HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-1997 PC Minutesf
d1.~.(;~
1500. (~.:;J.3
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange December 1, 1997
Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith ABSENT:
Commissioner Romero STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,TedReynolds, Assistant City Attorney,RogerHohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue
Devlin, Recording Secretary IN
RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Moved
by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of November17,1997 as written.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Smith None
Commissioner
Romero Commissioner
Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15546; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2191-97; ZONE CHANGE 1192-97;AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-97 - HEARTHSTONE
DEVELOPMENT This project was considered by the Planning Commission on October 6, and their review continueduntilDecember1, 1997. The proposed residential subdivision is reduced to 47 units, 14 less thanpreviouslyplanned. The residential density is proposed at 7 units per acre. The City's General Plan designationforthesurroundingR-1 neighborhoods includes a maximum limit of 6 units
per acre.The request is for approval of a revised tentative tract map, a zone change to R-2, Duplex Residential District (rather than R-3), and a general plan amendment (from lowdensityresidentialtolow-medium density). The development also requires approval of a conditional usepermit
as a planned unit development.The site is located East of the 55 (Newport) Freeway on the SouthsideofTaftAvenue, between Morningside
Street and the Newport Freeway.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1534-97 has been preparedtoevaluate
the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued
from the October 6, 1997 hearing.)Commissioner Smith excused herself from the meeting due
to a potential conflict of interest.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, reported at the last hearing theCommissiongaveaspecificlistofcommentstotheapplicant. The first being that the project wastoodensewhencomparedtotheresidentialdensityofthesurroundingneighborhoods. Thedensityhasdroppedfromapproximatelynineunitsperacretosevenunitsperacrewith46units. The Map also hasbeenrevisedtoeliminateallthealleystheCommissionconsideredtobesomewhatdetrimentaltothesafetyoftheresidents. There is now one circulation system of a private street that breaks off into anintersectionandservesall45units,which would front on each of those streets. There will not be alley accesstogaragesasproposedontheprevioussubdivision. Additionally, the open space, atthePlanningCommission's request, was consolidated into one larger, more usable parcel. The prior project
had open space
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
minimum requirement, but was located at the entrance way and was not very user friendly because the~ewasnorealinter-connection with the units, subdivision plan and the layout of the open space area. InthiScase, the applicant has included a larger area that does have at least some self policing because theunitsonthesidestreetswouldfacetheparkandwillmakeitmoreofacentralelementtotheresidentialsubdivision. There also was a concern expressed at the Planning Commission hearing about howtheresidentialsubdivisionwouldbetreatedalongthefreewayedge. The applicant has determinedthatthereisn't much to do there except to back the units up to the freeway to provide a zero lot line typeofwall, which would have very few windows, if any at all, and no openings, and a reduced yard of five feetatthatlocation, with the usable open space being transferred to the front end of the parcel and sideyards.On average, these lots are approximately 4,000 square feet or greater. The applicant has revisedtheirrequesttoazonechangetotheR-2-8 zone, rather than the R-3 zone as presentedatthelasthearing.The adjacent zoning is R-1-8. There are a couple of new conditionsattachedtothestaffreport. In receiving comments from the neighbors and in looking at therecentlyapprovedrevisionstotheOrangeMunicipalCode, the City is recommending that the property line blockwall, located in between the tract subdivision and Morningside Drive, be constructed more carefullyinconjunctionwithwhattheneighborshave. The City, by ordinance, does not allow two fences to be situated withinfivefeetofoneanotheriftheyareparallel. The applicant needs to address this issue onacase-by-case basis, with the voluntary cooperation of each of the property owners. There is alsoconcernaboutanexistingchainlinkfenceonTaftAvenue. It does not comply to the setback requirements at thistimebecauseitisatleastsixfeethighandislocatedrightonthepropertyline. The City is asking thatthefenceberemoved, or if it is necessary at all, that it be replaced the distance of 20feetbackfromTaftAvenue, and that some landscaping treatment be submitted for
review and approval by the Design Review Board_Mr. Jones stated some correspondence has beenreceivedregardingthisproject, including a petition on the tentative tract map that was filed by a number of residents. The City also received a letter from the Orange Unified School
District and a phone call from Harvey Rogers.Chairman Bosch also noted the Commission received anupdateonthetentativetractmapandthearchitecturalsiteplanwithsomemodificationstotheplanthathadbeendistributedearlier, The Chairman met with the applicant briefly before the applicant's meetingwiththehomeownersinthearea. This was for informational purposes only and there was noexchange
of opinion on potential outcomes of this hearing.Commissioner Carlton also met with the consultantfortheapplicantforinformationalpurposesandtoseethechanges
that had been suggested at
the prior hearing.The public hearing was opened.Apolicant. Bob Mickelson. P.O. Box 932, started with alistofitemstheCommissionprovidedforthemtoreviewastheylookedatarevisedplan. Numberonewastheproposeddensitywasconsideredtoohigh. It has been reduced from 61 to 46 units and hasbeenreducedtochangethezoningrequestfromR-3 to R-2. The second item wasinsufficientlandwasproposedasopenspace. The open space private park in the center of the project is now nearlyfourtimesaslargeastheonethatwasproposedbefore. They thought they were proposingaveryinnovativeanduniquedesign, but it was not acceptable to the neighbors_ They haverevisedtheirplanstobemoreconventionalforsinglefamilydetachedunitswithmoreconventionalsetbacks. All ofthesideyardsarefivefeetwith10feetbetweenthehomes. One unique thing that remains is that therewillbeprivateuseeasementssothata10footopenareacanbedevotedtooneresidentialunit -- a zero lot line concept. Although the homes backed up to the Morningside lots have a standard 20 footsetbackequaltoanyR-1 subdivision. In addition to that, the homes are designed to start with a onestoryelevationandshedroofthatrisesupawayfromtheplatesothatastheneighborslookfromtheirbackyardstothenewbackyards, they will see a mirror image of what the new residents would see iftheylookedtheotherway. The dead end alleys were discouraged and have been eliminated. The trash pick up was not adequately designed in the Commission's opinion. They nowproposestandardsinglefamilydetachedcurbsidetrashpickup. The interface between the lots andthefreewayshouldbecarefullyconsidered. From a marketing standpoint and also from a public outdoor livability standpoint, being backed up to a freeway is not the greatest thing. They have turned the zero lot line house towardthefreewaysothatthebacksidehasnowindowsorhasahighfixedwindowinthebathroom. There is no orientationtothefreeway; it's all to the side and front yards. The architecturalrelationshipbetweentherecreationareaandsurroundingunitsdidnotprovideadequatevisibility. They now haveacentrallylocatedprivateparkthathasvisibilityfromtwostreets. It has much better access to all the units,
a
shorter walking distance
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
the project than in the previous one where they had the park up to toward the front and those in the rearhadtowalkthelongestdistance. Now, the park is essentially in the middle of the project and it is veryconvenientlylocatedforalloftheresidents. This is a more of a conventional project that blends into theexistingneighborhoodwiththe20footrearyardsalongMorningside, and the 20 foot setbacks to the
garages on the street so that there are five parking spaces for each unit.
David Smith. architect for the oroiect. said they heard the message loud and clear that the higher densityproject, whereas it might be appropriate in some areas, was not acceptable for this particular location.They have re-designed the project to make it more conventional. It is now a traditional home with ~
he garages on the street and a full parking apron. The site plan accesses approximately the samelocatIonoffofTaft. They did slide it slightly to the east and there is a landscape element along Taft that wasnottherebefore. This serves as a front door into the entrance for them, and helps them in terms ofarrivingatthesite. It also achieves a community goal in terms of presenting something that'spicturesquetowardsthestreet. It is literally an orchard and they propose to plant orange trees. Themaintenanceandupkeepforthatareawillbeincludedinthehomeowner's association. The central landscapedareahasgrownquiteabit. It's now about 1/2 acre and is divided into two areas. One is more of a smallchildtotlotplayareaandtheotherwouldbeapassivegreenareaforpicnicsorplayingball. They arealsolookingataslightlydifferentbuyerprofilewithmorechildren. The earlier proposal would of hadamixtureofbuyers. Now, because of the rear yards and the more traditional home, they felt theyoungfamilyisalargertargetfortheirbuyers. The location of the park opens itself up to the entire insideofthecommunity. There is a single loop road on the site plan and it happens to be triangular becausethatistheshapeofthesite. The homes that face onto the green area will have a wrought iron fence sothattheywillalsoseethroughintothegreenarea, as requested by the Police Department. There aretwositeconditionsontheparcel. One is the freeway. They have taken the house and rotated it 90degreesandsliditbacktowardsthebackofthelot. This allows them a conventional rear yard back adjacent tothefreeway. The house plan remains the same, although rotating around will actually change the windowsonthefrontfacingthestreet. For the units adjacent to the freeway and those that back up onto theEdisoneasement, the usable outdoor space becomes an enlarged side yard element. They havemaintainedsomecommunityelementssuchastheparkway, the street trees, and they will be maintained bythehomeowner's association. The architecture ends up again being based in traditionalresidentialarchitecture. They are trying to minimize the impact of the house on these lots. They havedevelopedfloorplansthathavenorearfacingsecondstorywindowssothattheprivacyoftheexistingneighborsontheothersideofthefencewillnothaveanyonelookingdownintotheiryards. They will see a platelinewiththeroofgoingawayfromthem. The roof will be a little higher than a one story roof. Thisdesignputsallofthevolumeinthebackofthehouse, and will make the floor plans more interesting. He touched briefly on the technical issues of the site drainage. The site, as it drains now, drains fromthefreewayacrosstheopenspacetowardstheexistinglots. Their drainage will take all of the water onsitedowntotheacutepointatthesoutherlyendofthesiteintoanexistingundergroundsystem. It's an84"pipe. There has been some discussion with the homeowners about the adequacy of that system. They will have to have all of the hydrology studies taken care of by the City prior to any of thisbeingapproved. The lots that face the existing homes will be sloping away from their property lines. Thiswillhelptheoverallsitedrainage, keeping the adjacent water off of their
properties_Commissioner Carlton asked if the streets were two-way streets. (Yes.) Had thedeveloperconsideredaone-way loop
like Pami Circle.Mr. Smith replied the Fire Department wants to be able to get to everything in twodirections. If there was a one-way road, the Fire Department was nervous about one way ofgettingthere. They are proposing two lanes of traffic, with
parking on one side_Commissioner Pruett said it was mentioned the homes along the freewayandEdisoneasementwouldhavefrontyardfencing. He asked Mr. Smith
to describe the fencing,Mr. Smith said the owners will have the option of selecting the type offencing. He described the combinations of the different types of fencing and the setbacks associated witheachfence. This will create a nice variety of
fencing along the street.Commissioner Pruett spoke to the issue of the drainage and the hydrology studiesthatneedtobedone. Was he suggesting that the flood control or storm drain may
have
to be upgraded.
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Smith only mentioned it because it continues to be an issue at ",eetings with the homeowners. Theyareconcernedabouttherunoffofstormwaterinthatarea, and that the adequacy of the undergroundpipewillneedtobeverifiedbytheCityandengineers. If that becomes an issue, they will deal with itandmakeanyadjustmentthattheCityrequires.
Commissioner Pruett was curious as to why they chose to put a drive at the easterly end of the projectratherthanupoppositeofSacramento.
Mr. Smith said the engineering staff at the City did not want a 4-way intersection at Sacramentobecausetheycan't put a light there. They wanted their access into the site approximately midwaybetweenSacramentoonthenortherlyside, and Momingside on the easterly
side.Chairman Bosch said staff was recommending a condition relative to setting back the existing fencealongTafttoa20footsetbackandlandscapingthere. He said that was not illustrated on the preliminaryplansandhewantedtoknowhowthatwasgoingtobehandled. He also noted the remaining Edisonright-of-way under the towers is labeled Lot C and he wondered how that enters into thecalculationstabulatedonPage3ofthestaffreportwithregardtodensityand
open space.Mr. Mickelson said the two additional conditions are acceptable to them. They will submitadetailedlandscapingplanforthatfrontagealongTaft, perhaps for review by staff and/or theDesignReviewBoard, or Planning Commission. With regard to condition 23, they indicated at the secondpublicmeetingtheywouldworkwiththeindividualresidentsalongtherebecausetherearevariousblockwallsandfences. They offered at the meeting that if the owners wanted to tear down their wallsandtakeadvantageofthateasementforthedrainagechanneltoaddtotheirbackyard, theywouldberesponsibleforhaulingawaythedebrisfromtheirwall. They didn't want to offer to tear downthefencebecauseofliabilityissues. They are no longer going to plant a lot of trees in the rear yardssotherewon't be a screening of trees. Lot C is not included in the calculations at this time. Onlythepropertythatisgoingtobedevelopedisincludedinthe
density calculations.Commissioner Pruett understood condition 24 where it indicates to address the underlying landuseanddustcontrol, the Edison Company is to prepare landscape and irrigation plans to improvethefrontagealongTaft, and that the Edison Company is agreeable to that. (Yes.) Lot C is not goingtobelandscaped; it's just the frontage. What uses might that property be
put to.Mr. Mickelson replied it is a vacant piece of land, a typical power line easement. It is maintainedonaminimalbasisbecausetherearecertainlimitationsastowhatcanbeallowedunderthelines. They are proposing landscape plans to make the frontage more acceptable to the community, and notjustthechainlinkfence, which has existed since the nursery was there. The Edison Company{s always responsible for
dust control. \Those soeaking
in opoosition William Flory. Orange Unified School District. 1401 North Handy, noted there aresignificantenvironmentalimpactstotheSchoolDistrictandassociatedcostswiththat. They are about $385,000whichincludessignificantconstruction. All of the schools in the area where this development is proposedarealreadyovercrowded. Several schools are being evaluated for multi-track year round programs todealwiththeexistingovercrowdingthatistherenow. The elementary school is not able tofullyimplementtheGovernor's 20 to 1 ratio program. The initial study that is included in the report statesthere isn.o impact on the schools. They find that all of the schools are over crowded and to handletheadditional'students that this project brings, will create a need for construction to mitigate the impacts. Orange Unified has been in conversations with City staff since early October, and some of the requiredstudiestheDistrictwasrequiredtocompletewerenotfinisheduntiltheyreceivedadraftreporttwoweeksago. That report has now gone to their Board of Directors and will be scheduled for Board action onDecember11. The District's position is that until the school impacts are mitigated, they
oppose the project.Chairman Bosch thought this was an appropriate time for Mr. Reynolds to discusstheassertionswithregardtotheGoletaUnionSchoolDistrict's legal findings relative to the application andconcerntotheenvironmentalorCEQAportionoftheirdeliberationsvs. socio-economic deliberations aspartoftheCitypolicyrelativetothe
Schoof
District's findings.
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Reynolds, at this time, did not have questions for Mr. Flory. Perhaps, they could get into thisdiscussionalittlelater, after they hear from the School District's attorney.
Robert Eckstein. 1656 Morningside, thought this should be 6 1/2 acres. He calculated the road that goesthroughtheproperty, which calculates out to 2 2/3 acres. That leaves 3 3/4 acres. Three-quartersissupposetobetheplaygroundorparkarea. That leaves 3 acres. Seven houses on 3 acres means21.He couldn't see where they were going to crowd these homes on 3 acres. There were too manyhousesforthe
acreage.Mr. Jones understood that Mr. Eckstein was looking at the land area, and he explained the way theCitywouldlookatdensityforvacantlandintermsofaccommodatingstreets. If this were built adjacent totheexistingstreetsystemwheretherewerepropertylinesthatdidnotincludethestreetitself, then astreetcomponentwouldnotbeevaluatedaspartofthedensity. However, on raw land requirements, the City's General Plan looks at this very generally and has a density within a particular project that couldbeconstructed. Within that, adequate roadways and access points are required to fit within thosedensity
limits.Chairman Bosch clarified the density and its review against the General Plan, because it was anoriginalsubdivisionofundividedland, is based on the gross land area; not the net on the parcels after thestreetis
subtracted.Alex Chavola. 2440 East Hillside, shared some pictures he took of the area with the Commission. He also had a copy of the builder's plan. He showed this plan to the Public Works Department and theytoldhimcertainhousescouldnotbebuiltbecauseofthesewerlines. He felt this property should remainasR-
1 zoning.Chuck Frey. 2309 East Lakeside, said Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley have greenbeltsoneveryoneoftheirEdisonproperties, from Beach Blvd. to the Santa Ana River, from PCH up to the farsideofEdinger. He spoke about the existing drainage problems and increased traffic hazards. He questioned the reasons for an Environmental
Impact Report.James Roberts. 1752 North Morningside. questioned the R-1-8 zoning for theentirearea. He thought the proposed roofs looked like ski lifts without snow. They turned in anotherpetitionwith463people
opposing the zone change,Jennifer Atkins. 1752 North Morningside, found it interesting that Fountain Valleyhadsomanygreenbelts.She said there was a manhole access on Lot 9 and that owner will not be able to haveablockwallalongtheirpropertyline. She wanted to know why the City can't put in a lightattheSacramentointersection.The storm drain at the cui de sac of Parkside, with all of the run oft from adjacenttracts, cannot handle the water run off now. There will be flooding at this location. She asked what happensifahomeownerdoesnotwantablockwall, or they want to keep the
fence they currently have.Betty Roberts, 1752 North Morningside, questioned the orchards and orangetrees. She measured the pipes when they were installed and they are 72" -- not 84". She gave the Commissionsomepictures
to look at.Joe Davis. 1659 North Morningside. said the community would like to keep the land as R-1. One of the things the builder brought up in the homeowners' meeting was that R-1propertybackeduptofreewaysdonotsell. From personal experience, if the property remains R-1 andhomesarebuilt, they will sell.On Sacramento those homes back up to the freeway and they sell
just as fast as the others.Lysa Saltzman. 4920 Campus Drive. Attorney for the Orange UnifiedSchoolDistrict. did not have a presentation prepared. She believed their correspondencewasfairlyrepresentedandtheparagraphwhichaddressestheCity's previous assertions with respect totheGoletacaseandaddressingwhetherornottherearephysicalimpactsthatresultfromovercrowdingofschools, she highlighted that one of the primary differences between that case and the current situation isthatthereisnoenvironmentalanalysisthathasbeenperformed. It would be very helpful to haveanenvironmentalimpactreporttoaddresswhetherornottherearespecificmitigationmeasuresthatcouldbeimplementedtomitigatetheschoolfacilitiesimpactsthatwouldbecausedbythisproject. She has reviewed the proposed negative declaration
and
believes it to
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Commissioner Carlton stated it was not helpful to get this kind of material at 6:30 the night of the hearing.It would be better to have correspondence even the day before the hearing so the Commission canstudyitscontents. This is what happened the last time and she didn't appreciate it.
Chairman Bosch said the Commission recognizes the School District is undertaking a potential pol.icychangeandstudyanditisgoingtotheBoardDecember11. The Commission does not know what ~ctlonwilltakeplaceatthatmeeting. The Board sets its own policy and makes decisions hop~fully rela!lve tofindingsrequiredunderStatelawwithregardtothisspecificissue, and has an avenue of dl~logue wIth theCityCouncil, which sets the policies and ordinances for the City of Orange. The discussion b~f~re thePlanningCommissionclearlyindicatesthereareapplicableCityordinances, not even conditions ofapproval, relative to identifying and paying the appropriately approved school impact fees that are setforthinthelegislationbypolicysetbytheCityCounciluponpetitionoftheSchoolDistrict. That app~arstobethebasisbywhichthefeesareset. And yet, Ms. Saltzman is coming forward on the basIs ofCEQAguidelines, and with very little time to review, he needed assistance to identify in a clear way sothatitisunderstandabletoallpeoplewhysheearnestlybelievesthatitisappropriateinthiscasevs.going through the channels. By what authority has the Board, and to whom has the Board of the SchoolDistrictgiventherighttoannounceonitsbehalfthesetfeethattheDistrict's representatives have plac~dforwardhere. Has the Board delegated that action to its staff members. Has the Board adopted thispolicy. The Commission understands there is a study and they know what happens to studies. Ms.Saltzman was asking the Commission to buy something that is still ambiguous at best and on the legalbasis, they have a clear difference of opinion on whether the avenue they've approached is anappropriateavenue. They haven't had a discussion relative to are there impacts on the School District ornot. The whole community cares and is concerned about that. But, the Commission has to rely on thewaythepetitionisbeingaddressedtothem -- what the power and authority of the Planning Commission isrelativetotheSchoolBoardandtheCityCouncil. Is this just the approach that's been used before.Hedidn't see that there is a finality to Ms. Saltzman's interpretation of the Goleta case that is different thanotherinterpretations, including the City Attorney's office. What weight has the School District Board ofDirectorsgiventoapprovalofachangeinfeesandacertificationoftheimpactsMs. Saltzman is professing.Ms.
Saltzman thought the important aspect is that with respect to the Planning Commission's action for thisproject, or any project that is seeking legislative approval, which would be the zone change, which wouldchangethedensityandalsotheGeneralPlanAmendment. The assertion is that there is a physical environmentalimpactthatiscausedbythechangeindensity. By increasing the density, and as indicated bytheapplicant, there would be more traditional homes that are marketed towards young families who wouldhavemorechildren, that would come into the District and would then generate students to attend theseschools. This type of environmental impact is subject to mitigation. There is a statutory requirementof $1.84 per square foot for residential development for all development projects; however,undercurrentcaselaw, when there is a project that is seeking legislative approval, it is incumbent upon thePlanningCommissionandthelocalagencytoconditionaprojecttoachievefullmitigationinthesamewayastheywouldforgrading, setbacks and schools. The District's impacts are greater than $1.84 per squarefoot. With respect to the study, the fee justification study is going before the Board on December11; it has not been approved by the Board. However, last year the Board of the Orange UnifiedSchoolDistrictdidadoptaschoolfacilitiespolicywhichprovidesthattheschoolsareimpactedandthattheDirectorofPlanningisdirectedtopursuefullmitigationonallnewresidentialprojects. That mitigationdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobeadollaramount. It could be a condition requiring the applicant toenterintoamitigationagreementpriortorecordationoffinalmap. It could be a condition requiring the dedicationofparklandorschoolland. There are many types of mitigation measures. The actual dollar amountshouldnotbederailedbytheactualdollaramountthathasbeenspecifiedintheagreement. The issueiswhetherornottherehasbeenanadequateenvironmentalimpactreportcompletedforthisprojectandtherehasn't. There is only an initial study that indicates there is no impact when clearly there is. There is no environmental study that points out what the cumulative impacts from other residential developmentintheSerranoHeightsareahasonthisdevelopment. Those are all the reasons why an environmentalimpactreportisneededandthat's the citing of the Goleta case.Chairman
Bosch explained the testimony Ms. Saltzman brings, as well as everyone else, to the discussionentersintothepublicrecordandformstheproposednegativedeclarationthatisbeforetheCommissiontoallowtheCommissiontoproperlyascertainwhetherornotCEQAisbeingfollowedinthatregard. He noted Ms. Saltzman's letter to the Commission this evening still references the Beazer development. He is still trying to figure out where the $1.2 million that they put forward several years agowenttoimprovetheschoolfacilitiesandhewouldlikeareportonthat. The Commission cares about 6
T'
II I
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
the schools, but they also care about due process, not only here but with regard to the legal basis fortheSchoolDistrictinteractingwiththeCityCounciltoappropriatelyassessfees.
Ms. Saltzman understood and thought it would behoove the District and City to continue meeting li~e th~ydidlastweeksothattherecanbeauniformpolicythatisappliedforfullmitigationofnewresidential
developments.
Mr. Reynolds said in light of the School District considering this study on December 11, assuming the
study is approved, he asked what will the District come back to the City and ask of them.
Ms. Saltzman responded a condition of approval on the project requiring full mitigation prior to issuanceofabuildingpermit.
Mr. Reynolds said that request was premature for this project. It seemed to him Ms. Saltzman would becomingbackaskingtheCitytoadoptsomekindofanoverallpolicyforfutureprojects. Once the Boardhasacted, what will they be asking the City to do.
Ms. Saltzman said prior to the School Board acting, they will continue to oppose new residentialdevelopmentsthatfailtoadequatelymitigatetheimpactsontheschool. Once the Board acts, they willcontinuetoopposeresidentialprojectsthatfullymitigatetheimpactsonschoolsandperhapsupondirectionoftheBoard, she didn't know specifically whether the Board would direct the District to pursuesometypeofCityordinance. That's always one avenue. However, that is not the only legally acceptablemeansofachievingfullmitigationonresidentialdevelopments. Usually projects on a case-by-case basis are independently conditioned depending on the impacts for that
particular project.Commissioner Carlton said it seems like there is a lot of effort going into how much is goingtobeinvolvedinmitigatingnewconstruction. She deals a lot in resale homes and many of thesellersarepeoplewhosechildrenhavegone. Many of the buyers are younger families with 2, 3 or 5childrenthataremovingupintoabiggerhome. She asked how the School District projects the impact, orhavetheymadeaprobabilitystudyastohowthatisgoingtoimpactthepopulationof
the schools.Ms. Saltzman believed that would be tied into the student generation factors that are preparedbytheirconsultants. She thought it was in the first few pages of the fee justification study reportthatwassubmittedtotheCommission. That's a calculation that a demographic consultant willtakeintoconsideration. Of course, all of the student generation rates are based on projections. That's oneofthefacetstheytakeintoconsideration. The mitigation payments as well as statutory school feesonlyapplytonewresidentialdevelopment. The obligations of the developer are only to mitigateimpactsforstudentsgeneratedfromtheirprojects. It does not address students that would begeneratedfromresalehomes. Clearly, that is an impact, but it is not an impact that is addressed with respecttonew
residential development.Pat McCrory. 2415 East Taft. asked about the proposed hiking trail that ran behindtheMorningsidehomes. It would go straight through and underneath the 55 Freeway where there use to be abridgefortherailroadtracks. Under the proposal, they wanted to turn and run parallel to Taft, gounderneaththeFreewayandmakealeftturn, go along the Freeway, then reconnect back up to theSouthernPacificRailroadtracks. The Edison Company has given that property to another developer and thereisnoprovisionforthattrail. He wanted to know who was going to pay for that going underneath
the Freeway.Aoplicant'
s response Mr. Mickelson understood the trail had already been re-aligned on a previousGeneralPlanAmendmentandnolonger
traverses this site.Mr. Donovan clarified the General Plan has not been amended, but the City hasrecentlyadoptedaMasterPlanofRecreationTrailswhereateamofconsultantslookedmorecloselyatthealignmentsthroughouttheCity's system and determined whether or not the alignments were feasibleandwhatkindoftrailcouldbeconstructed. They recommended on the revised map that the trail shifttothewestthroughthesubstationdowntotheStandardPacificright-of-way. This planwasadoptedbytheCityCouncilThislegofthetrailhasbeenre-routed so it doesn't crossthepropertyinquestion. But the General Plan still is drawn in a form that shows the trail on the property, which is why staff required the applicant to
apply
for a General
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Mickelson said in reference to the sewer that crosses the site diagonally, th~y are well.aw.a~e of i! and
know it must be relocated. That's a matter of construction. With regard to drainage, ~helr cIvil enlllneer
has looked at the site from a preliminary standpoint and is estimating that the increase In.storm dral~ flow
will be between 2 and 3 CFS, which he is confident can be accommodated by the 84" pipe that eXists at
the south corner of the tract. They do not propose to tie into the 72" pipe behind the Roberts' home.
The hydrology study and plan must meet the City's requirements and if there is a need to upgrade the
system, it will have to be done. With regard to the hole behind Mrs. Roberts' house, they have. told her
that it will have to be filled in and compacted as part of the construction with an approved gradmg plan,
checked by the City. With regard to the School Board's request for total mitigation, it is really an 11 th
hour surprise to them as well. They're not sure they agree with the School District's calculations or the
total amount of impact so they will continue their discussions with them. Edison is willing to do som.e
landscaping on the easements with ground cover or some kind of greenery to control dust. They Will
submit a landscape plan for the frontage and the easement itself will have a separate plan. He thought
Mrs. Roberts was right -- he did not agree with orange trees either, but an orange grove would be very nicethere. Other trees can accomplish the same thing and their plans can be changed if another tree IS more
suitable. The other issue is why do they have to put up with higher density in a neighborhood.That'
s a hard question to answer. They tried to answer it by saying if this particular triangle of land had been
developed some 25 years ago, it probably could very well have been developed along with that tract
into 8,000 square foot lots, and yes, those homes would re-sell backed up against the freeway.
They didn't mean to imply that one could never sell a home backed up against the freeway. But in
today's marketing and the product people are looking for in the single family, small lot product, it's much
more difficult. They have tried to design that into the project to make those homes more desirable than
they would be if they were just 20 foot rear yards, windows, supposed outdoor recreation area, backed
up to the freeway. They have an isolated site, a triangular shaped site, one that has difficulties in size,
shape, location and access and they believe it doesn't lend itself to an 8,000 square foot subdivision in
today's world. They've tried to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors in terms of traffic, setbacks,
the design of the home that is a conventional R-1 with conventional parking, streetscape and rear
yards backed up to the existing rear yards, and yes, they have requested the General Plan be changed to
a higher level of density than is immediately adjacent to
it.Chairman Bosch said there was a question raised with regard to access and maintenance of the
existing now under ground storm channel, particularly with regard to a manhole at the back of one of the
lots.Given the proposed development and the location of the easement, how is that accessed and does
that access occur across the parcel in question and therefore be
blocked.The civil engineer said the existing easement is across the adjoining homeowner's property. As part
of the project, if a block wall were to be built there, a gate would also need to be
provided.Mr. Mickelson said it appears the manhole is midway down the tract boundary and with a
conventional side yard and 20 foot rear yard, it could have access made through that lot. That's a very commonthing.An easement can be provided for the City to maintain that
manhole.The public hearing was
closed.Chairman Bosch said there were brief comments relative to the offsetting of intersections warrants
or location distances for signalization. He would like more detail on
this.Mr. Hohnbaum responded when this project was originally submitted to the traffic engineer, it was a
much higher density. It was the engineer's determination that the volume of the side streets would not
produce a warrant necessary to place a signal at that location. It's not a matter of whether the City can't or don'
t want to, it will not meet the warrants and typically the City will not place signals that do not meet
these warrants. The warrants are met by a number of factors and the Traffic Engineer does not feel
those warrants are present. It is the City's desire to off set the intersection so that they did not have both
of the side streets coming into the same uncontrolled areas at the same time. By lowering the density,
this makes the engineer's findings even more
justified.Commissioner Pruett said by moving this to the eastern portion, it brings it closer to Morningside.
Will the traffic turning out of this project, make it more problematic for ingress/egress out of
Morningside.
8
T -.
If .r
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Hohnbaum could not specifically answer the question because he didn't know the lo~ds,. but theTrafficEngineer's analysis felt this would have been the better location between Mornrngslde andSacramento.
Chairman Bosch said there was a lot of concern about the zoning of R-1-B vs. R-2. TheR-2 zone is combined with the CUP for a planned unit development. If this were approved, theconcernisthatitwouldgivetheapplicantanopportunitytodosomethingotherthanwhatisshownontheplanstodosomethingelsebyhavinga
different zoning in place.Mr. Jones stated this specific project has a variety of entitlements includingaGeneralPlanAmendment,Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit to allow a planned unit development and aTentativeTractMaptosubdividetheproperty, and assumes a specific development product type. The Zone Change cannot be conditioned. This project would be entitled for a two year period in termsoftheConditionalUsePermit. The developer would have two years to develop this product type. Ifforsomereasonthatprojectdidn't obtain financing or follow through. it's possible they could comebackwithsomeotherrequestedproducttypeanditcouldinvolveanotherTentativeTractMaporanotherConditionalUsePermitormajorsiteplanreview. Typically, there would be some other entitlementthattheywouldhavetogothroughthatthePlanningCommissionwouldreview. More directly, another
project could come forward.Chairman Bosch went back to the lettered lots A, Band C, Under thisproposal, are there alternative features that could occur on Lot C, the Edison right-of-way. They haveheardoftheEdisonrestrictionsonerectingpermanentstructuresunderthetowers. What
else could occur on that land.It was Mr. Jones' understanding that the under lying zoning for theEdisonpowerlineswillremainasR-1-8,OOO. It could include such things as a park, or greenbeltareaunderthepowerlines. Edison does not just make a green belt available withoutcertainagreementsandconditionsthatdealwithprovidingliabilityinsurance, hold harmless agreements, other kindsofthingstoinsuretheyareadequatelycoveredforpublicuseofthatspace. Uses allowed withintheR-1-8 zone include single family residences that meet the zoning, mobilehomeparkbyCUP, manufactured housing on permanent foundations, planned unit developments by CUP, congregatecare, home health care facilities, homes for the elderly, family day care centers, commercial nurseries, real estate offices, agricultural uses, animal keeping, antennas,cemeteries by CUP, churches, museumsor
libraries by CUP, public recreation or parks and educational institutions.Chairman Bosch said a portion of thelotsseethegrovelocatedeastoftheproposedentrance.Notwithstanding Edison's rules about distances, developmentorwhatthey're willing to sell or lease from the actual line of the high tension lines above, there a portionofthelandthatisnotdirectlyunderthehightensionwires. If this were approved, would it take separate action or simply someone conforming with those uses allowed by right in the R-1-8 zone could come in and change that
unless the project had CC&R's to prevent that from occurring.Mr. Jones said any of the permittedusesthatdonotrequiresomeotheradditionalentitlementsuchasaconditionaluse
permit or zone change, could come in as a matter of right.Commissioner Pruett said the issuewasraisedthatEdisondoesn't normally enter into those types of agreements withoutsometypeofagreementforindemnification. He wondered where Edison stands in terms of doing a landscapedgreenbelt
and what are the requirements or stipulations for that type of condition.Chairman Bosch took the applicant's representative's statement to state that Edison would be willing to stipulate to putting thefencebackandlandscapingtherequiredsetback, and to also landscape the remainder of the easement
in ground cover with a landscape plan to be presented for approval.Mr. Mickelson said Edison is willing toputinlimitedlandscapebehindthefencebecauseitisunderthepowerlinesandEdisonwouldmaintainit. A separate landscape plan would be
submitted for the Edison easement and the setback (separate from the project).Commissioner Carlton wondered iftherewasdiscussionwithstaffintryingtodeveloptheveryoddshapedpieceoflandasR-1-B. How many homes could be put on
that
property and would
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Jones believed staff was approached with a specific proposal '~~r a planned u~~t developr:n~~t forthissite. It is a very unique property and typically doesn't work well In terms of traditional ~ubdl~lslon~.The planned unit development concept is intended to take the uniquely shaped pro~ertles wl~h. ~nltproblemsandtrytocreateabetterlivingenvironmentthanyouwouldgetundertypicalsubdivIsionrequirements. He was not aware staff was approached with a traditional, 8,000 square foot subdivision.
Commissioner Carlton wondered what the reaction of people would be if a cemetery or mobile homeparkwereproposedforthesite. She's asking what the alternative would be.
Chairman Bosch said that was an interesting question. He asked the question about the statistics and ~otCisn't included in developing the statistics. Again, rounding it off, it appears that if the overall tract, whichincludesLotC, were included in the calculations, it's fairly close to 8,000 square feet per house. Hewonderedifstaffwereapproachedonlookingatitfromthatviewpoint. This is an unique productapproachbecauseofthefindingsnecessaryforaplannedunitdevelopmentrelativetoalivingenvironmentbetterthanthatwhichonecouldhaveonthesamepropertyunderastrictapplicationoftheunderlyingzoning. Given the odd nature of the property, it's a larger piece of land than they aredeveloping.
Mr. Jones responded staff has had some discussion with the applicant about that approach because asChairmanBoschpointedout, if you took the entire triangular shaped property on the exterior boundariesandappliedthe8,000 square foot lot to the entire site, you would get roughly the same number of unitsthataretherenow. Staff's only concern was that the remainder of the property under the Edison lineswouldbecommittedassomekindofanon-buildable or more permanent open space component. It was his understanding that the applicant has approached Edison with that concept, but he didn't knowiftherewasadequatetimeforthemtopursuethatsolutionmore
precisely.Chairman Bosch was concerned that the perception of many people is that higher density zoning, suchastheR-2 that is currently proposed, still represents a potential for something to happen. There hastobepermissionofthelandconveyortogoalongwithitsincetheyareretainingpartoftheland. Hedidn't know why they should be against that except they would have to come back in and face theconstraintsonaverysmallpieceoflandinaresidentiallyzonedneighborhoodiftheywereevertohavethoughtofremovingthehightensionlinesinthefuture. The Chairman asked for Mr. Reynolds legaladvicerelativetotheSchoolDistrict's request and its application to the
negative declaration.Mr. Reynolds talked about the City's view of what Ms. Saltzman was talking about on behalfoftheSchoolDistrict. In 1986 the School Facilities Financing Act was enacted and at that point in timeandforseveralyearsafter, everyone thought that was the sole authority for school districts to levyfeesagainstdevelopmentprojectsforthepurposeoffundingconstructionofschoolfacilities. Then came so~e cases Ms. Saltzman had referred to which said that was not the sole authority for school districts to IefeesincasesofaGeneralPlanAmendmentoraZoneChange. So, the court has said, and there hsbeensomelegislativeattemptssincethentooverturnthosecases, but nonetheless, as Ms. Saltzmanhassaidtheyneedtolookattheenvironmentalimpactsofaproposedproject, which is something theCityhasdone. But, the City has the ability to impose other mitigation measures, if in fact, thereisanenvironmentalimpactoccasionedbytheproject. This is where the School District and the CitydivergeintermsoftheinterpretationoftheGoletacase. As he reads the current law, the student overcrowdinginandofitselfisnotachangeinphysicalconditions. That cannot be treated as an impactontheenvironment. Socio-economic impacts are not in and of themselves sufficient tocreatethesignificanteffectanditwouldthereforemandatethepreparationofanenvironmentalimpactreportandanecessitytoadoptastatementofoverridingconsiderations. Now increased enrollment cancauseasrgnificantenvironmentalimpactonlywhereitchangedaphysicalconditionsuchasclassroomconstructionwillresult.The information the City received from the School District shows that the SchoolDistrictrepresentsthattherewillbenoimpactupontheelementaryschoolservingtheprojectandonlythreestudentswillbeaddedinthemiddleschoolandsixstudentsatthehighschool, which are already inanovercrowdedsituation. But what the Goleta case said is that there has to be that physicalimpact. A three-student increase to a middle school and six students added to the high school would notnecessitatetheneedtobuildanewschoolornewclassrooms. So the question that has to be askedbytheCommissioniswhethertheGeneralPlanAmendmentandZoneChangeadverselyaffectexistingconditionsofinadequateschoolfacilities. Is there an adverse impact occasioned by the increaseofthreestudentsinthemiddleschoolandsixstudentsinthehighscr,ool. Staff is recommending that is notthecaseandthatiswhythere
is
a negative declaration.
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Chairman Bosch was very pleased there has been a radical improvement in the proposal. He was veryconcernedaboutthezonegiventheopenendnessthatmayoccur. He had a real problem with therealitiesofwhathasbeenseenelsewhere -- the Jones Ranch, along Crawford Canyon Road over to Cannon. He doesn't want to see problems if it can be avoided. That's why he raised the question of whyaretheyconstrainedtolookatonlyaportionofthepropertywhenthewholepropertyisincludedinthetractundertheordinance. Looking back, the findings that have to be made relative to approval of the ConditionalUsePermitforaplannedunitdevelopmentincludeasubstantialimprovementinthelivingenvironmentfortheresidentsofthedevelopment. He was also concerned with the impacts upon the existingsurroundingneighborhoodandthecontextofit. A great deal of effort has been placed into creatingacontemporaryhousingproductthathasminimizedasmuchasitcanwithinthelandconstraintsimpactsupontheadjacentneighbors. Truthfully, with many engineering issues to be worked out under theconditionsofapprovalandtheCityordinancesforasubdivision, the engineering has to go with them.Thehydrologyandexistingstormdrainageproblem, as well as what if any potential addition to that problemmightoccurfromthisdevelopmentallhastobeprovenoutandtakencareof. That is the burdenofthisdevelopmenttotakecareofwhatitdoes, and it is incumbent upon the City to look at what pre-existing conditions occurred because of the engineering of the original tract and solve the problems.But the open space development and how it has been joined together and enlarged, the private openspaceoftheresidences, the creation of usable private open space to the lots make it a livableenvironment, the landscaping proposed to off set the remaining Southern California easement andmaintainingaprivatestreetsystemthattaxpayersdon't have to support, but the homeowners will __ allofthesearegreatimprovements. Yet, the problem remains with the proposed zone vs. the underlyingR-1-8. That zoning also drives the General Plan Amendment almost in its entirety. He thoughtthetrailallocationisaseparateissueinthatregard. He wondered if they weren't hurting themselvesbynotlookingatthisasanoverallpieceoflandtosolvetheproblems. He was not willing to gowiththeR-2 zoning without some way of guaranteeing that if this is a product the CommissionlikesandwoulddesiretorecommendtotheCityCouncil, that this is the product they will get or it all hastocomebackandstartoveragaintobesureitissomethingthateveryonelikes. If the numbers calculateoutthatbyassuringandguaranteeingthecontinuationofLotCandthereasonablylandscapedopenspaceforthelifeofthedevelopmentcanbelockedin, and if the statistics bear out and they endupwithsomethingthatcouldretaintheR-1-8 zoning, but still have a CUP for the plannedunitdevelopment, a couple
of problems would be solved.Commissioner Pruett agreed with the Chairman's concerns. He would likeabetterunderstandingofhowLotCplaysintosolvingthatproblem. How did the Chairman see it tying
in to assure that mitigation.Chairman Bosch understood the applicant's representative to statethatthedensityindicatedandthereforethezoningrequireddidnotincludeLotC. It's just the southerly portionoftheparcel. If, by including Lot C through estimating the density, one had a development with thisnumberoflotsthatfitwithintheR-1-8,000, one unit per 8,000 square feet, then that isaproductthatcouldworksubjecttosolvingtheengineeringdifficultiesandhavingappropriateCC&R's. Then, they wouldn't have to have a zone change to R-2 to see the project move ahead. It could
remain as R-1-8 as it is currently zoned.Commissioner Pruett assumed Lot C would then beanopen
space that would be part of the planned unit development.Chairman Bosch asked staff if
the General Plan Amendment would still need to be necessary.Mr. Jones believed it would onlybenecessaryforthetrailcomponent. The redesignation from low density to low-medium aspect of it couldbedropped, and drop the zone change entirely and leave the property at R-1-8. Ifthe
project did fall through, the property would remain zoned for single family residential.Commissioner Pruett asked what
action would be required and what is the next step in the process.Chairman Bosch presumedtheywouldwanttheapplicanttostipulatetothisanddemonstratethat
they would have the right and desire to make that kind of change.
Mr.
Reynolds
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant were willing to investigate whether in fact they can develop this
property as a planned unit development, if a CUP were approved, with the plan as. seen. befor~ them,
subject to conditions and other ones the Commission might add to solve engineering, circulation and
landscape issues, and meet the development standards with the PUD in place for the R-1-~
zone.Essentially, they would have to have the approval of the land owner and developer to do thiS,
and acknowledge that this would conform with the R-1-a,OOO without negatively
damaging their project.Mr. Mickelson stipulated to a continuance to the next meeting in order to comebackwithaccurateinformation. Lot C is a lettered lot and is unbuildable. The only way it could be changed is
with a new tract map. They need to sit down with staff and come back with
a definitive answer.Commissioner Pruett was in favor of a continuance and felt other issues needed to be
addressed such as circulation. It might be good to outline some of those issues to see if they could be dealt
with as well.Chairman Bosch said the school fee issue should be part of the Commission'srecommendationtotheCityCouncil. Also, with regard to the interface between the ordinance
and recommended conditions,typically referred to as addendum sheet #1 to be sure they were on the right trackandwhetherthereneedstobespecificreaffirmationoreliminationofanyoftheissuestoassure
the drainage, easement access, maintenance, street and circulation problems are solved. That would be important tohaveinfrontoftheCommissionaswell. He thought Lot C should be tied in by the CC&R's to theotherportionofthedevelopmentinsomeway. It could be done in terms of an easement to protect theaccesstothedevelopmentwhilebeingmaintained
by another owner.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continueTentativeTractMap15546; Conditional Use Permit 2191-97; Zone Change 1192-97; and General Plan Amendment 2-97 _Hearthstone Development - to the meeting of December 15, 1997, with
the
concurrence
of
the applicant.AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None
Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner
Smith retumed to the meeting.RECESS - The Chair declared a five minute break at
9:25 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:
30 p.m.IN
RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1541-97 - CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS A proposal to construct and operate a new water well that will improve the water supply systemfortheCityofOrange. The site is addressed 1130
East Almond Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1541-97 was prepared to evaluate the environmental
impacts of this project.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the
staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened and closed as there
were no public comments.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, tocertifyNegativeDeclaration1541-97 as adequate and complete and that the project will not have a significant effect
on
the
enviornment
or wildlife.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero MOTION
CARRIED 12 i
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2194-97 - MR. K's
A proposal to allow the off-sale of beer and wine at a specialty m\rket located at 1100 West
Chapman
Avenue.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15303.There was no opposition to this
item.Mr. Jones noted the brief history of the application and indicated the Police Department had some
additional comments to make. This is an existing market located on West Chapman Avenue. The specific request is
for the transfer of an off-sale beer and wine license. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:00 a.
m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. It is a specialty
store that combines discount, close-out items, grocery items, ethnic foods and ~eneral
merchandise. The Commission is required to review all new ABC licenses in conformance with specifiC criteria that is established
by the City,including evaluating whether the project will adversely affect the welfare of the surrounding
community or will result in an undue concentration of premises for the sale of alcoholic beverages. The
Commission is required to make specific findings with regard to the hours of operation, proximity to
residential buildings, churches,schools, hospitals, playgrounds and other similar uses, and proximity to
other establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages. The staff report notes that the market is within 100 feet of
adjoining residential uses.Staff did not find that its within close proximity to churches, schools or playgrounds. The
applicant's original proposal included a request to create a second driveway access off of Chapman
Avenue. Staff was concerned about this in that it would result in the loss of additional parking on the site.
The applicant has subsequently withdrawn that request. The Police Department has noted they have
concerns with this application due to the fact that this is a high crime area and has a high concentration
of
existing licenses.NOTE:Sgt. Barry Weinstein. Orange Police Deoartment, said the Police Department has filed a
formal protest with the ABC, protesting the transfer of a license as the area is over concentrated with
existing licenses. There are five allowed and seven are existing for off-sale. The average number of reported crimes
in the district is 2 to 9. The crime statistics for the district is 497, which is well over 20% above
the average, which again constitutes a protestable location. There are residences within 100 feet, another
allowable aspect for protest.The location does not appear to meet public convenience and necessity and the
Department feels that by granting the CUP to allow the sale of alcohol at this location would not be in the
best
interest of the community.Commissioner Smith asked when the last ABC off-sale permit was
granted to those seven businesses.Sgt. Weinstein
did not have that information. \Commissioner Smith was not sure how condition 8 reads about purchasing a 6-pack
of beer or 4-pack of wine coolers. Could someone purchase two 4-packs
or were they limited to just the one.Sgt. Weinstein responded the conditions were proposed in case their
protest fails. If that is the case, they were referring to no single quantities of alcohol could be purchased.
They had to be purchased in 4-packs or 6-packs. There is no
limit as to how many of these packs someone buys.Commissioner Carlton questioned condition
4, the sales of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 6:00 a.m.
Why approve an early hour of 6:00 a.m.Sgt. Weinstein said this was the
request for ABC; however, their conditions would constitute store
hours,based on the other liquor stores in the area.Chairman Bosch said that although there were
proposed hours of operation listed in the staff report, he asked if there was
anything in the ordinance that limits the hours of operation.Mr. Jones replied in a commercial zone,
stores are allowed by code without any other discretionary permits,to operate 24 hours a day. Because this
is a conditional use permit, the hours can be restricted.Sgt. Weinstein stated the ABC does allow for sales from 6:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m. Sometimes there is a conflict with that
and
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
The public hearing was opened.
Aoolicant. Stephen Mashney. 800 South Brookhurst. Anaheim, is the attorney for Mr. K's Inc. The market is
family owned and caters to the families living in the neighborhood. The staff report states the area has four
off-sale establishments rather than seven. Mr. K's has been open for two years and there has not been
one single crime incident or disturbance. As far as the hours of operation, they are not insisting on selling
alcohol at 6:00 a.m. and they never requested that hour. Eight o'clock would be fine. Prices are lower at ~r. K's
than at other markets. Drinking beer and wine in this country is legal and they would like the opportunity to sell ~-
packs of beer and 6-packs of wine coolers. The conditions of approval are acceptable to them and they
will abide by
them.Commissioner Carlton asked if the beer and wine coolers would be cold when they are sold or would
they just be stacked in the
store.Mr. Mashney replied they would be available for sale both ways, cold and room
temperature,Commissioner Carlton noted on the application, item 3, the answer to the question was having an
off-sale beer and wine license will positively enhance the family nature of the area. She asked for clarification
on
that statement.Mr. Mashney said selling and drinking alcohol is not illegal. Many people like to have an occasional
glass of wine or beer. When people are able to buy beer and wine at the neighborhood store, it contributes
to their convenience. Their neighborhood store extends personal treatment and service to
their clientele.Jim Webb. 1124 West Chapman, spoke in favor of this business obtaining a beer and wine license. It'
s a family business that is developing into a neighborhood
grocery store.Chairman Bosch noted for the record the Commission received two written communications
in opposition;one from Kay Haefer, 1037 West Chapman and one from Mrs. Robert Haefer, 1037
West Chapman.Apolicant'
s Resoonse Chairman Bosch didn't have a problem with the off-sale of beer and wine in conjunction
with groceries, but was extremely concerned about the statistics for the neighborhood at this time and the
strict moratorium on the approval of new licenses in the area by the ABC. This is before the Commission because it
is a transfer from out of the City to this store. His concern is for not creating an attractive nuisance,
despite those good intentions for the neighborhood. How could they guarantee at this time, given the conditions
stated by the Police Department and attested by ABC, that granting a license will not be causing
a negative condition.Mr. Mashney said it was not the sale of alcohol perse that causes problems; it's the manner in
which it is being sold. As far as the crime statistics, he thought the stats do not jud~e a given
situation. Stats are deceiving and they don't cater to a particular or special situation. He submitted for the record
a petition of 230 signatures who favored the off-sale
beer and wine license.The
public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith asked how large the particular area is when Sgt. Weinstein
was talking
about seven existing establishments.Sgt. Weinstein did not bring the boundaries of District 22; however, within the District
is the Royal Liquor,Ralph's Market, and Rod's Liquor. He would be happy to provide the
complete package to the Commission at a later time. This is a rather dense area and is approximately 3 to
3 1/2 miles.Commissioner Pruett's concern was with the number of establishments that are in the
area given the statistics of the Police Department. He appreciated the interest of the applicant wanting to
improve his business and offer additional services to the community. But there is an issue here of setting a precedent as
to how this is managed, He has not seen any strong evidence that causes him to over ride what
has been previous policy.He didn't know if he could support the applicant's
request at this time.Commissioner Smith said unfortunately the statistics are stacked againsr the granting of the
license f,)r this neighborhood store. She couldn't make a finding of public necessity and convenience
with
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
licenses in the area. She wanted to wait and see how things played out in the neighborhood, and
encouraged the applicant to come back at a later time,
Commissioner Carlton thought Ralph's Market is a little distant from this site. There were maybe four
establishments within walking distance. The applicant should be able to have this kind of sale for his business
and approval should be granted. She thought it would be a convenience for the market to be able to sell
those items to the neighbors.
Chairman Bosch said this was a difficult decision. The applicant has already shown that his business looks
better over a period of time. He has the interest of the community around him and their support, and he's
doing a good job. But at the same time there is the extraordinary situation where it's the transfer of a liquor
license from out of the City to this location, which has been identified by the Police Department and ABC as
an impacted area, based on crime reports and based upon a reasonable area that is described as a
reporting area to show at this time there is a significant problem. At this time, he had great difficulty in looking
at it just as a transfer. He needs to look at this in terms of land use and the potential impact on the
community. The finding of public convenience and necessity, given the current situation in the reporting district
and the stats of the ABC and the Police Department, cannot be given.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett. seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to deny Conditional Use Permit
2194-97 with conditions 1-14, noting that condition 4 be revised to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday, and that condition 7 be changed to 10:00
p.m.,in the event the conditional use permit is appealed or further action is pursued. The Commission
also finds the project does not serve public convenience or necessity based on the crime statistics and
other factors presented by the Police Department as it relates to the off-sale of beer and wine in the area
and also its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for the area in terms of the
number
of
establishments.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners
Bosch, Pruett,
Smith Commissioner Carlton Commissioner
Romero MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones explained the Commission's action is final unless appealed within 15 days
of the hearing.5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2196-97 - JAMES
E. PROSSER, JR.A proposal to construct an accessory second unit behind an existing residence. The site
is addressed 904 East Rose Avenue (located on the southeast corner of Cambridge Street
and Rose Avenue).Wllf.;This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff
report was waived.The public
hearing was opened.Aoolicant. James Prosser. 904 East Rose Avenue, proposed to build a house for
his relatives. After reviewing the staff report, he felt they meet the requirements and accept the conditions
of approval. The new addition is one story and is behind
their existing house.The public
hearing was closed,Commissioner Smith was in favor of this project. It is actually smaller than what could
be built and appears to fit
on the property.Chairman Bosch thought the critical thing for him was the size and shape of the lot and
its corner location.The relationship of the proposed development area to the neighboring residences
really minimizes the potential impact on the neighbors. He didn't see any difficulty with this project and it doesn'
t set a precedent without limits in the immediate neighborhood because of those specific
conditions that apply.Commissioner Pruett thought the comer property really makes this an unique situation
to
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
It was noted this project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. ,
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett,',o approve Con~ition~1 Use Permit
2196-97 based on the required findings for the granting of this Conditional Use 'permit. It IS .grant~d
on sound principles of land use in response to a service required by the community. The project will
not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area. . The. use ~as
been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood. The project IS subject to
all of the conditions listed in the staff report, which are necessary to preserve the general welfare, n~t
the individual welfare, of any particular applicant. Keeping in mind if this property were to be sold In
the future, it would also contain these conditions for the new
owner.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Smith
None Commissioner Romero MOTION
CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2195-97 - RALPH
ZEHNER A proposal to demolish an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and
construct one duplex and one triplex with garage parking for 15 vehicles. The site is located at 630 East
Culver
Avenue,Negative Declaration 1540-97 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
of
this project.John Godlewski, Senior Planner, reported this is a request to develop the owner's property
with a triplex and a duplex for a total of five units, in addition to the existing single family home
on the property, The lots along Culver Avenue were re-zoned to R-2 in 1993. The R-
2-6 zoning allows for one unit for every 3,000 square feet of lot area. There are elevations posted on
the wall, along with a revised plot plan and a couple of renderings that were suggested by
the Commission in the previous application for additional units in Old Towne. The long elevation indicates
the basic proposed massing that this development would have on the property, The lots are unique on the south
side of Culver in that most of them are a little over 300 feet in depth, and the cross section indicates
what the size of the structures are in relation to setbacks from each other and in relation to the
existing house. Also below that section is a view of what the size of the existing house is, as compared to the
units that would be built directly behind the existing structure to give the Commission an idea of
what the height difference is between what is there now and what is proposed. The project will involve
the demolition of an existing garage,which would require review of the replacement structure
under the Demolition Ordinance. The construction of a structure in excess of 1 1/2 stories in Old Towne
requires consideration by the Planning ~ommission by Conditional Use Permit. Included in the application are evaluations
of the environmental im acts. The existing structure is proposed to be retained on the site. It's a 1910 hip roof
cottage as
ident ~
ed in the Historic Survey. .NOTE:In a previous application a couple of weeks ago, staff brought to the
Commission the need for review of environmental documentation for development in the Old Towne
area. In this particular application, there is a Negative Declaration, with the understanding that the Negative
Declaration can only be approved with the mitigation that the project meets the intent of the Old
Towne Design Standards. This project has been brought forward to the Design Review Board, They brought up
a number of concerns they had with the design in conforming to the Old Towne Design Standards. Those
are outlined in the staff report and in the Minutes from the Design Review Board. Ultimately,
the ORB recommended denial of the project because it did not conform to the Old Towne
Design Standards. The applicant, in/addressing those issues, is presenting a project that has masonite siding, a hip roof
that emulates in a number of places the design of the existing structure on the property.
He has also included aluminum windows,aluminum sliding doors, which the Design Review Board
took particular exception to. The environmental documentation is a mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation is
in conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards. It was noted on Page 5 of the staff report it was staff'
s opinion the project can be found in conformance with the Old Towne Design
Standards because the CEOA resource documents indicate buildings and other historic resources protected from
adverse changes by local regulations, such as a historic preservation designation or historic ordinance, may logically
be expected not to suffer such changes as long as the project complies with these regulations. This
is something that was brought in their research of CEOA. Staff feels that with the historic standards that have
b~
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
can be found to comply with that, then it would comply with the Old Towne design comp~tibility issue and
could be found compatible with the surrounding properties. There are a nl:'rryber of Issues that were
brought up in the staff report. There is an error in the staff report pe~alnlng to the Developme~t
Standards on Page 3. It was noted the minimum usable open space IS 2~0 square feet per Unit.
However, the actual requirement is 350 square feet per unit and all the calculations used to evaluate the
open space were based on 350.
Staff also received a letter from Rosenthal & Zimmerman, which outlines their concerns for review of the
project. Four items were addressed in this letter. The Commission was given a copy of, th.is letter at th.e
administrative session as staff received the letter by fax in the afternoon. The b~slc Issues that IS
brought up in the letter is that the project does not comply with the Old Towne Design Standard~ .~nd
they quote the Design Review Board's review of the project and their concerns for compatibility,
buffering and landscaping. Secondly, the project does not meet the intent of the City Council Resolution
8199 of which they included a copy. In Resolution 8199 a mitigation measure was brought forward that
required City Council approval by conditional use permit for more than two units on this section of Culver.
In staff's review, staff believes they have complied with all the requirements of Resolution 8199, and that
it is not necessary for the City Council to review this under that mitigation measure. The third item is t~at
the environmental review is inadequate. The reason staff brought forward the mitigated negative
declaration was that if the project can be found consistent with the Old Towne Desi~n Standards, then the
mitigated negative declaration should be sufficient. The last item is that the zoning IS inconsistent with the
General Plan. Generally, staff thinks zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan when they talk about the
land use element. More particularly in this case, the reference is to the Historic Preservation Element of
the General Plan, which says that In general terms any new development should be consistent with the
existing historic neighborhood and af! efforts should be made to preserve the historic neighborhoods
and not present a project that is not consistent with that.
Commissioner Smith asked how staff feels the City has complied with Resolution 8199 in that it requires
mitigation of a CUP of more than two units on Culver. In reviewing the Resolution, it looks like it was
replaced with Resolution 8329 and then the year ran out.
Mr. Godlewski also included Resolution 8329 in the packet submitted by Rosenthal and Zimmerman. In
the original resolution that was brought forth by the City Council, the mitigation measure they added
directed City staff to come back to the City Council through normal City procedures and bring them an
ordinance that required the conditional use permit for any development project that would result in more
than two dwelling units on any R-2 lot in the City of Orange. Pending City Council consideration
and adoption or denial of such an ordinance, no bUilding permits shall be issued for any construction
or improvements that would result in more than two dwelling units on any lot subject to Zone Change
1159,which was specifically Culver, unless the City Council, after a duly noticed public hearing, grants a
permit therefore based on the findings required under the Orange Municipal Code for conditional use
permits,and an additional finding that the proposed dwelling units in excess of two on the affected lot, will
not have a significantly greater impact on public resources and infrastructure, or that the single family scale
of the streetscape than with two dwelling units on the same lot. Resolution No. 8329 that was
adopted subsequently to that condition, on Page 2, it actually outlines in the Resolution the history and in
effect what happened was that this was brought before a group of Culver residents. It was discussed with
the City Council. The City Council decided to continue the moratorium for a year to see what would
happen out there on Culver, and to give staff time to bring forward the revised Zoning Ordinance and the
revised Old Towne Design Standards, which were in progress at the same time. With the adoption of
the revised Zoning Ordinance and the Old Towne Design Guidelines, it was the opinion that this would
satisfy that condition. In fact, the new Zoning Ordinance did make changes and it did discuss certain
thresholds for development in the Old Towne area. It also included a change to the Zoning Ordinance which
requires any construction beyond 1 1/2 stories in height would require consideration by a conditional use
permit.At that time it was assumed that the conditional use permit would review these projects on the basis
of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhoods.Commissioner Smith read the ordinance and saw that the project is before the Commission for
a conditional use permit because of the height situation. But, she was still confused as to how
that addresses the issue of more than two units on a lot. Both call for a CUP, but they are addressing
two different issues. There are five units at a two story height -- not two units at a two story height.
Mr. Godlewski explained the issue of two units went away. That discussion was part of the original zone
change and it was a concern. However, it was discussed in numerous meetings, not only with the City
17
Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1997
Council, but with the neighbors on Culver, and the question was, how should this issue of height, bulk
and mass and development in the Old Towne area be addressed. The issue of whether it is two units or
more than 1 1/2 stories kind of evolved over time and over these discussions. The end result was that the
Zoning Ordinance would be changed not to address the number of units on the property, but to address
a threshold for development in all of Old Towne, which was 1 1/2 stories in height.
Commissioner Pruett asked for an explanation on the floor area ratio issue. The required FAR is .7 and
the proposed is .58.
Mr. Godlewski said the floor area ratio is the entire square footage of the building, including both floors
and garages, divided by the lot area. Staff did not have good figures on what that relationship means,
especially on Culver, because they don't have any actual floor area ratios figured for Culver. The
numbers would probably be very low because looking at the maps there are relatively few structures
currently developed on the properties resulting in an extremely low FAR for the surrounding properties.
Chairman Bosch stated for the record the applicant invited him to visit his property to view the rear yard
and property and see the relationship to the surrounding properties and structures from the proposed
site. His observations of the site are represented in the plans with fencing to the majority of the sides of
the property, allowing visibility down much of the length of the block to the east and across the
neighboring property to the west. He observed the existing structures on the site and the condition of
the existing residence, as well as the space available for a drive access and landscaping, and the
relationship of the heights of the structure to its neighboring residences on both sides of Culver.
Commissioner Smith added she also was able to view the site with Chairman Bosch. There was no
discussion of the project as to the outcome of this particular proposal. She looked at how this particular
property fit in on the block and the heights of the different buildings, both across the street, behind, and
up and down the street, as well as the verification of the size and spaciousness of this particular lot.
Commissioner Carlton was also invited to view the property. She looked at the size of the lot, the
fencing, etc. in relation to the neighboring properties up and down the block.
The publiC hearing was opened.
Applicant. Ralph Zehner. 630 East Culver, handed the Commission some paperwork that discusses the
FAR, which limits what can be built on the property. He discussed his project and showed pictures of
the steel doors, masonite siding and aluminum windows of other homes in Old Towne. ORB was
concerned about his long driveway. He proposes to install an electric gate. There is a rental office
above the 3-car garage. The shed will be moved to the back of the lot and used for storage. A lot
of the cement will be eliminated around the house. He is not touching the front house. He broke up
the roof line and took the gable off the front house and put it on the back. People will not be able to
see much of the new addition from the
street.Commissioner Smith asked what was being demolished, She did not see a landscape
plan.Mr. Zehner replied he was demolishing a two-car garage. He turned in a landscape plan to ORB
and it slid by. He pointed out they have over 1,000 square feet of
open space.Commissioner Carlton read the ORB Minutes of November 19. They came up with 11
points and several of them are recommended changes. She asked if he had incorporated any of
ORB'
s recommendations.Mr. Zehner said they have made the cement driveway smaller to gain more open space. He didn'
t think the ORB understood about the masonite siding. He felt the ORB wanted him to abandon
the project.He did not agree to the wood windows. Other homes in Old Towne have aluminum windows
and he didn't see why he had to use wood windows. It was much more expensive and he couldn't
afford them.He is proposing additional landscaping, the gate, a 6' wall or fence along the property line. He
is not removing the shed because he is using that
for storage.Commissioner Pruett thought the recommendations of the Design Review Board needed
to be articulated; they can't be ignored. The ORB has put effort into coming up with their
recommendations and the Commission needs to take guidance from them as it relates to
the
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Zehner believes he has met all of the setbacks and has purpo~ely designed the building to ~e as
low as possible. Staff indicated he should follow the roof pitch of the\front house. He wants the bUilding
to be the least obtrusive.
Commissioner Pruett assumed the ORB was referring to the second story when talking about the bulk
and mass of the building.
Mr. Zehner said the second story came about because the City has parking requirements. The rental unit
has two covered parking spaces. It's driven by the parking ordinance.
Commissioner Pruett wanted to be sure he understood Mr. Zehner's issues with the ORB's
recommendations.
Mr. Zehner said they have put in a tree planter and narrowed the driveway, but there is ~othing they can
do about the patios. The 10 foot setback is a legitimate setback. It is cheaper for him to Install aluminum
windows and he sees other aluminum windows in Old Towne. He wants to put in the metal garage doors
because they last longer and are safer. He is going to install the Stanley steel doors. He was surprised
the ORB wanted him to remove the one gate. It hides part of the structure. The fence is going to be
covered with plantings within a year. The new gate will enhance the long driveway with all of the cement.
He doesn't have to provide guest parking for R-2 zoning. He feels he is providing more than
enough parking for his tenants to park
off-street.Chairman Bosch said there are specific findings required as part of the Design Standards
and the applicant is required to make the design conform to the ordinance, which may preclude
meeting the maximum all the way across the site, His concern is with guest parking. Where will the
guests park.Mr. Zehner replied they will park on the street, and he doesn't feel he is impacting the
neighborhood as he is removing three vehicles from
the street.Chairman Bosch said Mr. Zehner was providing more parking spaces for the site, which has caused
him to construct more building area than he would if he met the code. There is a space over the
front garage,the first new building that is labeled recreation room in one place and a rental office in
another place.That's a substantial area of space, particularly for an office. That's a commercial office there for
such a small number of rentals and it adds a lot of bulk and mass to the building. Has the
applicant considered alternatives
for that.Mr, Zehner explained why he wanted an office at that location, He hadn't considered locating the
office to the
first floor.Chairman Bosch said Mr. Zehner has pointed out the number of aluminum windows being u\ed
in Old Towne. Were any of these projects approved by the ORB, Commission or Council after the
adoption of the Design Standards in their current
ordinance form.Mr. Zehner replied Mr. Alvarez built his project seven years ago. He didn't know about
the
other projects.Chairman Bosch stated that was before the adoption of the current Design Standards. He wanted
to get the facts straight in order to understand the basis for it. The Design Standards, in addition to
the base zoning, speak not to just the streetscape, but also to the relationship with the open spaces
and other structures on the property, as well as to the context of
the neighborhood. 'Mr. Zehner said the property was re-zoned and the City Council indicated that
the reclassification will allow currently undeveloped property to be used at a higher and better use and
encourage the potential
for affordable housing,Chairman Bosch didn't disagree with that, but he was speaking in addition to
that the Development Standards and the Ordinance, including the Old Towne Design Standards that also
apply. He was looking for Mr. Zehner's assistance in understanding the proposal as it relates to
the current law.Mr. Zehner said they meet all the minimum requirements and in many areas are over the
minimum. He is concerned about keeping
the
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Chairman Bosch asked where in the current City ordinance, with the Design Standards for Old Towne, are
aluminum windows and sliding glass doors allowed.
Mr. Zehner said it was on the back page of the Old Towne guidelines in which it referred to substitutions.
Chairman Bosch stated this was subject to approval.
Those speaking in favor
Mike Keller. 632 East Culver, supported this project. He felt aluminum siding and windows will enhance
the project. If the siding is done properly, people looking at the building from the curb will not know the
difference.
Herb Runnells. 816 East Culver, thought Mr. Zehner should be able to build his addition the way he
wants to. He used aluminum windows at the back of his house and they work a thousand times better
than the wood windows.
Eileen Hertfelder. 720 East Culver, said Ken Brimlow was unable to stay because of health reasons, but
supported Mr. Zehner's project. She also favored the project. The lots are very difficult to keep up.
She would trade her old wood windows for new aluminum windows that work. She believed Mr. Zehner
has worked hard on his plans and it is a good project.
Those speaking in opposition
Tom Matuzak. 340 South Grand, said the wood windows of 1997 are completely different from older
wood windows, He spoke about the mass of the property. There is a garage of 420 square feet. New
construction and original all combined would give them 11,522 square feet. The existing house takes up
approximately 1,500 square feet. So you end up with roughly 10,000 square feet of new construction vs.
the original garage that is being demolished, This is about a 2,500 percent increase, or it is 25 times
bigger. He felt the ORB had some very succinct comments regarding their denial of the project. He
thought they needed to look at the net benefits to the community as well. This project is perceived to be
five rental units behind one house, but some time in the future it will probably be considered as six
rental units. He felt it would be setting a precedent to approve the project.
Joan Crawford. 394 South OranQe, spoke on behalf of the Old Towne Preservation Association. She
referred to the Design Standards and the development standards and design criteria that is to be
applied to the historic structures within the residential quadrants. Where conflicts arise, the Design
Standards supersede the base zoning requirements. This is not an isolated, individual building. Eighty
percent of the structures are historically significant in this area. The base zoning requirements does not
mean the Design Standards have been met. The DRB went to a great extent in reviewing those
standards. There is a lot of flexibility subject to interpretation of the standards. She felt the DRB used
good judgment in doing this. There could be as many as 10 more projects in the area if this one is
approved. There are also concerns about traffic, quality of life in the neighborhood and a decay to the
historic significance. She believed this neighborhood should be down zoned back to R-1. There
was also the possibility to perhaps instill a one story overlay to the lots, The Design Standards could be
re-visited to address the FAR and they need to be more restrictive. Perhaps an environmental
impact report should have been done vs. the mitigated negative
declaration.Frank Tucker. 556 Culver, did not think the fundamental issue before the Commission were the
aluminum or wood windows; he thought it was the size of the project in relation to the rest of the structures on
the street. And, the fact they continue to believe what the City Council desired the street to look like
was basically maintaining a single family structure and those were the stipulations they had placed on any
new development. He disagreed with staff's comments that the replacement ordinance met the
density issues the City Council had raised. He asked the Planning Commission to send some kind of
advisory note to the City Council and ask for resolution on zoning on Culver and some specific Design
Standards.overlay guidelines, or some other
ordinance.Patty Ricci. 618 East Culver, said her concem was the density of the area. They're talking about a cancer
in this neighborhood and she won't live next to
that.
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Thomas Strybel. 290 South Pine, was not familiar with the Design Standards or zoning laws, but was
concerned about having five units on a single piece of property in that neighborhood. They don't need
more traffic on Culver. He feared for the children's safety.
Shannon Tucker. 556 East Culver, said this is the first time this type of project has been implemented
under this zone. There are things that have never been answered with regard to the one unit per 3,000
clause in the R-2-6 zone. This is the result. Although Mr. Zehner has met the design guidelines,
he has been guided unwisely into believing that he can and will ultimately build five or six units on one
lot, when the desire of the City Council was to have no more than two units except for extraordinary
situations such as the double lots. For the record, the property to the west of them at 546 is a 1 1/2 story. It
is labeled on the map as a 2 story. She did not know how much open space was on this property. She was
at the ORB meeting and saw the siding. It is flat and is not over lapping. She said Mr. Zehner has
failed to make the aluminum windows look like double
hung windows.Response
from applicant Mr. Zehner said the ORB was adviSOry; not mandatory. He believes his project is consistent
with the General Plan. His property was re-zoned three or four years ago to R-2 to
match the surrounding area.His mother in-law will be living behind him and these units will
be providing affordable housing. He spoke to the issue of increased traffic and did not feel there was a problem. The
R-2-6 zone is for multi-family housing and it is not a bad thing. He can
use the second garage for guest parking.Commissioner Smith wanted to know
where the air conditioners would be located.Mr. Zehner replied they would be located under the stairs and out of the
way of foot traffic. The new alc units are much quieter than the older ones and
the landscaping will help buffer the noise,Commissioner Smith wanted to know if Mr. Zehner would consider
decreasing the
size of his project to fewer units.Mr. Zehner stated not really. It doesn'
t work out cost wise for him.Commissioner Smith said the project looks like six units, and with the
front house it is seven units. With the shed, it is eight structures on the property. She is looking at the site
plan and in the site plan she sees eight structures. She asked again if he would consider
reducing
the number of units on his property.Mr. Zehner could cut down on the size, but he needed the shed
for storage. He is personally going to use the office. They are under the mass because they are at .58 FAR.
He feels this is a
good project.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett asked if the Commission was dealing
with an appeal situation by the Design Review Board. The ORB denied the project based upon
the Old Towne
Guidelines and the issues related to that.Mr. Godlewski explained the way applications are set, is that
when the CUP comes to the Planning Commission, it comes with a recommendation from the
ORB. The ORB, however, is entrusted by ordinance to preserve the Old Towne Design Standards.
ORB's recommendation is then forwarded on to the Planning Commission, which can overrule or
make their own recommendations, based on the information that ORB has given them. It is not officially an
appeal, but the Commission needs to address the issues as if it were an appeal. In this case, ORB does
not have final authority and they have
forwarded their recommendation to the Planning Commission.Commissioner Smith said Mr. Zehner stated he did not really need to ~o
to the ORB; it was just for advisory because he had a CUP application. She understood
all new projects go before the ORB.Mr. Godlewski said this project was already scheduled for
hearing by the Planning Commission, but it was necessary to get a recommerdation from the ORB. He
is required to go before the ORB.Commissioner Smith asked about the implications of a 12 foot
driveway
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
Mr. Hohnbaum said this was an issue that was discussed by the St~ff Review Committee. Because it is
a private drive, that was the minimum width for the driveway. It is \flot considered two-way traffic; it
is basically to accommodate one car in and one car out. The major concern for the drivew~y is its ~ength
and its accessibility for fire emergency services. It meets the minimum requirements for a pnvate
dnveway.Commissioner Smith questioned the emergency vehicles and the location of water for fire
access.Mr. Hohnbaum said they look for the minimum 250 foot driveway and this property exceeds
that.Mr. Godlewski said the Fire Department has required that the new structures have fire sprinklers bu~lt
into the project because the property is difficult to access. This is part of the plan check process and It
was discussed with the Fire
Department.Commissioner Smith asked why there were no landscape
plans.Mr. Godlewski responded staff received landscape plans and they were brought to the Design
Review Board. There were a number of changes recommended by ORB, which are reflected on the one
plan.However, staff did not get individual copies for the Commissioners. ORB wanted to see
something more professionally done and there were a lot of changes that could have taken place. Staff
provided the Commission with a site plan indicating what is hardscape and what is
not.Commissioner Smith suggested for future meetings, a memo from staff to that effect. She was afraid
the landscape plan was not covered. In terms of the air conditioners and sound mitigation, does the
sound ordinance apply or is it true the new air conditioners are not
noisy.Mr. Godlewski said staff did not address the sound of the residential air conditioners as they were
not part of the proposal or discussed at the time. They did not show up as roof mounted or under the
stairs.Tonight is the first time he heard discussion about the air conditioning
units.Commissioner Smith noted on the plans there is a place where it looks like the stain glass windows
from the front property are reproduced somewhere else on the side. There are three of them and it is
called a stain glass overlay plant on. She wondered what that is. If it is not affordable to do wood
windows,then she didn't think that there would be duplicated lead stained glass windows on the
garage.Mr. Godlewski suspected that was an architectural treatment to the windows on the garage side,
He couldn't speak to the specifics of an architectural stain glass overlay plant
on.Commissioner Carlton said a lot of points have been brought up. She was not ready to make a
decision at this hearing. The issues need to be studied more. She would rather see the shed g~ away.
A continuance was needed to resolve these issues, The height of the building doesn't bother h~r, but
the bulk and mass of the building is too much. By eliminating the office, getting rid of the shed an~ using
an extra garage for office space might help the overall
project. '.Commissioner Pruett agreed the project needs additional work. He personally thought they would
end up with multiple dwelling units on those properties in time. The issue is going to be to what extent
will those properties be developed. This project needs an honest, positive approach to deal with
the issues. The applicant had mentioned doing awar with the negative aspects of this project. The
applicant needs to look at the recommendations 0 the Design Review Board and deal with
those recommendations in a forthright manner to address the issues and work together to find a
reasonable solution for the project. He didn't think the applicant did a very good job of illustrating good'reason
for the Planning Commission to not consider including the ORB's recommendations or changes in
their motion. The other issue is that some of the problems that had been identified in terms of the Board'
s recommendations, such as the size of the buildings, may be able to be dealt with in dealing with some
of the other problems of off-site parking, Off-site parking can be dealt with by the size of
the project from the standpoint of the number of units that are there. Maybe it is appropriate to
have single story buildings with attached garages. The number of units will be less, but it would take care of
the bulk and mass issues. He was concerned with the inQress and egress from the 12' driveway and
felt they were dealing with a circulation issue, Cars were gOing to be stacked up in the street. There is also
the issue of people coming to visit the site, parking in the driveway, obstructing the driveway so
the whole issue needs to be dealt with. The one thing that has been dismissed are the Old
Towne Design Guidelines that have been established and are code today. He thought theapplicant can ta{<
e
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
the ORB has put forward and begin to work on going back and looking at the plans to see how the
project can be looked at again in terms of a proposal. This may include down sizing the project to meet
some of those requirements.
Commissioner Smith thought in some way the applicant has been misguided as to what wo~ld be an
appropriate project on this particular site. The applicant has made a very good effort of complYing. She
thinks there was a problem before the project was ever submitted. She believed it was the intention of
the Council when they up zoned this particular property that they would be two unit lots. She does not
believe it was the intention to have these built out to be 5, 6 or 7 units. If there was affordable housing
on this lot, with a density bonus, there could be considerably more units on this property. Officially, this
is not affordable housing and she did not believe this was the intention of the City Council. That particular
ordinance slipped into the sunset and she did not think it has been adequately addressed. At the time of
that up zone, there should have been an environmental impact report done to measure the implication of
adding 64 to 100 units. She also thought an EIR should be done now if this project were to go forward at
this particular size. The project is too large for this neighborhood. They have talked a lot about Culver,
but don't forget this is only one house distance from Chalynn on the other side. There is no doubt in her
mind this project does not meet the standard for mitigation; that it is compatible and consistent with the
Old Towne Design Standards. The project has some good potential to come into compliance, but the
way it sits now it is too big, there are too many units, there is no comparison to a hip roof 1910 cottage to
a 3-unit triplex with garages for nine cars. Each building of a project should stand alone, architecturally,
in materials, in colors, and in compatibility, Unfortunately, that cannot be done with this building. She
would be able to tolerate this many units if they were single story units with an adjoining 9arage if they looked
a little more like the 1910 cottage, or if they were smaller in mass with more design elements. Design elements will buy a lot against the massing. She can tolerate the massing if there are gooddesignelements. Unfortunately when the applicant presents aluminum windows, masonite siding, steel
doors and steel garage doors, that's where the design elements get lost and that does not buy anymassing.She's sure the landscape plan will come forth and air conditioners can be mitigated. She was
concerned about the rental office, not because of the use but because of the massing that it adds. The otherthingthatbothersheristhattheDesignStandardsspecificallysaythatyouneedanarchitecturaldesignin
a new project, something between 1880 and 1930. She does not see any place where the design
element is. It is called a hip roof cottage. She was not sure that was an architectural style. That describes
the building. She would like to know if it were a Victorian, Colonial Revival, etc. and be able to have
some positive identification of architectural styles on the new buildings in the neighborhood. She was not
sure if this project were in compliance with the General Plan, especially in terms of the Historic
Preservation Element. She was familiar with each and every one of the photos showing the aluminum windows
and every project was done before the Design Standards were approved. But it does send a message
that it is acceptable. That's why they are concerned about this project. Once it is built, it has a stamp
of approval that says it is acceptable. She was also concerned about the safety aspect of that
driveway,even though it is a private driveway. She was less concerned about the circulation and m~
concerned about the safety. She was also concerned about backing up parking on the street. Old T wne isveryimpactedwiththat. They need to seriously consider the cumulative effects of projects like th s andbegintogetseriousastohowtheyaregoingtodocumentcumulativeeffectsagainsttheOldTowne
Standards and the inventory they have in Old Towne. They need to come up with better guidelines to
address these issues. She would be in favor of a continuance to address the stated issues in greater
detail.Chairman Bosch shared many of the concerns expressed. He had concerns about the
cumulative environmental impacts that occur regardless of what has been adopted in the past He thoughttheyneededtoreferthatbacktothestaffformoreguidanceonthisprojectandfutureprojectssothey
know where they stand. The mitigation measure that this project may. if certain design problems are taken
care of, conform to the requirements of the Design Guidelines IS correct, but there are other
mitigation measures that don't appear to have been taken into account in terms of cumulative impacts,
Thresholds need to be established. There's got to be a way' to solve these questions and to understand what
the zoning that has been applied by the City CounCil to these properties means. He understands the
land use issues and mass and bulk are the only considerations in many cases, but the Commission has to
look at the other aspects. They hope to work with the applicant to realize something that not only meets
the intent of the zoning and Development Standards of that zone, but the remainder of the ordinance that
has been read in addition to the zoning standards where conflicts arise~~ Old Towne Design
Guidelines and the standards within them supersede the Development Standards in any specific zone. He has
to put great weight with the Design Review Board. They made a list of recommendations. They didn'tsaytojustthrowtheprojectout. He went through their recommendations. They need to look at thestorageshedasitrelatestothecurrentprojectIt's nice to have a lot of storage spaae. The rental office
or
Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 1997
recreation room is a lot of space; however, it could be readily converted to another residential unit in ~he
future and that is hard to police. There are three excess parking spaces. Get rid of the extra parking
spaces. Get the spaces out of the garages and put them in the open spaces, which will increase the
landscape and decrease the building mass and increase setback size between buildings or the property
line, and provide a safe and rational way for visitors to the site or for people who need to pull their car
out of the garage without negatively impacting the environment or streetscape by filling up all the
neighbors frontages with visitors' cars. He appreciates the applicant's desire to have the two-car an.
d one-car garage below the rental office in close proximity to his residence. It appears those would
be his garages and they would be readily accessible. By adjustment of the front building, move
that space further back, the applicant can still accommodate those three garages in the front building closer
to him and generate three open parking spaces. Better yet, eliminate those three and open up several
of the other car spaces as well, whether they be carports. The project is over bearing as it
stands. Something has to be done to reduce the bulk and mass of the building, and its impact on the site. He's
looking to those areas that are not revenue generating. There will be a lot of people living on the site
and they have the right to a safe and fair environment as well. The Design Standards call for designs
to be modified to protect adjacent properties from too much open view from new residential units.
This project does not do anything in that regard. It's all wide open. Something has to be done to
mitigate that because it has not been taken into account. A minimum setback has been held to, but nothing
has been done to look at window designs and view protection for adjacent residences. There are a
number of issues that could be looked at that will reduce the overall size of the building without
reducing the potential rental income, but could substantially reduce the cost of the project. He was against
the gate on the driveway. He was against having a gate to the east side yard of the existing residence
where the existing driveway is. That's the private outdoor space for the existing residence. That's
necessary open space to keep a livable environment for that house. He thought the fence designs
and recommendations of the DRB need to be carefully considered because they help to reduce an intrusion
upon the neighbors and reduce the apparent scale of the building. Windows, siding, and landscaping
are very important. If it can be worked out, the Chairman would rather keep the shed and take away some
of the new building. Dividing the two buildings has helped some, but this is a very large project.
The Design Standards specifically address cantilevers in Old Towne and are acceptable if worked into
the architectural style of the building. He thought too notwithstanding the environmental issue of cumulative
impact, which has to be addressed eventually, and he had to look at staff and legal counsel to do the
investigation to find out when this will happen. With regard to the specific application before the Commission,
he needs to see substantial changes that continue on in the spirit of attempting to move in the
direction of conforming with each of the separate aspects of the ordinances to reduce the overwhelming
scale of mass, lack of safe access, lack of convenient parking and living environment. The ordinance
calls for minimum roof over hangs of 18" and he was struck by the severity of the roof cut backs at
the balconies where there doesn't appear to be any ordinance at all. That's easily corrected though. He
concurred with the profiles on doors. He was less concerned about the materials than he was with an
assembly that when it is done, looks like it matches the historical materials used for similar uses in Old
Towne. Steel doors are not the only doors recommended by the Police Department. That needs to be looked
at as well. They've heard major concerns and hope there can be progress towards resolving
those concerns.The Commission asked the applicant if he would stipulate to a continuance to look at
some design revisions to address these concerns. Mr. Zehner agreed to a continuance as long as he did not
have to go back to the Design
Review Board.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional
Use Permit 2195-97 - Ralph Zehner - to the meeting of January 5,
1998.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Smith
None Commissioner Romero MOTION
CARRIED IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the nextregularlyscheduledPlanningCommissionMeeting. The meeting adjoumed at 12:50 a,
m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Smith
None Commissioner
Romero
MOTION CARRIED
24