Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: Chairman Cathcart STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Director of Community Devglopment; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Murphy chaired the meeting. IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5. 1992 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of October 5, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1985-92, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 92-25 AL RICCI A request for a conditional use permit to allow a two story second unit in the R-2-6 Residential Duplex, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet) zone and an administrative adjustment to permit a 6 inch reduction in internal garage width and a 7 inch reduction in required parking back-up area. Subject property is located at 355 North Cleveland Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition. The applicant was requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow a two story second unit adjacent to single story development in the R-2-6 zone. The project site is currently developed with a little over 1,000 square foot single story single family residence with a detached garage. The project site is also located in the Old Towne Historic District. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a new 1200 square foot two story, two bedroom second unit. Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 located behind the existing residence. Plans indicate that windows will be provided on all first and second story elevations. The proposed structure will have a 22 foot 10 inch building height as measured to the roof ridge line. The setbacks are more than required by the Uniform Building Code. The administrative adjustment request is to accommodate a water heater within the dimensions of the garage. The Design Review Board examined this project at their September 9, 1992 meeting and made a number of suggestions. It was brought back again on the September 23 meeting, which the Design Review Board found that the applicant had made all the necessary modifications and recommended approval of the structure. A number of conditions were placed on the project, however, from the Design Review Board and they are listed in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Applicant AI Ricci, 133 North Grand, proposes to build a two story dwelling at 355 North Cleveland. It is in accordance with the Old Towne Design Guidelines and the design and construction is compatible with the existing dwelling built in 1921. He worked with staff and went before the Design Review Board two times. They made numerous changes to which they adhered to. The proposed structure fits into the area and will add to the Old Towne charm. There are other two story dwellings on the street and adjacent streets. It's within the permitted use of an R-2 zone. He believed the building should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Those saeakina in favor Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, attended the Design Review Board meeting when the project was considered. She congratulated staff in coming up with something that was sensitive to the area. She favored the project. Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver, spoke in favor of the project. Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, thought the project looked wonderful; the back yard was adequate and was glad the green space/open space was taken into consideration. T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman, said people should be allowed to build on their own property as long as they meet the design standards. Those speaking in opposition Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood, lives behind the proposed project with a view from his backyard. He has been consistent in opposing two story second units throughout his time in Old Towne and he will not waiver from that. There are a number of second units in the area; he happens to live next door to one -- it's a two story second unit directly south of him built in 1978. There was another two story second unit built four lots up from him in 1982-83. The only other two story second unit is directly across the street from 355 North Cleveland and it was built prior to 1980. Those units would probably not be built in their configuration or how they are laid out in today's world. They were built prior to a time of preservation. The only other two story on that block is an existing two story older home, extremely modified, three lots down from Mr. Ricci's property. The other second units in the immediate area are all single story second units. The 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 property adjacent to Mr. Ricci's has a second unit single story. He had a number of problems with the design of the project. The clipped gable eaves are appropriate and he did not have a problem with what D.R.B. has addressed as far as the shell of what they've done. The problems center around the bulk, mass and the phasing of that. The bulk and mass of the project throws it back onto the back part of the lot, which is not historical. It would be better for the property to have the applicant build a second story or a new two story duplex (a flat) on the property and kept it in an architectural style rather than throwing it back onto the lot. It throws off the balance of the single story street facade of the neighborhood. The front house is 1056 square feet. The rear property proposed (just the living units) is 1258 square feet plus the 624 square foot garage. The second unit is 20% larger than the front house. This is considered overbuilding on the lot. He had a problem with the family room, which could easily be converted to a third bedroom. The plan shows a 6 foot rear fence. All that exists is a 42 inch picket rear fence and a 6 foot fence on the south side. Five adjacent neighbors will experience decreased property values because one person wants to build a second story in the back portion of the lot. The five neighbors get no benefit; the property owner gets all the benefits because of the increased rents. There will be an invasion of privacy; more noise out the second story windows. He reviewed the plans in detail and questioned the amenities. He called a number of realtors in town to ask about rental prices for a two bedroom, 2 story new unit. He was told rents were between $900 and $1,000. If the size were reduced and it was a single story (two bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths) rents would be $775 to $850. Why go to the expense of building a two story unit when a single story unit could easily fit on the lot. He proposed a solution: Reduce the setback to 10 feet, build that extra five foot depth, (5x35) adds another 175 square feet to the downstairs plus the existing 693, which would give a total build out of 868 square feet single story unit). Chris Kingdon, 353 North Cleveland, stated the proposed project leaves them with a view of the roof. They currently have a two story directly south of them and have no view that way. Their backyard is their haven and to lose the view will be sad. It's a nice project and it is pretty well designed, but when it affects the neighbors he's opposed to it. Commissioner Murphy noted the Commissioners received Mr. Kingdon's letter including the photos from his backyard. Rebuttal Mr. Ricci resented some of the comments made by Mr. Rahn. The family room was designed as a family room. To address the issue of the full bath in the back, he's proposing to build that unit for his parents who are retiring; He thought a full bath would be a good idea to put on the bottom floor. He's making it as nice as he can for them. Regarding the economic feasibility of the project, it was a determination he had to make. As far as decreased property values, part of the problem is the general market -- everything is down. He has improved the neighborhood since he bought the home. And, by building the second unit he will further improve the back and front lot through landscaping. Commissioner Bosch explained that windows and views in the back yards have always been a key concern of his. He noted several of the windows shown on the elevations do afford substantial views into the surrounding back yards. It seemed intrusive to him 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 to provide all those windows and not show some greater regard for the neighbors' privacy. Mr. Ricci replied that issue was discussed at D.R.B. To keep with the architectural style of the front house those windows in their configuration had to be that way. Hopefully the trees would grow and provide some type of barrier. In addition, he would not be opposed to putting some type of stained glass or obscured bottom panes to minimize the view. Commissioner Alvarez walked through the project with the applicant. He was concerned about the size. Typically a standard second unit is 850 to 1,000 square feet. He wanted to know if this were going to be used as a rental? Mr. Ricci said it was not designed as a rental. He doesn't need three bedrooms and thought the family room would provide the flexibility for his family. That's the additional square footage. Commissioner Alvarez said there was a need for some type of turf strip. The front unit doesn't really have a back yard. There's so much concrete. Would the applicant be opposed to some sort of pavers or stamped concrete? Mr. Ricci thought if it would enhance the view of the house from the street and it looks good, he would do it. Commissioner Alvarez came to the same conclusion as Mr. Rahn after reviewing the floor plan -- that of adding a third bedroom fairly easy. Were there any thoughts to re- doingthe porch? He knew in D.R.B. there was discussion about creating some kind of porch to separate it if there was a car parked there. Mr. Ricci said that was one of the reasons they extended the porch from where it was and hopefully there won't be a problem with people parking in front of the house. They have a spot to the side plus the three-car garage. Commissioner Alvarez also looked at the number of windows. Are that many really needed on the garage? Mr. Ricci said everything was designed to conform to the existing structure in front and that style used a lot of windows (very massive windows). They had less windows in their original plan and D.R.B. made them add in both size and mass. The windows are wood. Commissioner Alvarez asked if he were matching the pitch of the roof with the existing house? (Yes.) The landscaping plans were not brought before the Commission. What is really planned for the back yard area? Mr. Ricci said there would be a grassy area in the back and tree planters around the property line, in addition to further plantings in the front yard to enhance the neighborhood. There will be automatic sprinklers for irrigation. Commissioner Smith asked if the applicant had considered building a one story unit? 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Mr. Ricci did consider it, but it doesn't provide enough space and doesn't make sense financially. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Bosch regarding the window issue. She favored opaque windows. (Mr. Ricci did not have a problem with that.) Commissioner Bosch asked why this design was a better solution than putting the second story over the garage? Mr. Ricci said this design would minimize the impact to the neighbors and by putting it to the rear of the lot, the second unit would not be visible to the street. You will not see a mass behind the house already there. Commissioner Alvarez has seen flats built above the garages in Old Towne. There seems to be a waste of space. Have different scenarios been examined as how to lay out the building and fit it onto the lot? He suggested some different lay outs for consideration. Mr. Ricci said it would really upset Mr. Kingdon because that would make that second story unit in his backyard with a 10 foot setback from the fence. Putting it in the rear the way they did balanced the property much better. They felt this was the best way to lay it out. Commissioner Smith asked if staff suggested to him that a single story might fit in better with the streetscape and there are no other second stories immediately around it? Mr. Ricci acknowledged it was suggested to him when he made application if it were a single story, the conditional use permit would not be necessary because it was already in conformance. Weighing all the factors, he felt he could build a better looking unit -- some single story units do not look good. The architecture of the house with the gabled roof would look better on a second story unit. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch said this shows the dilemma they face. His first wish would be for the new addition to be on the front part of the lot and the little house on the back of the lot because it would help all the neighbors. That's a very expensive proposition. They are allowed by right in many parts of Old Towne and the conditional use process is to find a way to minimize the impacts on the surrounding residents where it's single story all around. He appreciated the work that went into making a design that everyone agrees is as compatible as it can be with all the finer points of the home in front and very sensitive to that. The key concern boils down to the impact on the neighbors. We want to preserve the streetscape, but on the other hand we set up a policy whereby we're putting the units into everyone else's back yard. So how can that be minimized along the way? He's torn. It's a big mass and at the back of the lot. He would have preferred to have seen it attached to the house in front because that would be less of an impact to the five neighbors. It, unfortunately, would impact someone. What can be done to reduce the impacts? First, reduce the windows and he appreciates Mr. Ricci's agreeing to etched glass windows for the bottom panes. A number of windows don't serve any useful purpose except for getting light into the stairway/landing. He would like to see something that was pushed forward with the second floor designed over the garage, even though it would have as great an impact on the one neighbor. 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Commissioner Smith agrees with Commissioner Bosch. It's a very difficult decision. She wished that the project had not gotten this far because it brings the Commission to their usual dilemma in Old Towne. This unit, if approved, will begin a domino effect and within two years there will be a number of second unit apartments with the same size and mass dwarfing the small cottages in front. The City does not have the proper Development Standards in place to protect the historical architecture integrity in the neighborhood. Mr. Ricci has designed a beautiful project with well meaning intentions, but it doesn't fit. She has not heard from any neighbors speak in support of the project; those who came are in opposition to it. The design of the project is much more beautiful, but she was concerned over the size and the lack of yard. There is no place for children in the front house to play. The children from the back house would play behind the unit, with no visibility from the residences. She does not like being continually caught in this dilemma. Commissioner Alvarez said the size of the project worries him. He agreed they would be setting a precedent for the neighborhood. He thought they would end up redesigning the project and that's not fair to the applicant. He saw too many windows and he didn't know why D.R.B. wanted them that big. The open space issue is also a problem. The impacts to the rear neighbors are such that he wouldn't want this in his backyard. He suggested continuing this item to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project. Commissioner Murphy was torn as well; however, felt quite a bit of apathy for the applicant because it looks like through the events of the entire process that he has tried to do everything he could possibly and still achieve the goals he was looking for, which was not a rental unit perse, but a larger unit that he wanted his family to live m. He applauded the applicant's willingness to try and work within the guidelines and work on roof pitch, the streetscape and a lot of things that have been talked about. The glass situation is not a new one. The Commission required a similar condition on another project before approving it. He thought the applicant had gone to great lengths to design a project above and beyond most the Commission has seen. Commissioner Alvarez commented this was a prime example of what the Commission was not getting from D.R.B. and E.R.B. and he pointed out a few things that were important for the record. Tabulations on the site plan are missing. He offered some general guidelines for all future submittals. The parking requirements should be on the plans. The maximum coverage vs. the actual should be a part of it. A person can meet the design guidelines, but what is the coverage for the lot and what would be allowed? That's something the Commission should not have to assume. D.R.B. was asking for something to be done in the driveway, but staff really didn't show the Commission. A site plan should require what the existing structures are around the project to see how the new project relates to the neighborhood. They know demolition will be taking place, but it is not shown. There are no landscape drawings or plans. The elevations are pretty, but do they show existing foliage or proposed plantings? It is unknown. Materials should be called out, especially on projects in Old Towne. The roof pitch was not explained nor were roof materials. The windows need to be specified as to single hung or double hung, wood windows, etc. He would also like to see the usable open space included on all projects. The Commission asked the applicant if he were willing to continue his item or have the Commission make a decision. 6 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Ricci agreed to a continuance. October 19, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Alvarez, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1985-92 and Administrative Adjustment 92-25 to the meeting of November 16, 1992 and that this item be heard first on the Agenda. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch commented this wasn't the first, nor will it be the last where a second story unit is requested that has a small single story unit in the front. It would behoove everyone to have some feedback from staff in terms of guidelines, good examples, bad examples or a desire to avoid setting examples to help everyone through the process. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1990-92 -SERVES YOU RIGHT, INC. A request to allow operation of a hot dog vending cart as an accessory use to an existing retail/warehouse use located in the M-2 (Industrial) zone. Subject property is located at 435 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Wendy Humphreys, 128 Melville, Fullerton, felt she complied with all the requirements of the conditional use permit and would like to acknowledge her compliance to the City's terms of this approval. Her privilege to operate may be revoked in the event of any violation. She has been in operation for 10 years throughout Orange and L.A. Counties with the hot dog cart vending company. She reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval and feel comfortable with them. Commissioner Alvarez asked if the sales taxes would be paid in Orange since her company is located in Brea? Mr. Herrick stated state sales tax is based on site of purchase so it would be attributable to the City of Orange. Commissioner Alvarez asked how the food quality was controlled? Ms. Humphreys responded they have a commissary that is fully licensed with the Health Department. It's inspected three times a year, as well as each location. The public hearing was closed. 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Commissioner Bosch noted this item was categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1990-92 with conditions 1-3 as listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: Commissioner Alvarez ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch excused himself from the meeting for the next two Agenda items due to a potential conflict of interest. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1987-92 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ORANGE A request for the proposed conversion of an existing residential structure to a private library, to supplement the adjacent private school. Subject property is located on the south side of the street, approximately 180 feet east of the Shaffer Street centerline, addressed 524 Moreland Drive. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15305. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom Ryan, 345 East Jackson, represented St. John's Lutheran Church. The property at 524 Moreland Drive is a conversion from an existing residence to a library facility for their school use. They have reviewed the staff report and conditions and have no objections to it. They intend to keep the property intact in it's original character. Prior to any certificate of occupancy they would implement a lot line adjustment along the south and west boundaries. The application has already been submitted to the City. They will also provide to the D.R.B. a detailed landscaping plan for their approval. This property is currently bounded on the west and south by St. John's Lutheran School, and the Church is currently in escrow on the adjacent property to the east. They view this as a temporary solution to some of their library needs. This project will benefit the City by the closure of the driveway along Moreland Drive and the added landscaped area. Circulation to the site will be pedestrian only through the existing school property. It will be limited to the existing students and teachers. They are currently at a maximum capacity. This is a resource center to the school; no other staff will be added. The classroom teacher will be responsible for supervision of the library during its use. This proposal will reduce traffic along Moreland Drive. Commissioner Alvarez asked if St. John's had any kind of master plan? Should the neighbors be concerned? 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Mr. Ryan felt it was important to discuss this with the City in the very near future. St. John's has gone through the exercise of reviewing its facilities and developing what could potentially be a master plan. Hopefully within the near future they will be able to present it to the City; They are land locked by residential property and it's a matter of utilization of the existing properties they already have. Commissioner Smith asked if it were their intent to keep the house on the property or to demolish it in the future? Mr. Ryan said that would be determined on the master plan. At this point in time it's the intention of utilizing it as a library and keeping the architectural character. Commissioner Smith was concerned about the removal of the restroom from the children's library. How could you operate a facility for children without a restroom? Mr. Ryan said with the removal of the lot lines it becomes a contiguous piece of property to their school. The students have restroom facilities that are available for their use whenever needed. The incorporation of a restroom facility into that building would require handicapped requirements which are difficult in the physical layout they have, not to mention the additional cost that would be incurred. Commissioner Smith wondered if it would if the historic building code were applied to the building. It is a historic property in good condition. That one condition can be relaxed to maintain the historic integrity according to the historic building code. She knows St. John's is crowded and if it were ever used for weekend use, it would be nice to retain the restroom. Mr. Ryan said if they could work with the City in that capacity and not have to meet some of the handicapped requirements, the size and configuration make it very difficult for them. Commissioner Smith also pointed out the handicapped ramp access. She knew the historic building code would apply to that. You have to have it, but it can be built in such a way that it's complimentary to the building. She was also concerned about the roof on the building. It looks like amini-observatory or a pop up skylight. It doesn't look original to the house; it looks like an add on. Mr. Ryan responded that was an existing condition and it is a square pop up window, which from the inside provides the most charming reading area. Again, there are no plans to demolish the house at the present time. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alvarez asked for some clarification from Dan Ryan on the historic status of the house. Dan Ryan, Sr. Historic Planner, didn't have the survey information in front of him, but said it was a contributing structure and recalled the building was pretty much intact with it's original period and features. Commissioner Smith was in favor of converting this to a library use for St. John's under the conditions that the historic building code would be applied to it in every instance 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 possible. It's mentioned in the evaluation that there's some discussion of the fire wall and closing windows, and a parapet wall; however, the applicant may submit a request to the Building Official that the state's historic building code is applied and reviewed. With the opportunity to retain this building, it's part of a collection on Moreland Drive. She would not want to see the building used just as an extra room in town and then muddle it with modern looking handicapped access, a fire wall, signage and everything else that deters from what they're trying to do in retaining it on the property. The sanctuary of St. John's was just admitted to the National Register this year; the other buildings on the property are lovely. It seemed to her at some point St. John's would want to apply for the whole property to be included on the National Register. She would like St. John's to strongly consider keeping the restroom and would like to make that a condition of the remodel (only if they were able to do that without significant expense). Commissioner Murphy concurred with some of the things that have been stated previously. It would be nice if the restroom portion of the facility could be preserved; however, not at the cost of finding an alternative use to maintain the basic integrity of the home. If there was a way to provide for that within the historic requirements and not incur additional expense, he would support that effort. He would also suggest that it be put in under those terms such that it gives the applicant the opportunity to proceed if that is not found possible in working with City staff. Moved by Commissioner Alvarez, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1987-92 with conditions 1-3, adding condition 4 that the historic building code be examined for its applicability in terms of the area of the restroom, the handicap accesses, the fire wall and parapet, and review of the skylight treatment on the roof. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1991-92 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ORANGE A request for the proposed expansion of the existing day care center, by the installation of a modular (mobile) unit on site. Subject property is located on the east side of the street, approximately 360 feet south of the Chapman Avenue centerline, addressed 151 South Center Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. plicant Tom Ryan, 345 East Jackson, represented St. John's Lutheran Church. He had the pleasure of coming before the Commission seven years ago and requesting a 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 conditional use permit for the property at 151 South Center Street to convert that to a day care center. They are now requesting a conditional use permit for a temporary expansion of the existing pre-school by an increase of 10 students with the installation of a modular structure in place of an existing abandoned garage; During the development of the original property they removed the existing driveway to the garage and provided landscaping in the area. The modular unit will be located adjacent to the existing play ground and located behind the existing Lambs Lot Pre-School. Recently St. John's has processed the lot line adjustment making one contiguous parcel for the entire school property with a separate parcel indicated for the sanctuary primarily because of its nature being placed on the National Register of Historic Places. This has been approved by Public Works and has been recorded. This application was reviewed by the Design Review Board and if approved by the Planning Commission, they will also provide additional landscaping in front, which would be on the west side of the facility, as well as meeting all other recommendations in the staff report. Commissioner Smith asked if other alternatives were considered to make the pre- school work without adding a modular unit next to the National Register building? Mr. Ryan said they examined all alternatives including various shifts, staffing within the existing facility, renovation of the existing garage facility, other locations on campus -- they have exhausted all the alternatives and possibilities with the exception of what may come before the City in the next year in terms of a master plan and use of their facility, which will be a long term project. That's why they view this as a temporary solution. Commissioner Smith said they didn't have a picture of the landscaping that is proposed. It mentions a 5x12 planter. Could a verbal description of the proposed landscaping be given? Mr. Ryan envisioned it to be landscaping that was compatible to the existing landscaping on the south side of Lambs Lot, which includes ground cover and trees to screen the front facade of the modular unit from view. Commissioner Smith asked how long the other modular units have been there? (4 years.) Is landscaping proposed on the Center street side of the modular (west side)? Yes, the entire width of the modular, 5 feet deep to buffer the street elevation.) The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith was a strong proponent of day care and would like to see St. John's continue and expand their day care. She was really torn about modular units on properties that are so beautiful. She was concerned about the domino effect of modulars. St. John's modulars on Almond blend in pretty well; the color is good and it blends in with the buildings. But modular units detract from brick buildings. Modulars sometimes stay on properties for 20 years until they're not safe anymore. The fact they're not building onto the house makes her think maybe that house is subject for demolition at some point. The staff report states that is a post-1940 house so it may not be contributing to the historic status. She doesn't believe the landscaping is adequate to soften the effect of the modular at the proposed place. It might work if it were hidden with landscaping so that it's not a glaring modular unit sitting there between the church, conservatory and two bungalows. She thought review was needed within 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 three years and mature landscaping be planted now to soften it. It also needs to be painted to blend in with the existing house. Commissioner Alvarez said it would have been nice to see some landscape plans and trees on the parking lot side. Commissioner Murphy suggested Planning Commission review the modular unit at the end of the 3 year term rather than the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Murphy noted both of these items were categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1991-92 to allow the expansion of an existing pre-school m the Office-Professional District and that the request will allow the installation of a modular structure to be moved on site and used as a classroom subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, amending condition 1 -after three years the C.U.P. be brought back to the Planning Commission for review; add to condition 4 -mature plant material so as to soften the view from the street of this modular; and add condition 5 -that the paint treatment of the modular match that of the existing residence. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5-92 -CITY OF ORANGE An amendment to the zoning ordinance to add provisions to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-2 (Industrial) districts allowing restaurants with drive-through service subject to a conditional use permit. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Commissioner Alvarez liked what has been added in terms of if the Commission approves this, that it's part of a larger complex rather than opening it up to the entire industrial zoning. It answers the question of spot zoning vs. leaving the existing zoning alone. Commissioner Bosch asked what would be the minimum allowed parcel size for that integrated industrial or commercial complex? Mr. Godlewski did not have the specific number and would get back to the Commission. The public hearing was opened and closed. 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Commissioner Bosch was not personally in favor of drive-through lanes because they are a waste of land use and do cause additional pollution. They are allowed by a conditional use permit in many areas of the City and no area is more appropriate than one where there is a substantial employment base with short lunch periods to which people would benefit from access to such a development; particularly in the integrated industrial and commercial complexes. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to recommend to the City Council to adopt Ordinance Amendment 5-92 and that the City Council consider adopting as policy design guidelines applicable to drive-through restaurants. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 6-92 -CITY OF ORANGE Proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code creating a new chapter (8.26 Leaf Blowers") regulating the operation of leaf blower machines. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Mr. Godlewski explained staff has prepared a recommended ordinance for discussion. They included their research on the subject: ordinances from other cities and other information they gathered to help make a good ordinance for the City of Orange. The information has a number of options and staff prepared a suggested ordinance and are looking for the Commission's direction and/or approval. Commissioner Smith referred to Page 2, paragraph 3, sentence two: "Concern was expressed that limiting the length of time that blowers can operate on any individual parcel may have a negative impact on City maintenance operations." Does that refer to the maintenance being performed by City employees? And where would leaf blowing be occurring? Mr. Godlewski responded that was correct. Currently the City uses leaf blowers in their maintenance of City Hall, parking lots, and City facilities. Leaf blowers are used to blow from underneath the planter areas, around tight corners and in the curb areas out into the main parking lots, at which point it is vacuumed up by gas powered vacuum cleaners. This also included parks, libraries -- all City facilities. Commissioner Bosch commented many ordinances have specific limitations with regard to noise. Staff has elected not to include anything stricter than the current City regulations with regard to noise (70 decibels) at the property line, not sustained for more than a certain period of time. Were there specific reasons for not putting it in? He understood there's difficulty in policing. 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Mr. Godlewski said that was their primary consideration. In doing the ordinance they tried to address the concerns expressed by the Commission and at the same time not make it unwieldy that it is a great ordinance, but there would be no way to enforce it. That would be difficult for them to go out on and make judgments and collect the technical data to enforce that type of regulation. Commissioner Bosch understood there might be some difficulty in putting something into ordinance that then the City knows it cannot go about to enforce, but on the other hand there are a variety of other ordinances setting some noise standards. Eventually his presumption was for ordinances to be more enforceable by certification by manufacturers. He would like to see something in the ordinance within the limits of the police powers of the City without enforcement causing a major cost to the City. He thought there should be a specific noise level -- maximum output of 70 decibels. Perhaps another issue would be the noise and dust protection for operators. If that is covered by State law, they shouldn't try to reiterate that, but clearly there is nothing being done to protect the safety of homeowners and garden workers. Commissioner Alvarez said the hours of operation disturb him. How did staff arrive at those hours -- 8:00 p.m. is a little late. Mr. Godlewski responded staff reviewed ordinances from other cities and ordinances the City currently maintains for noise in construction activities. Actually some ordinances extend beyond 8:00 in some cases. Commissioner Alvarez asked how this fit into the commercial people who are vacuuming the parking lots next to a residential area? Mr. Godlewski said if they're doing something that falls under the definition (Page 3) of a leaf blower, then they would be subject to this type of activity. It does not cover noisy equipment that vacuums. The public hearing was opened. Public comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, supports the ordinance. Is there a way for the City to require the operators to certify that the leaf blowers do not exceed a predetermined noise level? Can staff find out how other cities handle this and is there a fee involved? At some point some control over the noise of the equipment will be required. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, thought a good way the City could make money would be to require a smog certificate every year to get rid of the exhaust. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alvarez asked if they were developing another layer of bureaucracy? What have other cities done? Mr. Godlewski said staff included a list of all the ordinances from the other cities that were surveyed. It affords the opportunity for more government if that is the Commission's point of view. The Commission has the opportunity at this point to craft the ordinance 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 whichever way they wish to go. Or, at least balance the ordinance between the point that needs to be made on leaf blowers and how much the Commission wants staff to be involved in certifying, investigating or resolving complaints regarding this issue. Commissioner Alvarez asked if they should go through the trouble of creating the ordinance if it can't be enforced? He felt leaf blower actions will be way down the list for Code Enforcement activities. Will another fee be developed? Commissioner Murphy said without an ordinance in place individuals today can do pretty much what they want, aside from disturbing the peace at 3:00 a.m. Without setting some set of rules or guidelines to allow people to find out what the requirements are, including the noise level, where you draw the line is part of the decision that must be made in recommendation form. It will be a challenge to put something together from the City's standpoint that wasn't cost prohibitive from an enforcement standpoint, but that doesn't mean the City can't incorporate those County and State regulations that may already be on the books to ensure those types of things are available from an enforcement standpoint. Commissioner Bosch thought it was unfortunate to keep having to have laws and ordinances and not just rely on peoples' goodwill, but this is a case where new technology comes along and there are people out there who believe they benefit economically or by a reduction in their own manual labor by using new devices. He didn't believe leaf blowers could be banned outright. It's not going to be easy to police, but at least it will give the neighbors something to work with. Gardeners are not spending any less time doing the yard work by using these devices and they're not saving any money. He thought the proposed hours of operation were too extensive. He would like to see the hours limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sundays and holidays. That controllers be mechanically fixed to not be able to exceed 1/2 throttle or less with a maximum output of 70 decibels. The City should work through regional governmental bodies and the various associations of other municipal department heads to lead to something that is enforceable on a regional basis, if not banning it altogether. He asked staff to look into some reference for people who will be reading this ordinance to refer them to appropriate state laws with regard to protection of employees. A violation calls for a fine not to exceed $50 for each offense. Is that the limit for this sort of thing? Mr. Herrick stated the maximum fine the City is empowered to impose upon any misdemeanor is $500 by State law. There are very few ordinances where that kind of fine has been set. Generally, first offense fines is typically $50. Commissioner Murphy thought a graduated schedule might get the point across. Commissioner Bosch asked staff if they wanted to continue this item for an opportunity to revise the ordinance? (Yes.) 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to ask staff to incorporate the comments provided with regard to hours of operation, volume control, safety for operators and graduated scale of fines for repeat offenses into Ordinance Amendment 6-92, regulating the operation of leaf blower machines, and to be brought back to the Commission within 30 days. The item was continued to November 16, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Mr. McGee reviewed the Old Towne rezonings with the Commission. Part of the review included acceptance of minutes to Old Towne Study Sessions dated July 27, August 10, August 19 and September 14, 1992. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept the four sets of Minutes as a correct accounting of the meetings. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee thought the Commission received a good deal of information on the development, economics and financial incentives presented by Mr. Ryan and confirmed to by AI Gobar and Associates. The Commission also received another memo 10 days prior to this meeting. Also attached was a chronology of events that they have gone through. The process started in February or March with a formal request to the City Council to ask the Council to initiate rezonings for certain areas of the Old Towne area. Council's response to that was to refer those items to the Planning Commission and to the Community Development Department staff for recommendations back to the Commission on whether or not to initiate public hearings on the rezoning requests. In spite of all the public input, the City has not held a public hearing yet. The Planning Commission has held in the process 8 or 9 study sessions over the last several months. Two of those were discussing organizational types of issues, how to go about the process. There were five study sessions on the separate areas within Old Towne. Real development potential for individual parcels within the Old Towne area has been discussed, as well as the development, economics and financial incentives. The issue before the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council. Council has asked ultimately for a recommendation from the Commission of whether or not to initiate public hearings for these areas. The Commission has received all of the specific information or additional copies of that along with all of the magnitude of written materials. Commissioner Alvarez said Area E was not included in the potential buildout in the site plan development. He wondered if they could get that included as far as the final package? Mr. Ryan responded yes. They included with this packet one particular site of approximately 25,000 square foot lot with a large two story historic structure and a small duplex which would typify in some cases what the buildout would be for some of the lots on Culver. They tried to pick one that would fit that scenario. 16 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 Commissioner Smith asked if public hearings would be initiated on the Planning Commission level or City Council level? Mr. McGee explained the process: If the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council at this meeting, staff would take that recommendation to the City Council again as a miscellaneous administrative type of item. Council would at that session have the opportunity to make a determination on whether those public hearings should be initiated or not. By state law and by city planning law a zone change public hearing process is started at the Planning Commission level. So the first public hearings would be before the Planning Commission. And in that formal public hearing process, the Commission would be making a very specific rezoning recommendation to the City Council and they would hold the final public hearing on a zone change request. The City Council asked for recommendations from the Community Development Department and Planning Commission. Staff has given the Commission some very specific recommendations in terms of which parcels should have what type of zone. The Planning Commission has the ability to give those types of recommendations also. The only caution he had was if the Commission does get too specific, very specific, it may be very difficult to hold a meaningful public hearing process in the future. The Commission needs to go through that formal public hearing process and come up to a final conclusion. Having the recommendation determined by the Commission beforehand, could be a difficult situation for the Commission to be in. Mr. Herrick reinforced what Mr. McGee said. The Commission's options at this point are to make a recommendation as to whether or not a rezoning application process should go forward. He would not recommend making specific zone change recommendations to the City Council because by state law prior to making such recommendations, the Commission is required to hold public hearings. It would raise issues of due process and compliance with state law if the Commission were to specify specific zones that should be applied. Commissioner Bosch said there were a variety of staff recommendations. They would have to be careful in whatever recommendation the Commission makes to the City Council to note they haven't taken action on the staff recommendations, but merely reviewed the information. Public Comment Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver, met with Dan Ryan and Jere Murphy after the Area "E" study session. His comments referred to the memorandum dated October 19, 1992 from Jere Murphy. He corrected 15 property owners to 18 property owners. Other zoning classifications...they requested R-2-6 with no R-C-D overlay. Item 3 -there are an existing 26 homes in that area. "31 units or a 210% increase" is incorrect. He and his neighbors figured out there would be 23 additional under R-1. It would be less than 100% increase. Under 4, the increase under R-2 would be about 210%. Under 5, the zoning is consistent with surrounding land use patterns and R-1 zoning. Across the street is R-2, to the left of him is R-2 and behind him is R-2. The statement does not fit. Wil Chambers, 242 South Olive, referred to the October 19 Memorandum, Page 7 under Summary, Item 3. It says "The 200 block group has 20 of 22 existing structures currently being used as single and two family residences, one tri-plex and one existing non-conforming 4-plex." Actually the 200 block has 12 of the 25 existing structures 17 Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 1992 currently being used as single and two family residences, 6 shared houses, 2 tri-plexes, 3 four-plexes, one guest house and one rooming house. Of the 25 developed parcels in the 200 block of South Olive, five houses or 20% are owner-occupied. Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver, spoke about Area E (where they reside) and referred to Page 9, Item 5, "The zone is consistent with the surrounding land use patterns and R-1-6 zoning." She looked up surround in the dictionary and it says to encompass and enclose on all sides. As far as she could see, the only thing encompassing her completely is LaVeta, Cambridge, Shaffer and Culver. Surrounding is an act or movement of encompassing those things which surround. That's not quite the proper word to use. Going north across Culver less than half is R-1 and more than half is R-2. On the south, they are bordered completely by R-2 and the ends of the block are equal -one R-1 and one R-2. The area is more appropriately designated to be zoned R-2. They are an island of R-1 in the midst of R-2 zoning. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, referred to Page 2, under the second date of February 25, 1992 it says Orange Taxpayers Association submitted petitions of 70 to 80 property owners. It should be owners of R-3 and R-4 zoned properties to make any sense. Commissioner Murphy acknowledged Anne Seibert's letter and question of when a recommendation will be made by the Commission to the City Council. He proposed at their next regular meeting to make a recommendation to the Council concerning specifically whether or not it is appropriate to move to a public hearing process on this item. Commissioner Smith didn't see why they would need to have another meeting to determine that given the length of time that transpired and the information before the Commission. They have the task of recommending whether or not public hearings should be held. She was ready to vote on that at this hearing. Commissioner Murphy's concern is they left some questions to what exactly was going to be done when and he would like to make sure everyone who wants to be present can be when that action is taken. Commissioner Bosch thought too much time had passed as well, but he was also interested in good public order and being sure everyone is informed. He thought it was important that everyone had an opportunity who's interested in it to hear the reasoning behind it, and it's only fair to bring it back. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to place on the Agenda the Old Towne rezonings as a Miscellaneous Item for the next regular Planning Commission meeting of November 2, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 18 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, corrected a statement Commissioner Smith made inadvertently. The reason the Queen Anne house was turned down was because there was only a one foot setback. It was not relevant to Mr. Ricci's project. It bothered her that people on Commissions and in study sessions spending other people's money. It's not our business whether someone can afford to build something or not on his lot. Her third comment is about the house being used as a library by St. John's. She worked on the first historic house survey and in forming the design guidelines, it was felt most strongly that they were not going to be in the business of changing things that had been done years ago or building things to look like something old when they weren't. She sees this happening more now. To remove the skylight from the house is wrong. It should be left alone. Commissioner Alvarez introduced a plan at the last meeting to ask staff to bring the D.R.B. and E.R.B. together with the Planning Commission in order to review the design guidelines. Mr. Godlewski informed him the City Council had also asked for such a meeting. A tentative date and time for a joint meeting with Planning Commission, City Council and Design Review Board has been set: December 2, 1992. Commissioner Smith responded to Mrs. Clark's comments. There was nothing included in the conditions for St. John's library that referred to the skylight. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT October 19, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Bosch, Murphy, Smith MOTION CARRIED sld 19