Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-1996 PC Minutes500. 6;,;{. 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City 01 Orange October 7, 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager 01 Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Bob VonSChimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS OF 9/4/96 and 9/16/96 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes 01 9/ 4196 and 9/16/96as recorded.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2162-96 - ANTON AND DEBRA MARINKOVICH The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory second residence at 7185 Norlh Kimbark Lane.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions 01 the Calilornia Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines Sec!ion 15303.Mr. Jones presented the lull slaff report as there was opposition to this projec!. The subjec! site is part 01anewsixlotsubdivisionwithaprivatestreettofiveindividualoneacreparcels. The site is presently undeveloped and planted with orange trees. Plans are currently in plan check in which the applicant proposes to build a principal residence. Construction is anticipated to start by January 1. The proposed secondunitis640squareleetinareaandwillhaveabedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room. The unit will be built behind the principal residence. It will be set back 33 feet Irom the southerly property line, 85 leet from the northerly property line and 118 leet Irom the easterly property line, which is the back of the 101. The Staff Review Committee reviewed this proposal and it was noted the proposed accessory second unit is one story in height. Stall also had other comments regarding the proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of his accessory residence concurrently with the construction 01 his principal residence so as to reduce the costs for site grading and construction. To prevent the occupancy 01theaccessoryresidencepriortooccupancy01theprincipalresidence, staff has included a condition 01 approval that the applicant would be required to submit for a separate building permit for the accessory structureandthatanoccupancypermitwouldnotbeissuedfortheaccessorystruc!ure until the occupancy permitlortheprincipalstructurehasbeenissued. The proposed architectural style and building materials 01 the accessory unit are similar to the proposed principal residence. The proposed accessory residence is not located in an area designated as haVing insullicient inlrastructure to service an additional residence.Staff does not leel the second unit will have an impact on surrounding properties due to the structure being placed behind the proposed principal residential structure, and it exceeds all other set back reqUirements lor the area. Staff has also added a conditional 01 approval as required by ordinance a deed restriction on the property that states the proposed structure is an accessory residence and all the requirements 01 OMC Section 17.10.040-H shall be complied with. Bl: filing the agreement with the County's Recorder, the agreement becomes part 01 the subject site s title report, and any fersonconsideringbuyingthepropertyintheluturewouldbenotifiedollhesiterestrictionsatthetime0title 1 r .~ Planning Commission Minutes October 7,1996 research. There is a requirement 01 state law that the property owner must reside in one 01 the two units. This is a recommendation to the City Council, with 7 conditions 01 approval attached. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained the City's ordinance is based on state law. Specilically, Section 65852.2 of the Government Code. That section says that if all the requirements, detailed in the Government Code,which are the same requirements 01 the City's municipal code, the Cily does not have the ability to deny the requested second unit. He read the two app'licable provisions: 1) No other local ordinance, policy or regulation shall be the basis lor denial 01 the bUilding permit or use permit under this subdivision. 2) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies may use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned lor residential use, which contain an existingsin\lle family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be utilized or imposed, except that the local agency may require a conditional use permit process. The ability of the Planning Commission to go beyond the criteria specifically listed in the City's municipal ordinance are very limited.He advised the Commission 10 focus on those criteria listed in the City's ordinance.The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant Anton Marinkovich, 700 East Talt, said he and his wile wanted to build a granny suite on their lot at 1785 Kimbark Lane. They are also buildin~ their primary residence at the same time. The granny suite is 640 square leet, which will meet the City s criteria. It will be located to the rear of the main residence. It is not visible Irom the street and its Iront door has access Irom the rear yard only. They have only received one response to their knowledge. It was from George Adams who lives up at the top of Lewis Drive,which runs behind the property. He wrote a letter approving the project. Their second unit is to provide a sale, secure, private residence lor his mother in-law, who is a Widow and unable to take care 01 herself.Her home will be 10 leet from their house and will enable her to join them at any time, but still have the benefit 01 her own space.Those soeakina in oooosition Bob Bennyholl, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was not speaking in opposition to this specific project, but in opposition to the state law and what it is doing to the community. He is beginning to believe that R-1 zoning is useless. This law was passed when there was a housing shortage.John Ganahl, 20351 Lewis Drive, recently learned 01 this project, and he didn~ know about the rules set by the state. It will create a greater density in the area. He and his wife added a bedroom with an outside door and a bathroom because both 01 them have widowed mothers who may some day need housing. They lelt, to decrease the density, they would add the granny suite to their existing residence as opposed to a separate structure.John Meulmester, 20411 Lewis Drive, wondered ilthe park had been taken into account because one 01 his neighbors had to go through a rigorous endeavor to try and get their house approved. There is a hill directly in back 01 the proposed structures that has a beautiful view of the City. How will this view be allected to those looking down Irom the top 01 the hill? Some consideration should be given to the view that will be lost.Ella Williams, 20381 Lewis Drive, disagreed with the inlrastructure being suflicientto handle extra trallic.By adding one extra house will not maKe a difference. However, il the owners move and rent the house,there will be additional traffic. The street is only one lane wide. The residents have 10 stop to pass each other.Rebuttal Mr. Marinkovich replied his mother in-law does not drive. ThaI's one reason why she lives with them and needs their care. The only view that would be impacted would be George Adams, and a letter of approval was received Irom him. They want to provide a residence lor his mother in-law. There are no guarantees in Iile, but they plan to live there until retirement. He does not plan to rent the house out.Commissioner Carlton asked il they were planning to plant new trees or ground Planning Commission Minutes October 7,1996 Mr. Marinkovich responded it will be new ground cover and trees. The existing orange groves are dead. They will also be putting in a yard and landscaping around the house. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith believed this projec! had a deed restriction on it. Mr. Jones said one 01 the requirements by local ordinance is that there be an agreement to ensure the property owner resides in one 01 the two structures on the property. Commissioner Carlton asked if the Commission needed to include any 01 the items in Section 17.04.020 defining the specific development standards, or was it implied the standards go along with the application? Chairman Bosch said it was the law 01 the City and must be adhered to. Each item did not need to be specifically stated. He shared Mr. Bennyhoff's concerns because he recollected silting on the Commission a number 01 years ago when they' updated the Housing Element 01 the General Plan. It was highlighted by the State Attorney General s Office or the Clearing House with regard to lacking conlormance with the much less stringent state law that identified granny flats as the key intent. Since that time, shortly therealter, the law was changed at the state level, stating these units could be rented out; they weren1 just granny flats, nor did they need to be attached. Given the circumstances under which it were passed, it did not recognize the specific needs of the majority 01 the suburban communities without finding, nor as it has been proven, the true nature of the trends and needs for housing throughout the state. It would be benelicial to work back through the legislators to arrive at modifications to state law, which would be more exactly representing housing needs, and still allord the opportunity for people who have a sulliciently sized lot to afford space for their relatives to live with them, as an extended family within certain constraints, primarily based on coverage and minimization of impacts on neighbors and parking. In relerence to the hill and view, he walks that area. It's an extraordinary foreground, as well as background. He's hopeful and confident that the applicant has designed the project in a way to tie in the architecture together with the landscaping to restore the nature 01 the site that previously exisled when the groves were in place by getting a true estate residential landscaping plan in place on the site. He shares the concem with the single lane private drive access vs. a public street with regard to infrastruc!ure. But again, the tract, as it is currently reconligured, although it has one lot less than what was originally approved, still, if others can meet the zoning requirements, could support additional accessory units, the City would be constrained with regard to approval. The potential Impacts 01 this law that has been imposed on the City as a whole can be very deadly. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2162-96 with all conditions listed, including the deed restriction to this property. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch requested a copy of the comments he made, as well as Mr. Soo-Hoo' s comments about state law and Mr. Bennyholl's comments be lorwarded to the City Council with a special note with regard to suggesting the Council encourage activity at the legislative level for assistance.3. VARIANCE 2020-96 - HONG KONG EXPRESS ( CHUNG WU)The applicant is proposing to convert an existing retail commercial space into a lastlood restaurant, and is requesting a waiver 01 City parking. The site is located at 4031 & 4033 West Chapman Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1510-96 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements 01 the Calilornia Environmental Quality Act, to address the potential environmental impacts 01 this project. Planning Commission Minutes Oc!ober 7, 1996 Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the full staff report as there was opposition. The property is located between Sunningdale Circle and Lewis Street, on the north side 01 Chapman Avenue. The building is hall occupied by an existing liquor store. The proposal is to waive the additional requirement 01 12 parking spaces. The existing development does not conlorm to certain standards in the parking ordinance, including landscaping and site access. The Commission is authorized to grant exceptions to these regulations il there are special circumstances identified. The proposal would increase the parking requirement from 27 parking spaces at its present development, to 34 parking spaces. There are only 22 parkinll spaces provided now in the parking lot. The applicant describes the restaurant as a fast lood operallon with peak sales during lunch hours and on work days only -- Monday through Friday, 11:30 a.m.to 1 :30 p.m. And approximately 60% 01 the business is estimated as take out. There is an adjacent restaurant across the alley, which access is shared with this property. There is a drive through aisle that creates a lot of activity at the common driveway where the alley intersects with Chapman Avenue. The applicant has submitted a parking study, but stall had some misgivings about it because there are only two restaurants used to compare it. Staff has based the parking ordinance requirements already on the study 01 other restaurants. This restaurant could one day be used by any tenant -- not just the applicant.There is also no parking available on Chapman and there is a neighborhood parking program on the residential streets surrounding the applicant's property. The property is also near a critical intersection where there would be a street widening in the luture. The applicant would be required to dedicate property towards those improvements. There are a number 01 conditions 01 approval that are attached to the stall reflort, the primary one being the dedication 01 property that would be required at the time a building permit is issued.Chairman Bosch asked what initiates the critical intersection dedication 01 property? Is it the lact there is a proposed change in use since it is a pre-existing condition?Mr. Donovan replied that was correct. There is a requirement in the ordinance that is based on a Public Works standard -- a linancial amount 01 $15,000.Chairman Bosch understood the property as it stands, would not be required to make a dedication. But given there are improvements being requested, there is a nexus then to assist in the cost of the intersection improvements. Mr. VonSchimmelmann replied that was correct.Chairman Bosch noted it didn't appear the site plan or the application take that potential into account.Mr. Donovan said that was correct. Stall was alerted to this condition when reviewing the issues these last couple 01 weeks while preparing the report. It was staff's opinion there wasn't much that could be done to readjust the parking. Sixteen leet IS a substantial amount and would pretty much wipe out the entire row of parking that is there now along the edge 01 Chapman.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Chung Wu, 9961 Trevi Street, Cypress, said he also operated businesses in the cities 01 Santa Ana,Tustin, and Long Beach and has been doing so lor the past 15 years. He gave up the sit down restaurant business and went to a fast lood operation about eight years ago since the economy had declined. He felt they could draw a lunch business because 01 the many businesses in the area. The proper size for a fast food restaurant is 1500 square feet. Joe Foust did their traffic study and feels the parking space is sufficient.Joe Foust, Austin-Foust Associates, 2020 North Tustin, Santa Ana, did the traffic study for Hong Kong Express. He told Mr. Wu he probably would have a parking problem based on the City's calculations.He discovered there was some encroachment 01 the existing parking in the lot. The traffic study was made on actual case study 01 what is existing out there now, the peak parking conditions that occur at the liquor store and then case studies 01 some representative Hong Kong restaurants to lind out what the typical characteristics were. Their conclusion was for a typical lunch hour approximately 10 cars would use the parking lot. The liquor store at one time did exceed the 5 or 6 cars. A lew cars were encroaching the parking lot. Adding the two together lor a worst case scenario 01 the existing parking, there would be 21 parking spaces occupied during a typical lunch hour.4 r- Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1996 Mr. Wu reviewed the conditions 01 approval. He did not agree with condition #2. If the property were cut down to 10 parking spaces, no one would survive at the shoPpinll center. He suggested adding a condition to only allow a Hong Kong Express restaurant (or another Chinese restaurant) in the luture if he sold the restaurant. He also offered to reduce the size of his restaurant because they didn~ need 2500 square leet. Commissioner Smith asked il the condition remained, would he proceed with the projec!? Mr. Wu had talked with three Planners and no one told him about the condition. He would not have filed the variance if he had known about the critical intersection dedication 01 property. This condition is not fair to any business owner. Those sooakina in lavor Ellis Cha, 4029 West Chapman, is the owner 01 the liquor store and also owns the building. The liquor store has been at this site lor 20 years. He has been running the store for the last five years. Their busy hours are Irom 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; the rest 01 the day it is quiet. He didn't have a problem with running the store with 7 parking spaces. He didn't see a problem with parking for Hong Kong Express. He allowed a good Iriend to park in his parking lot because the parking lot is empty and is not a problem. He bought the building because he didn't want to lose his business. He never heard about the critical intersection problem until he received a notice about this hearing. Robert Pasoma, resides at 5431 E. Estate Ridge Road, Anaheim, and also is a property owner at 436 East Brookshire. The problem with the application is the dedication 01 property for the critical intersection. As a licensed appraiser, he believes this will create an economic obsolescence with the property. It almost makes it worthless to have this kind 01 provision put on it. It decreases the value substantially. Mr. Cha will have the burden 01 financing the street widening at his expense. It's not lair to have that obligation imposed on him. Those soeakina in oooosition Juan Chavez, 121 North Sunningdale Circle, said his biggest concern was with the landscaping and wall, and trallic issues. He was trying very hard to keep the area clean. Mr. Cha has done a good job of keeping his property clean, but it's still a problem. He was not opposed to the business, just concerned. Rebuttal Mr. Cha was very aware 01 Mr. Chavez' problem. His day begins by cleaning up the side of the property. He's trying to keep the area clean, but still some people sit down and eat in that area. He proposed to Mr. Chavez to close 011 approximately 5 to 6 leet 01 the entrance and lock it, if the City permitted that. Mr. Wu does not have a drive through window. Their Chinese food restaurant is different from other last food operations. They flrovide trash containers outside Ihe door. People need utensils to eat their food. His point was that It was not the same issue. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch wanted Mr. VonSchimmelmann to address the acquisition of property for critical intersections. For the benefit 01 the Commission, he wanted Mr. Soo Hoo to address the findings required under state law for the issuance 01 a variance. They have heard a lot about the traffic study and Mr. Foust has done a great job. He helped the City develop their parking ordinance and the City respects what he has done. But they must also look directly at the ordinance and state law with regard to findings required for granting a variance. Mr. VonSchimmelmann explained the critical intersection portion 01 the Circulation Plan was adopted with the latest update 01 the Circulation Plan in the General Plan Amendment, which was done in 1989. It surveyed the City to see what the major problem intersections were. This particular intersec!ion was considered as one 01 those intersections. As lar as how it comes into ellect, once the minimum threshold 5 r .~ Planning Commission Minutes October 7,1996 is met wilh building activity on the site, then the ordinance takes ellect. Regardless il there is room on the property or not. As far as the actual improvements are concerned, it is set by ordinance. Stall is required to make those improvements at any type 01 development that adjoins the proposed critical intersec!ions. Chairman Bosch said regardless of this application, if the threshold is currently a building permit worth 15,000, an existing tenant in the store could remodel and spend more money than that without changing the use or intensity on the property and thus cross that threshold level. Yet, that doesn~ necessarily relate to a nexus wilh regard to the impact upon the property. There must be another piece to this that is missing. The City can~ take land without showing a direct correlation or providing some method 01 keeping the person whole. Mr. VonSchimmelmann said when the General Plan was adopted, it was demonstrated the need was existing at this intersection. Even il the tenant were to do improvements that met that threshold, the improvements would have to be put in and they would have to dedicate property lor the critical intersection. The premise was that the nexus was already established at the time of the adoption 01 the General Plan. Mr. Soo Hoo explained there is a legal requirement that there must be a nexus or connec!ion between what is proposed and the impacts that are caused to justify the City to require the dedication. In this example, the City would need to demonstrate that the property owner would be causing a certain amount 01 need lor the critical intersection to be created, and therelore, would legally be required to contribute to solving that problem. He had not entered into any examination 01 the fac!s of this particular application and whether that nexus has been evaluated. Chairman Bosch said the key word was "contribution" and that may mean a variety of things -- ranging Irom a request for the dedication to improvements to some method 01 compensation or issuance of discretionary permits -- a whole range 01 things that might occur based upon the impact of the particular improvement.Mr. VonSchimmelmann stated the applicant could fetition the City Engineer to waive the improvement aspect 01 the dedication and improvement aspect 0 the condition.Chairman Bosch saw two issues that are intertwined with reQard to the applicant, regardless of this application lor Mr. Cha, the property owner. At some point in time one might imagine the improvement 01 the critical intersection might take place and impact the property. That is something that has yet to be determined in terms 01 what the impacts are and how he is kept whole (or the balance is maintained that is required legally on that). That would be a subject lor interaction between the City and Mr. Chao Since he has been made aware 01 this, it's important lor him to know there is an opportunity to talk with City stall. Stall should contact him and make him aware 01 his options so that he's not in the gray area with regard to his property.Mr. Donovan said il it would make everyone more comlortable, stall could take that condition and put it down with the bullet points in the stall report. They've done that in the past. Perhaps the report was not put together consistent with recent trends. It is an ordinance requirement and is something the Cily Engineer can handle. "could be taken out as a specific condition and placed at the bottom of the report.The key to the sentence is "as required by the City Engineer."Commissioner Carlton asked if the Trallic Commission had the power to waive the condition or does that have to go to the City Council?Mr. Soo Hoo said the jurisdiction in this case would be the City Engineer -- his evaluation 01 the impacts and whether therewasanappropriatenexustorequirethededication. Regarding the variance requirements, he would like to recommend that the Commission focus first on the legal requirements in order to approve a variance. If the Commission finds that those cannot be found, then any conditions are irrelevant. That would cause the application to be denied. Has the applicant met the criteria for a variance? Then, if the Commission feels the variance has been met, the)' could move onto examine the conditions. In response to the applicant's proposed condition to limit It to only Hong Kong Express,land use lawwouldnotallowthat. State law has very stringent requirements which must be met in order to grant a variance. The requirements, according to state law, which is also codilied in the Orange Municipal Code, is that 1) the applicant must show that special circumstances exist which are applicable to 6 T-l r Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1996 this property. Examples of the special circumstances may include the size, shape, topography or location 01 the property. 2) He needs to demonstrate those unique circumstances exist and then demonstrate those circumstances deprive his .property 01 privileges enjoyed by other property in that vicinity and under the same zoning category. Quite frankly, with the testimony that has been presented thus lar, he has yet to hear any lacts that would enable the Commission to make either 01 those lindings required by state law. Chairman Bosch separates the street issue first of all to look at the parking. And, again with regard to the ordinance. It's the lindings Mr. Soo Hoo talked to and what the Commission must find that become an issue. He didn~ see a hardship that has been imposed by the property, not caused by the proflertyowner. There is no hardship. He's allowed a lull and benelicial use of the property within the limits 01 the Zoning Ordinance. He took into account the parking ordinance has changed since the property was originally approved. If it were built today, It would require more parking or allow less building. That's something to take into account. They're looking at a significant variance request based upon a use that would be new on the site. So, it is the applicant imposing the use which creates the hardship lor the lack 01 parking with the site the way it is. Once a variance is approved, it goes with the land - not just the use.The Commission cannot write a condition that says for last lood or lor Hong Kong Express only -- they are not allowed to do that. The City does not have a way to enlorce limitations on the number 01 seats.The application and plans showed 44 seats; 50 are shown in the study. The ideal size of a restaurant is 1500 square feet, but the two surveyed are 1850 and 2400 square feet in size. The size 01 the building does not drive the parking use over the lile 01 the building. The property as it is configured doesn~ allow the basic needs the City has identilied in the Ordinance to be fulfilled.Commissioner Smith regretfully concurred in the fact she did not hear 01 a hardship based on any configuration 01 the property or special circumstance with the property. It was kind of risky on this property given what they've heard about the proposed critical intersection inlormation. She was not in lavor 01 granting the variance at this time.Commissioner Pruett shared Chairman Bosch's views; they were articulated very well. The big issue is the parking. The traffic survey pointed out the other restaurants were dillerent sizes. The site plan included in the trallic study shows a location for 50 patrons. He couldn't imagine maintaining a restaurant where it is hall lull. The owner would try to fill the restaurant and then parking would be over utilized. The site would not function properly with the number of parking spaces requested.Commissioner Carlton commented the applicants paid $550 to file lor the variance. The applicant would not have done so if he was aware 01 the critical intersection or the condition that he would have to dedicate property. That is very distressing. Something has lallen through the cracks. She recommended to refund the application lee il he decides to drop the matter and not appeal it. She felt it was unlair to have someone come forward Ihis far with a plan, when the applicant did not have all the information he should of had.Commissioner Pruett could not support that comment. His position has nothing to do with the traffic issue or setback requirements. It has to do with the proposal and the existing conditions. He was not taking into consideration they have to give up 12 parking spaces. The applicant has to have 12 more parking spaces than what is there with the 22. He was somewhat disappointed when the Commission got into the debate 01 the trallic issue to begin with because they lost locus in terms 01 what the issue really was. The issue was the parking requirement and it didn~ stand the test. The applicant moved lorward with his application to seek a variance lor 12 additional parking spaces, or to forgive the requirement 01 the 12 additional parking spaces and that's what he couldn~ support.Commissioner Carlton asked would the applicant have come this far in the process had he known 01 the requirement 01 the possible loss 01 property because 01 the critical intersection? No one would stand the chance 01 getting an approval 01 any kind.Chairman Bosch said there were a couple 01 issues. He sympathized with the view point relative to the lee, but that was not within the Commission's power to decide that. It's something staff should consider as they talk with Mr. Chao It was important that Mr. Cha, having recently become aware 01 the critical intersection concept, get that inlormation so he would have a better understanding for the luture outcome 01 his property.7 T Planning Commission Minutes October 7,1996 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration 1510-96 as it was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, including the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlile resources. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Variance 2020-96 given the findinlls for requirements lor granting a variance under Calilornia state land use law and the Orange Municipal Code were not demonstrated at all to the satislaction 01 the Planning Commission. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The action of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed to the City Council. Mr. Jones explained the appeal process.4. VARIANCE 2021-96 - JAMES L. COX AND CAROL A. ROWLEY The applicant is proposing to convert an existing residential structure to commercial use (tea room). The variance request is to allow a waiver 01 landscape setback and parking requirements. The site is located at 204 North Olive Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions of the California Environmental quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a).There was no opposition; therelore, the lull reading 01 the stall report was waived.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant John Hamilton, architect lor the project, 450 East Chapman, explained they wanted to develop the first floor 01 this house into a Victorian tea room. There will be no lood prepared on the property; it will be catered. The current house is undergoing some remodeling. They will be putting up a lence around the property. There are approximately five parking spaces available on the street, but at the intersection there are about 32 public parking spaces. They have a wheelchair lilt at the rear of the building to lilt people up to the porch and into the tea room. The second floor 01 the building will be used primarily for storage.Chairman Bosch wanted Mr. Hamilton to specifically address how he believes the required findings for a variance are met in this proposed application with regard to the proposed reduction in parking and landscape setback?Mr. Hamilton said at one time they had more parking spaces. A planner suggested they reduce the number of parking spaces in order to avoid an awkward parking layout. One space had to back out onto the street to exit the lot. They removed a couple 01 spaces and added landscaping. Women' s groups frequent tea rooms and they usually come together in one car, rather than one person to a car.Commissioner Romero wanted to know why they wanted a variance?Those sDeakina in lavor Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, said he and his wile owned property at 328 North Glassell, and lived there lor 7 or 8 years. They consider themselves residents 01 Old Towne even though they have moved up the street. He was involved in the previous conversion of this building. The owner was never able to complete his application because of financial reasons. The recession lorced him to sell the property and these people have bought it. Their proposal is lor a slightly dillerent commercial use; hence the new 8 Planning Commission Minutes Oc!ober 7, 1996 application. The Zoning code was changed in the meantime so it is a dillerent process to go through. If you wiped out the landscape setbacks, you would be able to almost meet the parking requirements. It would be a greater shame to tear down this building and build a new one to meet the requirements for C-3 property. It would still need to meet the Old Towne guidelines. This is worthy of approval and he spoke as a citizen -- he was not involved in the process. State law requires the City to lind special circumstances applicable to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings and strict application 01 the zoning district. It does not say all inclusive. He said the location and surroundings are very unique. It is in Old Towne, in an area that begs to be preserved. It's in an area where many parcels have no parking at all in the same zone and same vicinity. A special privilege will not be granted inconsistent with the other properties in the same area. This is an unique area 01 Old Towne. The City would not be authorizinll some use that is not allowed in the zone. In this case, the three findings could be made to grant a variance very easily. Teresa Sazneck helped Jim and Carol purchase the property. They looked lor this property several months and determined that Old Towne would be the proper place to acquire a Victorian tea room. Many of the residents and business owners in the area are in lavor of this projec!; it will help them revitalize the area. The tea room will be by appointment only and there is already a waiting list lor reservations. Chairman Bosch was always concerned when a project gets this far, including the sale of property, prior to there being an understanding 01 whether the use can in fact exist without special permits on the site? Ms. Sazneck explained il Jim and Carol could not use the property lor a tea room, because they wished to purchase the property, they would find another use for it. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Smith said this project has not yet gone to the Design Review Board. She had a certain amount 01 reluctance of going ahead with the proposal because it has not been reviewed by DRB. A proposal should not come belore the Commission prior to DRB review. However, this is a minor site plan review with a variance request lor the parking. Ordinarily, she would have moved lor a continuance, but she would have done that much earlier so as not to waste everyone's time on it. The Commission is learning the ins and outs 01 the variance and required lindings as they hear the dillerent proposals. Some Commissioners are dinosaurs, others have been on the Commission awhile and then there are relatively new Commissioners. She finds the public is not well prepared to state their case as to the required findings. She asked that when variances are being requested, stall not make it dillicult lor people to come up with findings, but to work with the applicants to make them aware 01 what they're going to have to respond to. It would be a lot smoother lor everyone if applicants and the Commission Knew 01 all the things that went into the very specific, unique circumstances for a variance. If the applicants were educated, they would not have a problem in telling the Commission the unique circumstance of an application. This building is a historic building in historic Old Towne, which is one 01 the unique circumstances 01 the property. Mr. Mickelson almost said it; she was ready to give him an A+I Even Mr. Mickelson, with all of his years 01 experience, did not specifically identify the building, but he said the location -- in the historic district, the surroundings, the ambiance, the site plan -- everything else around it.But it was her understanding that the building ilsell with it's historic nature and unique architecture is a circumstance which indeed is a valuable, unique finding to warrant a variance. She was in lavor 01 moving ahead with this project. II there isn't a variance for parking, nothing can go on this site. A person would end up demolishing the building, putting in something that is a lake Old Towne project with enough parking and landscaping to lit the ordinance. But it takes away Irom that building that has been here for many, many years. The other circumstance that doesn~ have anything to do with the finding on the variance, but there is the presence 01 two public parking lots within walking distance 01 the site. The lot at Lemon and Maple is under utilized and is within walking distance 01 the site. The other lot is at Olive and Maple. The parking lots will enhance the development 01 this particular piece 01 property and the entire depot district. The lindings would be that development 01 this property would further enhance the property itself, as well as the neighborhood and the historical plaza district.Commissioner Romero thanked Commissioner Smith lor her comments. He would have voted no on this request prior to her comments, but alter listening, will vote in lavor 01 the project.9 Planning Commission Minutes October 7,1996 Commissioner Pruett said this was C-2 property and the preservation of the historical structure is an issue that needs to be taken into consideration. The parking that is available in the area addresses some 01 the parking concerns and will help mitigate the issue.Chairman Bosch addressed the stall report as it was part 01 the record. On Page 4 01 the stall report, in the middle 01 the page, it addresses the parking. The paragraph states, "There are several other properties in the vicinity that contribute to neighborhood parking concerns. But he disagreed with statement #3 which is the Casa Teresa development across the street. When the Commission recommended approval 01 that development, it found based upon the specific use there that there would not be an impact on 011 site parking caused by that development. They're not adding based upon that development. The adjacent historical Spanish Colonial Revival court housing is because of the historical nature that was essentially grandlathered in. It is not contributing to the neighborhood parking concerns in that regard. It's not something that has come in and caused a variance or would have an additional hardship imposed by this property. He didn't know what happened to #1 with regard to a conversion 01 an adjoining industrial building to ollice use. There is no history to the no on- site parking.He was interested to find out Irom stall il that is a legitimate concern. As the stall report indicates and all 01 their field observations noted that immediately to the west was a rather unsightly M.1 zoned junk yard,graveled parking lot, which was lor sale. Any improvement to the property would open it up to the rear for parking with landscaping adequately done and it would provide a buffer between the zones.Because of the placement 01 the historic structure on the site, in the specifically spelled out goal of the City with regard to its Historical Preservation Element 01 the General Plan to maintain, preserve and enhance those structures that anything that can cause that maintenance and preservation enhancement meets the goals 01 the General Plan and supports the linding 01 a variance. The landscape variance is the easiest 01 all. The remainder of the street Irontage on Maple, which is the one impacted by the reduction and setback for landscaping 01 the parking area, is substantially greater than the required landscape setback. It more than ollsets the impacts 01 the reduced landscaping at the parking area.There is more 01 an offset and improvement to allow the variance so that the variance would not be a special privilege. He was concerned about the parking. How does the parking ordinance address tea rooms? It looks to restaurants. There is nothing closer to it than restaurants. But a tea room is not a restaurant. He didn't find that application 01 restaurant parking requirements, as seen with other applications, relates to what a tea room is. There is no food preparation or kitchen to meet the requirements of the Health Department in preparing food on site. The strict application of that portion of the zoning ordinance to this proposed use is inappropriate. It would cause a hardship. He suggested they could get two more parking spaces on the site on the east side 01 the drive, with a similar configuration 01 the parking spaces #3 and #4. At the cost 01 encroaching cars closely to the residence and loss of landscaping, he didn't propose that. However, two more parking spaces could be installed in the future subject to some finding. Stall did a good job in looking for the best application of the ordinance, which set the hardship on parking relative to the restaurant, and applied to the entire struc!ure,including the second floor, because the thought was -- what is there that would restrain someone other than the current users Irom expanding the tea room operation to the second floor? It would violate the life salety ordinance and building code to have the use upstairs that had more than two people without a second stairway, which would damage the historical value of the property, as well as encroach into the required set back, and thus remove the other grounds lor finding a hardship. It would have to be done internally which would reduce the square lootage available lor use that would remove a substantial amount 01 the parking that is over the strict application 01 the ordinance. On that basis, he wouldn't move towards the additional two spaces, but hold them in reserve. It was important to look at one other thing.Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a tea party on the lawn within the fenced areas? That represents perhaps the greatest potential impact on parking in terms of the number of people. It was importanl to have a condition that restricts the commercial use 01 the property lor a tea room to the interior structure,based upon the other findings which allow the reduction in parking. With the stipulation 01 the applicant,he recommended to add that as condition #8 to have some assurance there is no need for additional space. Then, as a caution, lor the architect to look at with the Building Department on the ADA accessibility requirements. He thought they looked at the primary entrance to satisly ADA requirements.The handicap lilt could be installed at the west end of the southwest porch without damaging the integrity 01 the struc!ure or landscaping, and gives accessibility to public accommodations through the front entrance.Commissioner Smith added the historic building code could be called into ellect for certain design elements. The historic building code supersedes the current buildinll code. She lound it helplul in presentations such as this to have included in their packets a Iront elevation 01 the project. It's not lair to 10 1 -u Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1996 the project and the building to see only the back of it. The Iront is lovely and it would be nice to see what the project is going to look like. It was noted this project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Variance 2021-96 and approval 01 minor site plan review 25-96, based on the findings that the project is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. It is consistent in size, scale and context with surrounding development. It retains the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space in the neighborhood. The proposed additions do not appear to significantly change, obscure, damage or destroy the character, and the development does not erode or adversely affect the historic resource or district. The development serves to enhance each 01 the required findings. The conditions 01 approval as listed in the stall report shall be included, including the addition 01 condition #8 that the tea room use be restricted to the interior 01 the building on the lirst floor only. Previous discussion relative to the required lindings lor the variance shall be made a part 01 this approval. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bosch asked stall to require the applicant to submit xerox copies of the existing property and the immediate surrounding conditions. It would be helplul to see those conditions while reviewing the application prior to the hearing. It could be simple without making it dillicult lor the applicants.Commissioner Pruett lollowed up on Commissioner Smith's other recommendation -- stall working with the applicants in terms of assisting them in the education process 01 required findings lor a variance. He sees this process lor the other permits as well. The public needs to be prepared a little bit better.Mr. Jones has shared the same Irustration. They need to talk about this again at their stall meetings.Staff can spend more time with the applicants, talking about the importance 01 their application and explain to them the steps they need to take to go through the process.The Commission was not being critical 01 stall; they realize there will always be applicants who will not understand the process they must go through.IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Mr. Mickelson commented he did not disagree with the technical process the Commission went through because it was absolutely right. His first observation was when they take the absolute, strictleUer of the law, interpretation and enlorcement 01 the zoning code, it's probably less than 1 % of the variances that were granted in California were valid. Most of the success on variances is salesmanship and that's not necessarily a good way to run a City. In the area 01 parking, there is an opportunity for the Commission to have some flexibility. The City 01 Anaheim has a parking code that has a built in flexibility that allows the City Traffic Engineer to approve some variances Irom the parking code, based on a parking study,such as the one presented by Mr. Foust. The study was valid, as were the conclusions. Maybe allowing some flexibility and taking another look at the parking code to avoid the absolute stricl interpretation would be a good idea. His other concern is with the $15,000 threshold, the business owner will probably lose his bUSiness unless something changes in that respect. He couldn't think 01 anyone that would come in with a legitimate business and spend less than $15,000 on tenant improvements in 2400 square feet.The guy is between a rock and a hardspot. If he does anything worthwhile, he's going to lIet nailed with dedication, which means he can't do anything worthwhile. He asked the Commission to think about that.Some dillerent criteria needs to be brought forward to allow that kind 01 a business to proceed towards more 01 its economic Iile, rather than to lorce it indiscriminately out 01 business.Chairman Bosch concurred. The intent is to allow the City to enter into negotiations that is lair, where the lair share is covered in some way and is not debilitating to the property owner. 11 r Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADJOURNMENT October 7,1996 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Isld 12 r MOTION CARRIED