HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES ~ ~~
Planning Commission October 17, 1994
City of Orange Monday - 7:00p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith ABSENT:
Commissioner Walters STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan
Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney;
Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19 1994 and October 3. 1994
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of
September 19, 1994, as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cathcart
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of
October 3, 1994, with one correction as recommended by staff: Page 4 -Motion regarding micro
breweries - "Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend that requests
to consider on-site brewing and sales of specialty beer within restaurants, in the commercial and
industrial zoning districts, be brought to the Planning Commission and evaluated on a conditional use
permit basis. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters. NOES: None.
MOTION CARRIED."
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2080-94 -ROBERT FISCUS &
ASSOCIATES:A request to allow construction ofa'Yreeway sign" at an existing automotive service station. The sign
is proposed to a height of 100 teat. Subject property is located at 2844 Santiago Boulevard (west side
of Santiago Boulevard, north of Nohl Ranch Road and the on-ramp for the 55 {
Newport} Freeway).NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15311.Commissioner Smith was excused due to a potential conflict
of interest.Jim Donovan, Planning staff, presented the staff report. The service station is part of
an integrated commercial development that was approved in 1967. Construction plans were prepared with an
intent to unify the development; however, the restaurant, office building and service station have
been subdivided and sold separately. Among the conditions of the original approval was a 30 foot height
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1994
on any sign for each of the different uses. The Orange Municipal Code now contains a height limit of 15
feet for any free standing sign. There are several other standards for service stations that include a
maximum display area of 150 square feet, limitations on wall signs so they do not exceed a total of 80
square feet, and supplemental advertising signs and changeable price sins are also controlled accordingtocertainstandardswithinthecode. In addition to the one sign that is permitted for any commercial
property under the sign ordinance, there is a provision that allows additional signs to be constructed on
properties that are located within 660 feet from a freeway. The applicant is proposing one adjacent to
the freeway on-ramp to a height, according to the plans, of 100 feet and a display area ofapproximately165squarefeet. The Design Review Board reviewed the plans at their meeting on September 7,
and recommended the sign, if approved, be limited to a height that is more compatible with theoriginallimitationof30feet, or perhaps as much as 40 feet; and that the square footage of the display area
be reduced according to a portion of the new height limit placed on the sign. As a result of that meeting,
the applicant indicated Chevron would be willing to live with that as a condition of approval. The staffreportreflectstherewouldbeamorerestrictivelimititthesignwereapproved. The proposal was
considered by the Environmental Review Board on September 7 and there were no concerns expressed that
were adverse to the proposal at that time. There are five conditions of approval recommended for
this project. One is that existing wall signs on sides of the service station's false chimney will be removed,
as volunteered by the applicant. Another, is the new sign will be limited to a maximum height of 40feet,and a maximum display area of 65 square feet. The third condition is the height of the existing
non-conforming sign, situated at the south end of the driveway, will be replaced with a new sign that
satisfies existing code limitations. Flnal plans will be prepared and submitted to the D.R.B. for final review
and approval. The last condition is an automatic cancellation if the C.U.P. were not implemented within a
two year
period.The public hearing was
opened.
Applicant Robert Fscus, 2050 South Santa Cruz #2100, Anaheim, said Chevron does not have a problem with
the conditions of approval. He spoke to some of the residents in the audience before the hearing and
took the opportunity to explain their proposal as shown on the drawing is not exactly what is going to
be proposed (since attending the Design Review Board). They agree to reduce the height of the sign to
35 feet, as well as reduce the overall square footage to 78 square feet (in lieu of 65 square feet). That is
the smallest freeway oriented sign Chevron makes. He was confused somewhat with condition 3.
The existing price sign on Santiago is 28 feet in height. In discussing this with the Design Review Board,
he understood them to allow Chevron to install that sign at 22 feet because they wanted an eight
foot clearance from grade to the bottom of the sign. The sign itself is approximately 14 feet. They will
be doing some minor improvements to the site -- putting in a secured cashier's area.
Commissioner Cathcart referred to the Design Review Board's minutes of September 7. It said under
Item D that the height of the existing non-conforming sign should be reduced to meet current
standards,including the 8 toot vertical clearance beneath the sign at the present location, which is consistent with
Mr.Fiscus' statement and different from condition 3, which says it will be replaced. He asked staff if
there was a problem with the exchange of what the D.R.B. minutes say and what the staff report
says?Mr. Donovan said it could be an error within the staff report. There is a code provision that limits
the height of the sign to 15 feet that is assumed to be theCity's standard. But, on the other hand, a
sign near a driveway could obstruct visibility and staff has required there be at least 8 feet inbetween
the grade and the bottom of the sign. The existing sign, according to building permit records, is 28 feet so
it would be reduced by six feet. It's a trade off and it would be preferable to retain the visibility
beneath the
sign.Those speaking in
oooosition Jim Doyle, 2003 Ivy Hill Lane, objected because the public notice had significant errors and
was misleading. It said the location was west of Tustin, which would make it on the opposite side of
the freeway. He spoke to the manager of the gas station and asked where the sign was going to beput.But the manager didn't know. It was difficult to find correct information. He didn't understand the 100footsituation. He objected to the height of the
sign.Chairman Bosch said in regard to the sign, the applicant wanted 100 feet, but the Design Review
Boarddidn't recommend that. The applicant stated he would stipulate to a maximum height of 35
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1994
Don Wilson, 2854 Maple Tree Drive, was confused about the height of the sign as well. He objected to
the sign projecting into the neighbors' homes and wanted to see profile sections of the surrounding
topography.
Anne Doyle, 2003 Ivy Hill Lane, asked if anyone has considered what the sign will do to the property
values in the surrounding neighborhoods? She suggested placing signs on the side of the freeway
advertising Chevron gas.
Chairman Bosch explained the Commission's role in determining whether there would be a potential
negative impact on the surrounding properties regarding Chevron's request for a sign. The sign
ordinance allows certain signage for any business on its property. The signage along the freeway is
something different than the rights attached to the individual property.
Rebuttal
Mr. Fscus appreciated the homeowners' situation and he thought the 35 foot height limitation would not
be any higher than the chimney stack already there now. He's willing to cut a section through the plans to
show the homeowners elevations, slopes and sign height. They will submit the revised plan to the
D.R.B. for their approval before pulling building permits. The chimney height is approximately 30-
35 feet high, but he will double check the
height.The public hearing was
dosed.Commissioner Pruett asked stmt to Garify the issue regarding the public
notice.Mr. Jones explained the notice correctly identified the address as 2844 Santiago Boulevard, but
did indicate it was on the west side of Tustin, instead of the east side of Tustin. The west side ofSantiagoBoulevardwouldhavebeenmorecorrect. There is a two step process in reviewing the notices
before they are mailed, but this was one that they
missed.Commissioner Cathcart was pleased when the homeowners, developer and staff get together
and realize there is compromise to be taken care of to make sure the best interest for everyone is
reached.He complimented Mr. Fiscus on the
compromise.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional
Use Permit 2080-94 with the conditions listed in the staff report, but amending condition 2 to read
a maximum height of 35 feet, and a maximum display area of 78 square feet; amending condition 3 -the height
of the existing non-conforming sign, situated at the south end of the driveway, will be lowered to
22 feet, while keeping an 8 foot clearance beneath the sign; and amending condition 4 -the final planswillbepreparedandsubmittedtotheDesignReviewBoardforfinalreviewandapproval, including
a sectional exhibit showing the relationship of the sign to
the homes nearby.AYES: Commissioners
Bosch, Cathcart,
Pruett NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Smith,
Walters MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith returned
to the meeting.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2082-94 - K 8
D INVESTMENT, INC A request to allow a badminton club and a restaurant serving beer and wine in the
M-2 (Industrial District)zone. The proposal isto construct a 67,096 sq. ft. building to house a printing facility
in addition to the badminton club and restaurant. Subject property is located at
1432 North Main Street.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1461-94 has been prepared to
evaluate the
environmental impacts of this project.There was no opposition and
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1994
Aoplicant
Montri Chew, 2576 Omega Avenue, Anaheim, represented his family's investment. They're in theprocessoftryingtoputtogetheranewprojecttohousetheirexistingprintingbusiness, K&D Graphics.They have been in business for the past 10 years. The reason they wanted to build a new building is toprovideabadmintonfacilityforcompetitivebadmintoninSouthernCalifornia. They also want to have arestaurant, which would support the club and bring in additional revenue for them. The sport ofbadmintonisnotpopularintheUnitedStates, but is very popular in other parts of the world. Theirfamilyhasbeeninvolvedwithbadmintonforalongtime; his parents have played since they wereteenagers. It is their hope they can encourage the sport of badminton by providing the facility for youngpeopletoplay. The restaurant would provide food and drink for those in the club; another restaurant isnearbysoit's not out of the ordinary for the area.
Commissioner Smith asked about the dormitory facilities as it relates to their proposal?
Mr. Chew stated one of the reasons they're interested in building the facility is to help support the U.S.effort in becoming more competitive in the sport of badminton for the Olympic games. They would liketotrainacertainnumberofyoungpeoplewhowanttopursuebadmintontotheOlympiclevel. ThedormitorieswouldhousetheseyoungpeoplewhiletheytrainedfortheOlympics; it's not an immediateuse, only projected.
Those speaking in favor
Don Chew, Montri's dad, explained it was his dream to have a badminton club and train young peoplefortheOlympics. This would be the first facility in the United States.
The public hearing was Gosed.
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration1461-94 and find there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect ontheenvironmentorwildlife
resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES:
None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve ConditionalUsePermit2082-94 with the conditions listed in the
staff report.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters
MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2083-94 - RUTH BARRIOS & WILLIAMAND
GENEVIEVE SOUTHGATE:The applicant is requesting approval of an "Accessory Second Dwelling Unit" as an addition toanexistingdwellingunitintheR-1 District. Subject property is located at
390 North Maplewood.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303.Mr. Jones presented the slat( report. The subject site is developed with a singlestory, single family residence with an attached garage. The existing dwelling unit is approximately 1200 squarefeetinsize.The applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage and bedroom to createanaccessorydwellingunitandtobuildanattached2-car garage to replace the existing garage thatwouldbeconverted. The new residence would be 612 square feet in size and would consist of onebedroom, a bathroom, kitchen and living room. In addition to the typical development standards of parkingandbuildingsetbacks, which the proposal meets, accessory second units are subject to other special
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1994
requirement that either the existing dwelling unit or the accessory second unit must be occupied by thepropertyowner. Another one is the accessory second unit cannot be sold separately from the existingresidence, but may be rented. It requires compatibility in terms of buildingg materials and design. TheproposedstructuredoesconformtothedevelopmentstandardsoftheR-1-6 district, andtheotherspecialdevelopmentstandards. The Environmental Review Board reviewed the proposal anddidnothaveanyconcerns. It was staff's opinion the proposal does not create an adverse impactonthesurroundingresidentsorthecharacteroftheneighborhood. There are three conditions attachedtotheproposalthatwouldensurethereisanagreementtheunitwouldnotbesoldoft; that itwouldbeconstructedbasedupontheplansshownonthewall; and that prior to issuance of buildingplans, grading plans it would be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Public Works.The public hearing
was
opened.Aoolicant Genevieve Southgate, 1102 Timberline Lane, Santa Ana, said the present house was occupiedbyhermother. The reason for the accessory unit is to allow her mother to continue living in her house. Itwillalsoallowthemtohavelawnmaintenanceandtoimprovethepropertyingeneral. It will improvetheexistingvalueofthepropertyandwillbemuchmoreattractive. The unit will not be evident from
the street.Those speaking in
op osition Sue Smith, 374 North Maplewood, said her biggest concern was whether or not it was going tobeoneortwostories. Another concern was regarding property values. She has only lived in the areaforoneyear. She works for a title insurance company and has heard horror stories wherepeoplehaveapartmentsbehindtheirhouseandfamiliesmovein. Is there a City ordinance thatdesignatesthenumberofpeoplewhocouldliveintheunitwithoutviolating
the ordinance?Mr. Soo-Hoo said there was no specific number to provide; however, there was alimitationcontainedintheUniformHousingCodethatestablishesaformulaforthemaximumnumberofoccupants. In this case, he was not able to name the number, but there are certain limitations per theHousingcode. Also,there was a condition imposed in accordance withthe C.U.P. that would limit occupancy of oneoftheunitstotheownerofthepropertysothatbothunitscould
not be rented.Chairman Bosch said there have been a number of second accessory units approvedsincetheordinancepassed. He asked staff if there have been any problems in enforcing the deedrestrictionorotherwisewithregardto
the second units?Mr. Jones was not aware of any problems from the accessory second units. Mr. Soo-Hoo said there was one problem that was experienced through the City Attorney's office -- a situationwherethefamilyexpandedoccupancyintothegarage. However, that was remedied throughCodeEnforcementandcourtactionandisno
longer
a problem.Rebuttal Ms. Southgate said the second unit would be one story in height and would not beevidentfromthestreet. Her mother has lived there for over 10 years alone. Occasionally a grandchild willstayovernight.The second unit will be small and is not meant to house more than one or two people. Itisintendedforasmallfamily. The Barrios and Southgate family have had community activity with the City
of Orange for would Hoeft( thetl imeageato do anythng butdthe bestfoe themsurroundingp
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1994
The public hearing was dosed.
It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA, per Sedion 15303.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council
to approve Conditional Use Permit 2083-94 with the conditions of approval listed in the staff
report because the project meets and/or exceeds the development standards and requirements for the Gity
of
Orange.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett,
Smith NOES:
None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION
CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2085-94 - HIRAHARA PROPERTIES (KWANG HO
LEE)A request to allow the conversion of vacant retail space to "audio component" sales, service and
car stereo installation, with an automotive service bay door proposed on the east side of the buildingg
on property adjacent to a residential zone. The subject property ~s located at 917-921 North
Tustin Street tenant spaces within a commerdal building on the northeast comer of Tustin Street and
Collins Avenue.)NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303.Jim Donovan, Planning staff, presented the staff report as there was opposition to
this request.Automotive service and repair uses are not permitted by right of zoning in a commercial
district, however,there is a provision chat allows a conditional use permit to be the vehicle of review and approval
if so desired by the Planning Commission. The primary issue of whether or not it is subject
to the Commission's review, however, is more accurately whether it is adjacent to residential property.
In this case, it is adjacent to a mobile home park immediately to the east, although all other sides
abut either commercial property or public rights-of-way. The existing development of
the shopping center is compatible with most regulations except for relatively minor differences
when compared to current parking standards. Those are differences that have bean extensively detailed within
the staff report. The primary issue of concern is that the new equipment may be tested (audio car
stereo equipment and car alarms) upon installation and residents of the adjacent mobile home park could
be exposed to noise,including that from repetitive and persistent use of power tools, as well as the stereos
and car alarms. If the Commission were to approve the conditional use permit, staff suggests
two conditions of approval regarding hours of operation and no work being done outside the bulding.
The physical changes the applicant is proposing is to create an opening in the back of the existing building so
that cars can be brought within the space of the building for this type of operation.
Approximately two-thirds of the building would remain as retail-show room function and the rear
portion of the building would
be converted to a service bay.Chairman Bosch noted a petition was given to the
Commission against the request. The Commission also received a letter dated October 11, 1994 from Mr. Terry
Klingon, real estate agent representing the
land owner, relative to the
application.
The public hearing was opened.Apolicant Kwang Ho Lee, 23746 Goldrush Drive, Diamond Bar,
proposed this automotive service of audio component sales and installation, but he found out a lot of different things
going on at that location. He did not know the people in the mobile home park objected to the use.
He said the building was very small and his business was quite noisy. Ai this time he was not asking
for approval of the conditional use permit. The business hours are not acceptable to him as his hours
are very flexible depending on the situation of the market. Also, the tools he uses would be very loud
and would offend the neighbors; he
did not want to do that.Commissioner Cathcart thought there was a bigger problem than
hours of operation. Mr. lee seemed to be a very polite, honorable man. He wants to do the job
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1994
mean loud tools and a noisy business. The proposed use is in the wrong place. He preferred to sse
Mr. Lee find a suitable location where he did not interface with a residential community and was able to
turn up the noise and have the hours of operation to fit his needs. The present location would be a
detriment to Mr. Lee.
Commissioner Pruett expressed his feelings that Mr. Lee has also recognized the neighbors in terms of
wanting to be a good neighbor in his business and recognizes this isn't going to be a good use for the
neighborhood.
Those soeakina in oQOOSition
Tarry Caldwell, 1801 East Collins #73, was concerned H the applicant proposed to work on the vehicles
inside the building. It's 45 feet away from some people's bedrooms. Tha parking area is Tess than 12
feet from the residences. He was contained about the testing of vehicles and alarm noises.
Peggy Potts, 1801 East Collins, was c~ncemed about the noise from the business. It would disturb the
residents of the mobile home park. It's the wrong place for this type of business.
Mrs. Caldwell, 1801 East Collins, owner and manager of the mobile home park, has bean there for 30
years. It has been very quiet and nice for the senior dozens Iivin~ there. They aze afraid of the noise and
the seniors have earned the right to sleep in Iata or take a nap m the afternoon. The driveway is not a
driveway; it's an alley. There would be a problem 'd too many cars were brought in.
There was no rebuttal.
The public hearing was dosed.
Chairman Bosch appreciated Mrs. Caldwell's concern about the driveways (alley) and acx:ess as well. It's
a dangerous situation and is unworkable. It would not be a good flow of traffic for business.
Commissioner Cathcart would like to see Mr. Lee find a place and do business in Orange. He would like
to make sure Mr. Lee can be successful, but he canR be successful in this location.
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to deny Conditional Use Permit
2085-94 for the reasons stated in the
hearing.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett,
Smith NOES:
None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION
CARRIED Commissioner Pruett stated the Commission received a letter from the property manager, who
raised some question as to the proper use of the property and suggested this was the proper use.
He indicated he felt the proposed business was not a detriment to the residents of the mobile home
park.Commissioner Pruett thought it would be a good idea for the property management firm and owner
to review the minutes of this meeting and really learn just what type of business would be appropriate
for that location. He questioned whether this was really a letter to the Planning staff or whether it was a
letter to the property owner. The property management firm does need to do a better job of
understanding the adjoining residents and what would be an appropriate use before leasing the
property.Commissioner Cathcart added he believed the gentleman (Mr. Klingon) brought to the Commission'
s attention several operations in the City. He thanked Mr. Klingon for pointing out to the City
these people are doing business perhaps without a permit and new the City can go out and take a look at
their businesses to properly enforce the code and
Planning Commission Minutes
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
October 17, 1994
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to adjourn to the joint study
session with City Council on Tuesday, October 18, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the
proposed Zoning Ordinance Update.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
sld
8