The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-03-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange December 3, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Minutes of November 19, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13984, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1884-90 AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 90-20 - SOUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: A proposed Tentative Tract Map to allow subdivision of the site into 70 single family parcels, a Conditional Use Permit to allow creation of a lot without direct access to a public street, and an Administrative Adjustment to allow creation of nine lots located around culdesacs or street knuckles with lot widths less than the minimum required. Subject property is designated Lot "D" of the Southridge Planned Community District, and is located north of the extension of Via Escola midway between Meats Avenue and Loma Street. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (EIR 854) was previously prepared and certified for Southridge Planned Community Development. The proposals are consistent with the approved plans; therefore, additional environmental review is not required. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1990 - Page 2 This item was continued from the September 17, 1990, October 1, 1990 and November 5, 1990 Planning Commission Meetings.) A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represented Southridge. As this was his third appearance before the Commission, he felt all the bugs have been worked out and asked if there were any questions. There were no questions and the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 13984, Conditional Use Permit 1884-90 and Administrative Adjustment 90-20 with conditions 1-41 per the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL tTSE PERMIT 1881-90 - BOONCHOO & SENGDAO VONGRTJKS;JKE A proposal -`o construct an accessory second unit in the R•-1-5 zone, on property located at the southwest corner of Walnut Avenue and the Walnut Avenue/Newport Freeway Overcrossing, addressed 2234 East Walnut Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. Dos. Wolff presented the staff report. The project site is a corner lot. Walnut Avenue is located along the front of the property and the Walnut Avenue Overcrossing runs behind the lot. The property is zoned R-1-6. The proposed unit is a one bedroom single story unit; it's located immediately to .the east of the existing single family residence. Both the existing and the proposed secondary Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1990 - Page 3 unit would face Walnut Avenue with the site design to place the two units side by side. The structure that is proposed is 627 .square feet in size and it would have a one car garage, with one additional unenclosed parking stall. A separate driveway is shown that would serve the proposed unit. The Orange Municipal Code contains provisions for the construction of accessory units in single family residential districts. Certain regulations do apply to this type of development, however. Unit size must be between 450 and 640 square feet. Parking required is two spaces. And, the unit must comply with height, setback and design criteria of the underlying zone. The unit may be rented, but the property owner must reside on the property. This proposal is in compliance with the standards that are set forth in the zoning ordinance in terms of unit size, placement of the unit, setbacks, height and parking. If approved, a condition is recommended to require a deed restriction on the property and that would require that the property owner reside on the property in either the proposed unit or the existing unit. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Lawrence Duffy, 1 City Blvd. West, #308, is an attorney representing the property owners who are proposing to build the unit. The reason why they were present is because of some apparent opposition voiced by residents. Their architect was also present to respond to questions. Those speaking in opposition Allan Vanhorn, 2237 East Walnut, wasn't aware the zoning laws had changed since these houses were built across the street. They had to have a variance to build the houses. Originally five houses were to be built in that little area. The neighborhood felt that wasn't the proper way to build, so it was cut back to four houses. Chairman Master explained the State mandated that cities were to look at and provide some plan for which granny pads could be built. The intent was to provide residences for relatives, senior citizens, but there is no way to control that. In answer to your question, the zoning has been changed as mandated by the State. Ms. Wolff mentioned a variance was approved to create the lot in the first place. A lot has been created; it's considered a legally created lot and what the applicants are proposing to do is to add a second unit onto their property in accordance with City zoning ordinances and with the State law. Property dimensions are no longer an issue. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1990 - Page 4 Commissioner Bosch explained the purpose of the hearing is to ascertain whether the specific proposal, even though it conforms to the requirements of the ordinance and State law, will in fact be one that is acceptable within the context of the particular lot -- the setbacks, parking, access, circulation, outdoor use, and impact upon the neighborhood. The Commission must judge how it can best work within the community. Mr. Vanhorn thought it was a dangerous area to be building anything. Joel Lorenz, 460 North Milford, questioned the wording rental" of unit in the staff report. He didn't know if it could be separated away from the ownership (i.e., transfer of sales). Will a new owner be required to have that unit occupied by a relative or can he sub-let that to some other individual on a rental basis? Ms. Wolff said there was a stipulation in the zoning code that states both units have to be awned by one person. The second unit cannot be sold separately, although it can be rented and it could be rented to someone who is either a family member or be unrelated. There is no requirement that the occupants of the second unit be a relative and there is no age restriction on them. Commissioner Bosch also said that one of the units must be occupied by the property owner. Who ever owns both of the units, must occupy one or the other of the two residences on the lot. Mr. Lorenz asked about the utilities. Were they tied in to the existing utilities or were they separate? Mr. Johnson responded the additional unit will have the same address as the existing unit (a "B" or "C" unit) and that the water meter will serve both units. He didn't know how gas or electric services were handled. Commissioner Scott said it was up to the owner how he wanted to handle the utilites. Mr. Lorenz wanted to know the owner's intent for the secend unit as to utilities. Ms. Wolff said the City was requiring a deed restriction be placed on the property. When a title search is made to transfer ownership, the r~ew owner would be aware of the restrictions. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1990 - Page 5 Mr. Lorenz said there was talk at one time about Walnut being .widened. Is that true? Mr. Johnson responded the roadway will probably be widened. It is a secondary arterial highway, but it probably won't be done until such time as the Costa Mesa Freeway is widened, which could be 5 to 10 years. In terms of overcrossing priorities, Walnut has fourth priority. Widening would take place on the south side of the bridge, and the street does not lend itself to retrofitting at this time. The bridge would have to be replaced and repositioned. Commissioner Scott thought this was getting out of the realm of the responsibilities of the Planning Commission as far as utility access. Commissioner Bosch would like some assurances from the owners regarding the deed restriction. and conditions of approval. Do they intend to abide by them? RPhuti-al Sengdao Vongruksuki, 2234 East Walnut Avenue, has lived on the property for over 11 years and she likes the community. She does not intend to move and understands the conditions of approval, including the deed restriction regarding ownership. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 1881-90 subject to conditions 1-7. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a study session, December 19, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. regarding the landscape ordinance; in addition to their next regularly scheduled meeting, December 17, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. sld