-3 standards do not allow two-story structures within 70 feet of an R-1
zone unless a conditional use
permit is approved by either
the
Planning Commission or City Council. There are 25 conditions of approval.The public hearing was opened.
Aoolicant Bob Mickelson. P.O. Box 932. Oranqe. introduced the project and the other three speakers. When Edison offered
the property for sale. they began looking at it and were both excited at the location
and dismayed because so much criteria must be taken into consideration -- the freeway, the single family homes, the
arterial highway,
the power lines and the setback from them, and then the shape of the property itself.David
Smith. 1891 South Coast Hiqhwav, is the Architect and Land Planner for the proposed project. He
explained the project's boundaries and presented a slide show. Pictures were shown of a similar planned
unit development in Brea. They have
met with the homeowners and are willing to work with property owners on
the landscaping plans.David Cunninaham, 340 South Rower, is the President of Hearthstone Development Corporation. They
want to create neighborhoods where people want to walk around and be friendly with their neighbors.The site
has specific characteristics which are difficult, there is the freeway and the power lines. They also anticipate vocal opposition and
the only way to overcome tt,at is to create a jewel of a development. It was
also necessary to give attention to the contiguous homeowners on Morningside. They do not want
to invade anyone's privacy. They presented their project to the existing homeowners and explained what
they
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
relative to what they thought were benefits to the development. There were some concerns they could
address: (1) To improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood they could put a berm between the existing
housing development and Taft so that it would tend to isolate the development from the power lines and
also include the general aesthetics of the neighborhood; (2) To create a tree planting scheme, whether it
be on the property of the contiguous homeowners or on their property, to improve and shield those
homeowners from the mass of the houses that will be built; (3) Extend the wal to Taft if that were the
interest of the homeowners; (4) In the event of security lighting in the alley ways, where the garages
would be located, they would shield that lighting so that it was the least obtrusive; (5) They would ensure
there was no drainage from the development onto the existing homeowners; (6) During construction they
would generate a 800 hot line for people who had concerns about construction, noise, dust control, etc.
and they would address those concerns in a timely fashion; (7) The homes are going to be market value
units. They are not subsidized housing, condominiums or apartments; (8) The density they are requesting
is substantially below the upper limit of the R-3 zone. They propose to place a deed restriction
limiting that density on the
property.Mr. Mickelson briefly outlined the findings required to approve this project. Prior to the final reading
of the process to change the zone, they will record a deed restriction. The project utilizes creativity
and imaginative planning and concern for the neighbors. They have reviewed the staff report and
conditions of approval which are acceptable to
them.Commissioner Romero asked if this were a patio home concept they propose to develop? Will
the open space areas be maintained by the
association?Mr. Smith replied yes, that was an accurate description of their project. The property line occurs four
feet off of each wall, but instead of wasting that side yard, the adjacent homeowner gets a
landscaped easement. All the parkways and open space will be maintained by the homeowners'
association.Commissioner Romero wanted to know if there were other similar types of developments besides
Brea and would they be higher or lower in price than this project in
Orange?Mr. Smith said they were currently involved in two more projects -- one in Tustin Ranch and one in Rancho
Santa Margarita. Their firm specializes in these sites. The price range will be very similar.
Commissioner Carlton asked how far out the eaves came? (12-18 inches) The trees abutting the
homes on Morningside, will trees be planted there? Many owners have moved their fences back from
the easement, thus gaining 10 feet on their property line. How will they work with
that?Mr. Smith stated they would like to work with each homeowner individually because they each have
a different existing deSign in their yard. They will put in a new block wall on their property line. When
the wall is built, there is no longer a need for the people's fence on the other side. Landscaping can occur
in two different ways. They will work with the owners in terms of planting trees on their side, between
the building wall and the property line wall. They interface with 11 homes backing up to the
proposed project, but they will interface with all the homeowners along
Morningside.Commissioner Carlton wanted to know if they were going to provide fencing as part of the buyer'
s package? There is only one street into the project and she asked if a second ingress/egress point
would be
provided?Mr. Smith replied yes, the buyer will have an allowance and must decide on their fencing before
finalizing the sale. Emergency access is provided for the Fire Department to gain entry. With this size
of development, a second street access is not a
requirement.Chairman Bosch was concerned about the open space. It is substantially different in size and shape
on the proposed Tentative Tract Map than it is on the architectural site plan, as are several of the
access alley ways to a number of homes at the far south end of the site. He wanted Mr. Smith to describe
the relationship of the two documents as the Tract Map is something the City specifically
adopts.Mr. Smith said there were two problems. When they develop their plans there are three. Those
three plans can then be plotted in locations that need extra help. He has not fine tuned the lots and that's
the reason they look different. They are not proposing a typical cui de sac down at the end of the
street.There will be a hammer head tum around for trash trucks and emergency vehicles. He was not sure
where
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
the exact boundaries were for the open space. They will maximize the open space on the final map.The curvature of the roads can be adjusted to provide more open space than what is shown. IndiscussingtheplanswiththeCityEngineer, he wanted a 300 foot radius.
Chairman Bosch said they should then refer to the Tract Map for the actual configuration rather than thearchitecturalsiteplan. (Yes.) These homes appeal to younger families and Chairman Bosch had acoupleofconcerns. A traditional neighborhood development with a single point of access, although it isonly61units, it's all going past the public open space. The paseo system pours out onto that street anddon't connect. There are also units that don't benefit from the paseo; they're isolated and thus don't haveafrontdoortoapedestrianstreetorpaseo, but have a front door only to the alley way.
Mr. Smith said they marketed primarily to young professionals and couples without children at the Breasite. Midway through the first phase they found that about 25% of the people did have children. Theyrevisedtheiropenspacedesign. He wants people to use the sidewalks and open space along thestreet. The street is the forgotten public space in neighborhood designs. They will design the streets asnarrowastheCitywillallowandhopefullythatwillkeepthespeeddown. The person who buys Lot 61isgoingtowantalotofprivacrandheisgoingtogetit. The orientation of the homes with the paseodidn't come about as a result 0 optimum location of the sidewalk. It came about because they wanted toorienttheunitsawayfromthefreeway. They felt they needed to create a sense of place or identity inorderforpeopletoforgetaboutthefreewayandthepowerlines. The paseos that access the units willnothavewalkbytraffic. The paseos give a sense of privacy.
Chairman Bosch said a majority of the guest parking is on the streets in proximity to the residences. In anumberofcases, the central area around Lots 45 to 39, their vehicular alley to the garages is about 240feetlong. The guest parking or parking for the third car is substantially removed from the residence.How will that be controlled to avoid an overwhelming street with cars? How is trash to be handled in thelongalleys?
Mr. Smith said the trash trucks in Brea would come down the alley and then back out. They would have toworkwiththetrashcompanytomakesureitwillworkatthissite. As far as addressing goes, they have asmallarboratthebeginningofeachpaseoalongwithmailboxes. Each one of the arbors have a streetnameorlanewithnumbersonthemailboxes. Guest parking on the street is natural. Rather thanprovidingparkingareas, it seems to distribute the guest parking. A parking program is implemented andtakencareofbytheAssociation. They want the guest parking to be far enough away that it works for theguests. They do not want the residents using the guest parking spaces; they want them parking in their
garages.
Chairman Bosch moved on to another aspect and thaI was to interface with the adjacent neighborhoodwhichisacriticalconcern. They were asking for a setback to two stories where although the windowtreatmenthasbeenhandledveryeffectivelyanditappearsthelengthofthesecondfloorwallsarereduced. They were also asking for a reduction in the typical setback of two stories from the property lineandthesevenfootsidebackismorethanasideonsetbackoffivefeetforarearyard. That's less thanwhatisbeingtypicallyapproved. He was concerned about the bulk and mass adjacent to theneighboringpropertylines. He understood the ten foot easement is seen as a mitigation measure toincreasetheoriginalrearyardsoftheadjacenthomes.
Mr. Smith replied their setback along that property line is 10 feet. It was seven and staff asked them togototen. When they talk about planting in that 10 foot strip, there are two 10 foot strips. One is thestormdrain. If the neighbors wanted them to come in and plant trees in their yard that would be onething, but they would have a problem with planting trees in the storm drain easement. They do havecontrolofthat10footsetbackbetweenpropertylineandtheirbuildings. and that is the 10 foot theyproposetocomeinandcustomizethelandscaping. The problem with going to 20 feet or more, is thatthesehomesaredesignednottousethatspace; it's a blank wall and it has no access to that side.Privacy is better served by having that landscape element and having all the noise and activity thatpeoplegenerateontheoppositesideofthewall.
Chairman Bosch asked for Mr. Smith to clarify the 10 foot setback on their side of the property line. Theplanssaysevenfeet. Then the floor plan says 8 feet minimum building to building.
8
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
Mr. Smith said the plans need to be corrected. In between buildings there is a property line that runs
four feet down the middle. But on the property line adjacent to the existing dwellings, it's a 10 foot
setback. They will not be losing the 8 feet building to building on the final plans. Lot adjustm~nt~ .will be
made on the final plans. The layout will be the same. Lots 47, 46 and 41 -- those lots are signifIcantly larger
than what is needed to plot anyone of their homes. When they do make the lots adjacent to the homeowners
wider to accommodate that 10 foot setback, all the lots work. Lot C needs to move up slightly
and they have the space to do that. It's a time consuming thing and they usually wait until the tentative
map is done and they have approval.Chairman
Bosch referred to the community recreation space and he wanted to know what was going to happen
there.Mr.
Smith understood it is the City's direction to provide a tot lot. Their marketing study will drive the tot lot
and they are still discussing this matter.Commissioner
Carlton knew from experience that trying to make a left turn onto Santiago at certain times of
the day is very difficult. People making left hand turns out of this project onto Taft would also be difficult.
Has there been talk or consideration of a traffic signal or some other device to help ease the traffic
problems?Mr.
Smith stated that location came about from a meeting with the City Traffic staff. It puts their drive between
existing streets, and splits the difference between Sacramento and Morningside. There will be traffic
difficulties in the morning hours for people turning left. However, there is not enough traffic at this location
to generate a traffic signal.Public
Comments Mike
MurDhv. 1720 Morninaside. was not informed of this project by the developer. but he did receive a public
notice. He objects to the over crowded and apartment-like project.
David Buraoon. 1631 Morninaside, did not believe these houses were for growing families. They are
very small and are on small lots. He felt "step up" communities are a problem. He was concerned for
the safety of the children and the overcrowded schools.
Chairman Bosch stated the Commission received a petition that was circulated by Mr. James Roberts,
Mrs. Betty Roberts, Mr. Sean Atkins and Mrs. Jennifer Atkins. Their opening statement was read into
the record opposing the proposed development.
Robert Eckstein. 1656 Morninaside. does not need trees across his back yard. He likes air blowing
through his house. He does not want people looking down into his back yard.
Pat McCrorv, 2415 East Taft. bought their home because it was zoned R-1. The master plan for
the surrounding area was also zoned R.1. He felt R.3 zoning was wrong and he was very much against
high density houses at this location. The block wall is unstable; the land next to the block wall is
unstabre.There will be traffic congestion on Taft, Fern, Brookside, Sacramento and other streets. It's going to
have a negative impact on their
schools.Bruce Winsborouah. 2106 Parkside Avenue, said he was concerned about the drainage. The project
will tie into the existing infrastructure. He wanted to know if the infrastructure was going to be upgraded
and improved. There is a chance for flooding. He was also concerned about the density of the project as
it relates to traffic, ingress/egress concerns because of only one access, and sound attenuation
issues.Jeff Roemer. 1954 North Warbler Place. is a fairly new resident and opposes this project. This is a
high density development and it is not in keeping with the single family residential neighborhoods and
does not fit in with the existing community. It will have a negative impact to the existing area in a very
short
time.Lori Ferreri. 1752 North Fireside, likes some of the things in the project, but is opposed to the
rezoning of the property from R.1 to R.
3.
Planning Commission Minutes October 6. 1997
Sharon Larson. 1644 North Morninaside. thought the developer has done a great deal to negate the
negative things in the proposed development; however. she objected to the change in zoning. The east
side of the freeway is desIgnated as R-1 and it should not be changed. The higher density zoning on
the west side of the freeway have deteriorated. She asked how much open space is designated for
the project and where it is located. She opposed the second story homes being built on the edge
of Morningside at the property
line.Vincent Ruzzano. 1763 North Warbler Place. said they keep hearing about the Ash Street site and
he thought the comparison was like apples and oranges. The Orange site is bounded by freeway.
power lines and residential homes. The Ash Street site is very open. Traffic. parking and the schools are
his major
concems.Alex Ciavola. 2440 East Hillside, stated this was a hot area of Orange and air cannot circulate during
the summer. There was no view, no breeze, limited parking, no place for kids to play and poor
drainage.He believed there would also be a quick turn over in ownership. He would like to see the orange
groves at this site
again.James Roberts. 1752 North Morningside, opposed the change in zoning. The proposed housing will
be less than 10 feet from the flood control, which is a six foot drain pipe at the depth of 17 feet behind
his home. It was dug in virgin soil. With all the rains, there has been a lot of earth movement in their
yard and he has had some structural damage to his house. The land has shifted and the house is moving.
The nursery came in and removed the top soil to level the ground. This may cause more damage.
People are going to have to look at a two-story wall from their back yards and he is opposed to that.
All the trees they are planting will not camouflage that two story building. If this project is
approved, he suggested eliminating the houses that are parallel with Morningside. He didn't believe trees
could be planted in the drainage canal. The new houses will not blend in with the existing houses.
He suggested the developer build single family homes and keep the
zoning R-1-8.Betty Roberts. 1752 North Morninaside, said they bought their home when Orange
was still a small town. She was concerned about the drainage channel and the area will be impacted
by water run off.Art Romandy. 1790 North Warbler Place. had concerns like everyone else and
opposed the project. As the units age and people move, they will turn into rentals. He sees it turning into a
slum area within the next
five to ten years.Laura Rothafel. 2738 East Hillside, was concerned about the turn around of the
property and the density.She likes open space and gardens -- not a bunch of buildings. Putting that many families in
that small of space is
a bad decision.Grant Stephens. 2117 East Parkside Avenue, doesn't have a swimming pool and he doesn'
t want one.But he had one a year ago during the big rains. He was not against progress, but the
zoning should
not be changed.Jennifer Atkins. 1752 North Morninaside, submitted the petition with 377
signatures opposing this project. Their neighborhoods are currently going through a battle with the School Board
to keep their children in the local schools. The schools are over crowded. She can not
understand how the environmental impact report says there is no impact on the schools. She shared some
pictures with the Commission of the Ash Street homes. She believed the new proposed development is
a black sheep.The existing residential homes all blend together; this development
is much different.A. Grewall, 2208 East Coral Avenue, said there is wall-to-wall traffic at Villa
Park High School in the mornings. Traffic on Tustin and Taft is a nightmare. The schools are over crowded.
He wants
to avoid a potential lawsuit.Kirby Baltes, 2341 East Brookside. opposed the project because of
the children's
safety,
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
Rebuttal of aoolicant
Mr. Mickelson thought there were several individual issues raised and some of them were normal fear
issues of a new and different proposal for the neighborhood. There is no way they can develop a tract
without the City Engineer reviewing the drainage system and making sure the capacity is there to ~andle
the drainage. They must also do a soils test and comply with the requirements for water dramage.
Parking is more than adequate, far greater than this type of development proposes. The code allo~s 12
guest parking spaces for this development. They will have 40 to 45 guest parking spaces. The realls~ue
is, "Why can't they develop the same thing the residents have?" That would be very nice and a lot eaSier,
but it's not 35 years ago. When those homes were built, there was no freeway and Taft Avenue was a
country lane. Everything is different today than it was then. The fees are incredibly different from many
years ago. The tract map was submitted to the school and he understands they did not respond. The
developer will have to pay the mitigation fees when the homes are built. If the R-3 zoning is
approved,they will place a deed restriction that goes with the land; not the developer. The deed restriction can
only be changed by mutual consent of the City and land owner. A subsequent developer would have
to petition the City to change that and go through the entire process again with a different plan.
In response to Commissioner Carlton's question, this project is not a joint venture with
Edison.Chairman Bosch's concern was with the amount of open space both for private outdoor living and for
the shared value. The purpose of the planned unit development is to provide amenities which are gr.eat~
r than those and provide a better living environment than those which are available under the zoning
In which it is applied; not just to get greater density. This issue has not been adequately addressed of
how the shared open space benefit is going to help in that regard. Traffic concerns have not been
addressed either, particularly the end tract traffic on the single street and the single access point at Taft
Avenue.Mr. Mickelson said they met with the Traffic Engineering Department to show them the preliminary
plans and discussed what kind of traffic they would generate and if there would be access problems. Based
on that meeting, they selected the location for that intersection because it would avoid the conflict of a
4-way intersection at the west, and also they have the constraints of the existing towers. They ended
up at midpoint, 396 feet west of Morningside and 437 feet east of Sacramento. City staff did not feel
a full traffic analysis was necessary because the addition of 60 units was not enough traffic to be
a concern.Regarding the internal circulation, the street width is 36 feet, curb to curb, which is the same as
a standard subdivision. The travel lanes and parking lane are the same as all the other R-
1 subdivisions. The sidewalks are closer and they don't have
the larger parkway.Mr. Smith said the planned unit development is a vehicle to get them to a better site
plan and product that could otherwise be used in a traditional zoning category. The common open space on the
site is a combination of the paseos and the street edgesthat normally don't exist in today'
s single family developments. Then, the more traditional space which is the small park area. It's
important to include that park way and the paseos. The park area is not a large activity area. They are trying
to create spaces that enhance the entire community. Somebody who buys a house still has the same feeling
of pride of ownership. That
has not changed.Chairman Bosch said there was a lot of concern about the stability of the existing storm
drain, and the relationship to the proposal for trees and planting. What
are the constraints?Mr. Smith didn't know why the gentleman's house was shifting; a lot of Orange County is
clay soil and expansive and that might have something to do with it. They must ~o through a much
more rigid design criteria on the soils investigation. They will have to address the speCifics of that pipe,
the compaction and the safety and drainage issues. They will put provisions in the CC&R's that the party wall
of all units cannot be modified and will not be allowed. Their construction quality is quite high. All
windows will be dual pane glass and that will help as a sound barrier in
the rear yards.Commissioner Romero was concerned about the photos he saw from one
homeowner. He was concerned about the open space
and visual appearance.Mr. Smith described the Brea project as being a larger development, with a pool, spa
and small park area. The design was retrofitted half way through construction to include a tot lot. The
grass area is approximately 1/2
acre
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
Commissioner Carlton appreciated the time and thought that has gone into this project. She asked what
other composition or plans had they studied on this particular site? Did they look at some with 3500
square foot lots or 5000 square foot lots? What is the largest site plan lot that had been studied?
Mr. Smith replied they had four different site studies. They were not looking specifically at density.
When they did their preliminary site. they looked at edge conditions and how to treat those and then theylookatthelandleftover. The land purchased was in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 units so they went
ahead and developed the product.
Commissioner Carlton thou~ht there should be a compromise somewhere with a site plan that would
provide lower density and bigger lot sizes. She was concerned about the single entrance, the lack of
any noticeable open space and over crowded conditions at the schools.
Mr. Smith was not sure lot size in itself is the answer as to how that lot is used. The challenge for them is
to find a balance with the infill site with some tough edges and working with the adjacent community to
solve their concerns.
Mr. Mickelson told one person he would check into the school boundary issue and he has not been able
to contact the school planner. The question of the actual practicality and usability of the open space
perhaps needs a better explanation and a harder look. They would entertain a 30 day continuance to take
a look at some of the issues raised at this hearing and come back with answers.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Romero was very pleased at first with what he saw in the proposed development. He
use to live in a patio home. Unfortunately, the photos he saw later of the Brea project gave him a
negative viewpoint as to what was progressing. The patio home he lived in had very open setbacks. A
couple of the photos of the front yard showed very small spacing between the homes. There was no
open space and it didn't strike him as being positive. He was also concerned with the traffic issues. The
overall density of the area strikes him as being negative.
Commissioner Carlton would definitely be in favor of a 30-day continuance. She hoped they did
not make more mistakes as far as communities that are developed in Orange. Before her time on
the Commission, other tracts were approved that she would have been against. She liked the concept
of the neighborhood and community, but there are so many other issues that warrant consideration.
She would really like to see another plan with lower density as a
compromise.Chairman Bosch was interested in seein~ a project come forward that works. But he didn't know
how they could get there from here. The architect has done a wonderful job given the constraints of the
site.The product is nice and the concept of the paseo has a nice quality to it. It's not comingtogetherbecausethey're not picking up the trade off for an improved environment and amenities that are
the purpose for the planned unit development and small lots. He is mindful of the need to have aproductthatpencilsout. The dead end alley way is a disaster waiting to happen. Is the Fire Departmentreallygoingtobuydrivingafiretruck220feetdownthatonepassagewayandthenbackingitout?
He doubted if they would allow that. Public safety concerns must be addressed. The homes along
the freeway are a critical issue; there is concern about 11 residences on Morningside and perhaps one or
two on Parkside. and the impacts on their lifestyles which will be substantial, no matter what happens.
He thought house placement could solve that; the articulation of the home design could solve that. Is
the land up against the freeway buildable at all? There are some critical restrictions on the environment
there and everyone should be concerned about how those homes and lots are designed. The garage alley
as the main viewpoint of the recreation park area is a concern to him. That's the back door alley side
for those homes. Where is the visibility for protection? He was also concerned about the stability of a
deed restriction in terms of having the R-3 zoning in place. He hopes that works and would
like more information on that from the City Attorney. He would like a continuance if they could get a product
that is substantially better. He asked the applicants if they could come back with a product to
address those challenges and issues that
were raised?Mr. Mickelson listened carefully and would like the opportunity to continue their project for 60 days
to the meeting of December 1,1997, to address the issues and concerns heard at
this
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1997
Commissioner Carlton stated it was absolutely necessary to meet with the neighbors prior to the
continued hearing, and the applicant agreed.
Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Tentative Tract Map
15546, Conditional Use Permit 2191-97, Zone Change 1192-97, and General Plan Amendment
2-97 -Hearthstone Development - to the Planning Commission meeting of December 1,
1997.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero
None Commissioners Pruett, Smith MOTION
CARRIED Mr. Godlewski informed the public notification has already taken place. By continuing the hearing to
a date certain, no further notification is required. Under the ordinance and law, the Agenda will be
posted in several publiC places prior to the
hearing.Mr. Mickelson offered to send out a letter of invitation to the people on the list who attended the
first neighborhood meeting and in that letter they will confirm the date of the continued
hearing.IN RE:
MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Godlewski reminded the Commission of their October 2 7, 1997 study
session.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter uated October 2, 1997 from Robert
Schwartz regarding an application in Old Towne with a response back to him from staff relative to the
upcoming hearing with regard to his desire to replace a garage in the National Historic Registered
District.IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to the next
regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11 :15 p.
m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton,
Romero
None Commissioners Pruett, Smith MOTION
CARRIED
Isld