HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-1994 PC MinutesC~ SLL+. ~~.,~
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters
ABSENT: None
December 19, 1994
Monday - 7:00p.m.STAFF
PRESENT:
Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan
Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney;
Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5. 1994
f
J
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of
December 5, 1994 as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Wafters
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE 1174-94; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15053; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2088-
94 -VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION A proposed 160 unit single family development replacing the condominiumlattached single family
project that was previously approved on the subject site. The approximate 18 acre site is located on the
north side of Santiago Creek between Tustin Street and Rosewood Avenue (part of the former Santiago
Goli Course
property).NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have been evaluated under previously
certified Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #
1143.Mr. Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this project.
The proposal is a modification to a previously approved multi-family development on the
Sycamore Crossing Planned Community. The applicant is proposing to replace what was approved to be
240 condominiums and attached single family homes with 160 single family homes that are detached and are on
lots ranging from 3100 to 7000 square feet. The proposed residences will all be two stories, have 2-
car garages and the unit sizes range from 1400 to 1800 square teat. The proposed community will
have vehicular access from Tustin Street via a private drive and a bridge over the Santiago Creek channel.
The community will have all private streets and a gated entrance. It will also have an emergency
access and pedestrian access onto Rosewood. The proposal includes a recreational site with a swimming
pool, barbeque area and a separate tot lot. The proposal includes revising the Planned Community Text since
the original text was developed to regulate amulti-family development. The
proposed development standards includes minimum pad areas, parcel coverage, building height, building separations,
setbacks and garage sizes.The proposal does not affect the previously approved plans for the creek or
Tustin Street. The project does not require additional environmental review because EIR 1143 and an addendum
to EIR 1143 were certified by the City Council for the previous developments. And since the proposal
has less of an impact, or the same as the previous EIR's, additional review is not required
for tha project. The mitigation measures that were includedin the previous EIR's though still
apply to this project.The
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
Aoolicant
Stephen King, Vice-President and Protect Manager, Van Daele Corporation, 2900 Adams Street #
C-25,Riverside, put together a letter which was part of the staff report and was willing to
address those responses. He provided a handout to the Commission -- minimized sheets to some larger visual aids
he had behind him. Van Daele Development had read the proposed conditions for approval and
agreed with them. This proposed development offers significant improvements because there has been
a substantial reduction in the density. The previously approved development was approved as a 240
unit cluster-type concept. This proposed community is a 160 unit detached singgle family development
that will adh oved t osuearsalo.nAlglhwest~northendpsouth setlbacks'havlesb eneadheeedto
aeativeato the proposed 160 unit development. In addition to the development, they will provide, as part
of the subdvision, a more enhanced channel design with a weathering steel truss bridge as an entry
to the private gated community, as well as a private street off of
Tustin Street.Commissioner Smith, in reading the map, said it appeared the island configuration of homes do
not have sidewalks in front of them. Was that correct? She saw sidewalks around the perimeter,
but was concemed with the lack of sidewalks elsewhere in
the community.Mr. King said there were 2-sided sidewalks on the spine streets of the subdivision.
Where the spine would ofnt Hoeg hrough the ~subdiv lion to whereht woo dareach from eas~ toswest and then
jo ntwth
thespine
street. 11C o ect~to Ioet t s htools. Thehonl was childrens ould get toeschooewas f omrTustin
SVeetto Patmyaae the p l
9 Y Y Mr. King said there was a secondary access road that tied into Rosewood. They're proposing
to put a pass-through gate at the west end. It would be a security gate for pedestrians. Children
will be able to walk to school and gain access to Cambridge from Rosewood on the west
end of the project.Commissioner Cathcart referred to the letter dated December 7, 1994. On Page 3
it addressed that --5, Palmyra School. It is not the west side of the project, but the east side. He had
a concern with children walking across the bridge, but didn't have a problem with them
walking up Tustin.Those
speaking in oooosition Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, had some concerns that needed to be addressed.
It was impossible for him to turn lest onto Tustin out of Fairway Drive. The signalization is a problem
there. They're proposing to put in a bike path behind his property and he didn't want it behind
his property without added fencingfor security. He's not opposed to building on the property and he wants what
is best
for the community.Mr. Welton, 489 Greengrove Drive, was concerned about the grading plan. How much fill is
going to be added? How will it affect his property? Will the second story units be looking down on
his back yard?He was a previous owner of the mobile home park on Tustin Street. He asked what was
going to be done with the retaining wall at the mobile home park? He wanted to protect those people
still Irving
in the park.Howard DeCruyenaere, 1825 East Albion Avenue, Santa Ana, represented
the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance. He had some concerns that he realized did not pertain to the project.
Was there a way the plans could be assured that the open space being dedicated will not be lost?
How much space was dedicated for plantings alongside the creek? He knows there was a change in the que
for the amount of flow during a flood; the open space of 25% was loss. He wanted to know how the
open space being dedicated was broken down. He said Bob Cearns of Urban Edges has been contacted to
see ii there might be any changes to the design of the channel; specifically the concrete lining. They wanted
to know if additional modiTications might be made to help out the environment of the center part
of the creek.Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, was not against the project. But she felt the
existing residents along Fairway should be able to enjoy their property without being worried about the bike
trail. They need protection and assurance nothing will
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
Chairman Bosch asked the City Engineer to speak on the plans for the channel and open space issues
Mr. Johnson said they had notification from the Orange County Flood Control District their plans were
ready to be approved regarding the design of the channel. The concept is for a low flow cement channel,
which will handle a 10 year flood. The areas outside the low flow channel will be landscaped and will be
part of the City's right-of-way for maintenance of the open space. The slope of the channel
from the original concept has changed a little because of the Flood Control's need to provide fora 10
year storm.However, the total amount of landscaped area remains the same. He didn't believe there would
be any additional changes. The channel itself has a soft bottom. Soil cement is a process whereby
they form the channel and then take the sides of the channel and mix them together with cement; and then lay
it back down at the same location. The bottom is left natural. The sides are cemented with the soil cement.
It's the same material that was there in the natural condition. The texture will be same as what is
there now.Design approval is dictated by the County since they will take it over. The City's responsibility
is outside
the channel.Mr. Carnes addressed the concern of the current breakdown of open space for the
overall planned development. From the original approvals, the design of the lower creek channel had to
increase, thus reducing the higher slopes (landscaping) by 25 to 30 percent from what was originally shown.
That was understood by the City Council when they approved it in concept. The change in acreage
went from landscaped area to the slopes for the low flow channel. The low flow channel with the soft
bottom
is
wider.Rebuttal Mr. King responded to the question about the signalization at Tustin and LaVeta. There has
been a traffic signalization plan approved by the City fora 4-way signaled intersection,
which would incorporate the new entry streets of the subdivision. The bike trail is part of the approved storm
channel plan. The bike trail incorporates the proposed bike trail system which is part of the Master
Trail System which eventually ties to the Santa Ana River. The channel plans were developed to incorporate
the bike trail.A representative from The Keith Companies will address the fencing and grade for
retaining walls. The previously approved subdivision was approved for 2-story structures; that has
not changed. He referred to the exhibits and explained the setbacks, design, massing and height of the structures,
as well as the bridge, channel, bike trail and access
road, and open space.Witham Moll, The Keith Companies, 2955 Redhill Avenue, Costa Mesa, spoke about
the grading on the north side of the project. The proposed grading is such that the grades for the
subdivision would be at grade or several feet below the existing trailer park and homes. They will not sit
above or look down upon the homes on the north side of the project. In order to accomplish the grading
on the project, they have an import situation. They want to keep the amount of import toa minimal
amount. They're not proposing to elevate the subdivision above the homes to the north. Presently, in
the northeast corner at Tustin there exists a retaining wall at this time. That retaining wall will stay there.
The homes along Tustin would actually sit below Tustin Avenue. Presently, on top of that existing retaining wall
there is a screen wall. Those homes would be protected visually from Tustin itself. In regards to
the fencing along the bike trail --the plans that have been approved by the County have a six foot
chain link fence separating the bike trail from the existing homes along the south of the channel. In addition, there
is a five foot landscape setback between the 15 foot access road and the existing homes
along the south. The amount of open space that was approved is still the same. They have not taken away
from the amount of open space under the previous tentative map. The north side of the project will have a
6' high block wall fence. The landfill will be replaced appropriately so as not to have any more
problems in the future.Mr. King responded to Commissioner Smith's concerns about the former dump site.
The plan is to excavate the five acre area known as the 21 houses of the old Rosewood tract.
The most current reports from the soils engineers indicate that to depths of 35 to 39 feet have various
building materials and the like in there. They will excavate and
re-engineer the bottom soil.Commissioner Smith was concerned about the placement of the tot lot and
pool being placed at the highest traffic area of the project. She saw no other proposal
to reposition the recreational area.Mr. King said they had looked into the idea of relocating the tot lot to the
interior, but in terms of relocating the recreational area they would lose square footage and would
create adverse lots. They felt it best to eave the recreation center in its present location. They knew there was
a concern relative to the safety of the tot lot and pool area. Both areas are proposed to be fenced
and
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
open from the street. There will be a separation between the tot lot and pool by structures and therewillonlybeonewayintothetotlotbyagate.
Commissioner Cathcart spoke about the concern of the 2-story homes and being able to look intootherpeople's yards. He suggested putting in obscured glass on the lower panes of the secondstorywindows. He was looking for a way the developer could screen the windows for privacy. Hethoughttherewereabout30-31 homes that would need this type
of screening.Mr. King would like to review this suggestion with their architect before agreeing
to that.Pat Van Daele, President of Van Daele Development, said on the northwest corner of the
project there are a number of units that have 40 foot setbacks. Those were done in part to screen for privacy. He felt the obscured glass had some detriment to the people moving into the homes. Heunderstoodtheprivacyissues; one of the things they might be able to do is to write some form of a conditiontotheproposalthatallowsthemtheflexibilitytoworkwithstafftocomeupwithasolutiontoadequatelyaddresstheprivacyissues -- either by what the Commission is suggesting in terms of the obscuringtheglassorpossiblyworkingwithsometypeoflandscapingscreen. They would also like to work withtheconcernedneighborstocomeioafavorable
solution.Commissioner Cathcart did not have a problem with that suggestion. Another option would be toraisethe
windows.Commissioner Pruett liked theapplicant's proposal of landscape
treatment Chairman Bosch said there is a maximum sill height above the floor per code in the bedrooms. Healsopreferredthelandscaping. He suggested a consideration of the modification to the proposedlanguageofthePlannedCommunityandrequirementintherecordedCC&R's to prohibit encroachment withintheminimumrearyardsetbackscalledforthintheproposalbyoccupiedstructures -- only allowing patiostructuresintherearyards. He wanted to address the tot lot and pool area. He appreciates the needtomarket, but didn't believe buyers were naive enough to look only at the first visions through thewindowshieldastheyenteracommunitywithregardtothepurchasedecision. He thought the location
was an error. He suggested clipping the tot lot and pool. It would place the tot lot and its entrance atthenorthwesterlycorneroftherecreationarea, where that entrance and lot would have visibility by aboutthreetimesasmanyhomes. That means safety. It puts the prime amenity (pool) in one's view as youdriveintothecommunity. He preferred to have visibility from the pool area to the tot lot rather than itbeingblockedbythebuildings.
Mr. King agreed to re-work the recreational design and flip flop the tot lot and pool area, andalsoreconfiguretherestofthefacilitiesinawayforthepoolandtotlottoremain
visible.Chairman Bosch noted in the report that the turn around at the gate is substandard relative to theCity's requirements for turning radius. The Traffic Division did not have concerns because of the distancefromthepublicstreetintermsofcongestion. He believed there would be a severe safety and angryresidentproblembyhavinglargevehiclestryingtoturn
around.Mr. King explained the 30 toot turn around could not be done as presently designed. He askedthattheirengineersaddressthatissueandtookatthe30footturningradius. He agreed to re-worktheentrydesign
with staff.Chairman Bosch went back to the issue of the chain link fence on the south side of the creek, adjacent to the bike trail. How did they end up with a chain link fence? The people on the south side get aviewofopenspace, but they also get a public access way with a bike trait immediately behindtheirfences.Why should the people to the south be penalized by the attractive nuisance caused by thebiketrail,when those to the north aren't --they receive a
block wall.Mr. King said their proposal includes a re-design of the development of the subdivisionitself. The south side of the channel could be addressed inthose plans. It's their understanding thelandscapingforthechannelisunderdesignnow. The chain link fencing is in the proposal stage now intermsoflandscapedesign. Hopefully the landscape design will provide sufficient privacy from the
chain link fence.Commissioner Smith asked ii there was a difference in the value of the lot that has a sidewalk infrontofitasopposedtoonethatdidn't? (No.) She visualizes children running all over the project.
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
has raised are in the area of safety. She missed the sidewalks on the islands. There are no sidewalks so
it creates a nuisance of jumping across the neighbor's lawns. She was also concerned about the children
getting to school. For kids living in the west end of the project, it will be a long walk to school. She was
willing not to make a fuss about the lack of sidewalks on the island ii they could assure her there would be
some access for kids to walk out of the project on the west side in a safe manner to access the school.
Walking through the residential neighborhood is a safer path than Tustin Street.
Mr. King referred to the exhibit to explain the location of the pass through gate. There is also a vehicle
date, which is set up only for emergency access. Children would be able to walk along the sidewalk and
ingress/egress through the gate. They would welcome the idea of modifying through the Crime
Prevention Bureau's conditions a pedestrian gate on the secondary access of the project to provide for a
walking gate. They could address securing the gate through their street improvement plan.
Relative to the concerns of the north side units, the revised planned community text would still allow for
patio covers? (Yes.)
Mr. King had a proposed draft reading of what they intend for the conditions to read in terms of the rear
properties. "Builder/developer will work with staff prior to approval of building plans to determine
acceptable remedies to view intrusion from second floors to existing homes north of the project.
Remedies may include, but are not limited to, architectural landscape combined or other solutions
acceptable to City Planning Department."
The public hearing was dosed.
Commissioner Walters basically liked the project. With the reduction in density and the individual lots, it's
a good step forward. He thought the privacy issue could be worked out between the developer and
staff. He didn't have a problem with the location of the pool and tot lot. If they were willing to switch
them, that's fine as well. He strongly supported having a view between the tot lot and pool. The 30 foot
turning radius is important. There is a variety of fencing and separation between the homes. He didn't
think it was reducing the security to go with a chain link fence. He takes offense to hear that bikers and
hikers in the bike trail adds to the crime.
Commissioner Smith thought this was one of the most excellent presentations she has seen for a
proposal. It was easy to read with clear cut information and a very thorough addressing of the elements.
She appreciated the time Van Daele took to set this up and the courtesy extended to the City. Her
concerns are in safety issues. She strongly supports the view between the pool and tot lot and would
like to see a condition that a pedestrian gate be provided on the west end of the project that would allow
the tract to remain secure.
Commissioner Cathcart looked at Page 17 to continue the conditions. Add condition 22 -encroachment
into setback areas be limited to overhead trellis, other landscape elements, but no permanent, livable
structures. Add condition 23 -applicants to work with staff on coming up with a solution for the privacy in
the rear yards (proposed wording by applicant acceptable). Add condition 24 -the tot lot and pool area
be redesigned to reverse the layout. Add condition #25 - to modiTy pedestrian gate at the west end to allowchildrentoingress/egress. Amend condition 21 to rework the entry design to accommodate a 30 foot
tum around that would meet the City'sTraffic Division's recommendations.Commissioner
Cathcart stated the applicant has done a great job. He finds it helpful to be introduced to a
project at a study session so issues can be raised in order for the City to be aware of what is going on.He
thanked the applicant for coming up with condition 23 to arrive at a solution that would be viable to the public.
Chairman
Bosch concurred with the comments made. The key thing was the reduction in housing density.Therewereconcernsaboutsmalllots, but the living environment that has been designed is greatly superiortothatoftheattachedunitsatthepreviousapproval. The project fits within the spirit of what the
City Council approved for the overall plan for this piece of land. He encouraged staff to come back to
the Commission to share the solution to pertinent issues that were raised tonight. It was also important
to request of the Council that although it may not be part of the specific item being addressed,thattheyreviewandseekassuranceastotheappropriatenessofthecurrentlyproposedlandscapeandfencing
along the south side of the creek right-oi-way adjacent to the rear yards of the Fairway
December 19, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes
yy
hecertifi drEnvs onmle talempact Report11143 and addendum loathe EIR 1143tthePeloiet certeed EbR
any act on by thedPlanning Commission 143 adequately address impacts of the project and do not need
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner15053t~andrCondittonal Use PerCmti
Council to approve Zone Change 1174-94, Tentative Tract
Map 2088-94 with the following conditions: Amend condition 21 to rework the entry design to accommodate
a 30 foot turn around that would meet the City'sTraffic Division's recommendations. Add condition
22 -encroachment into setback areas be limited to overhead trellis, other landscape elements, u
no licants to work with staff on coming up with
a permanent, livable structures. Add condition 23 - aPP, licant acceptable). Also, the solution
solution for the privacy in the rear yards (proposed wording by app'
that is arrived at between the staoff He belredesigned tosreve se the IayoutnnA d c nditono#25Aao
condityion 24 -the tot lot and po
asked toeev'ewthe fenc nghso ution and the ladequaoy of any prof clioneowa dst he~tcreek designsn the
future.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Wafters
MOTION CARRIED
NOES: None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2089-94 -ANNA
FREITAS A request to construct a 2-story second unit in the R-2-6 zone (Residential-
Duplex District), located
at 321 North Olive Street.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303. ert is Mr. Jones presented the staff report as there was opposition to
this project. The prop y developed with a single story residence and a detached 2-
car garage. The applicant proposes toconstructed inn ~ 991 weh the anti cpationtheta secolnd unit ~couldrpotent ally
be added in the
futures The and buildng theight r The p oposal complies
with ~allddevelopment standards exceptihe rea Ssetback requirement of 10 feet and therefore, has requested
an administrative adjustment along with the proposed Irequestis ~consPetent with the C'rty's
tGeneral Plantlantdeuse d shgnationeof slow-med uhm residential. The Environmental Review Board reviewed
the application request on November 2, 1994 and noted the second story addition would
be within a predominantly single story neighborhood.However, a 2-stppory five unit apartment building is located just three
parcels to thenorth of the site and ahe I cationtonrNov mber2, b 994 a well and teltthe depth
of
theecant lave Rexte sion atthe iroMeoi the PP ,building should be reduced to controlbulk and mass, and thatl'cant
submitted rfe9 s d plans p d the redefined as vertical components rather
than squares. The app rovide a reduced 2 Design Review Board's recommendations
whichshifted the second story back topmod'd cationerthe applcant sa equestingtthist~admin'
strativeaad'usiment toualdlow for this new ~2 footrecolmmended conditions of approval categorically exempt from
t~e provisions of CEQA.
There
are six The public hearing was opened.Applicant Ken Arthur, 133 North Shaffer, was the general
contractor representing Anna Freitas. They have read the requested of the Des gneReviewtBoardndThe
p ojectpdoeslfit nhw'dh the neighborholod. They introduce some more Old Towne
Craftsman-
Planning Commission Minutes
Those soeakino in oooosition
December 19, 1994
William Leigh, 320 North Glassell, didn't realize the applicant was going to propose a second story
building. At that time it was granted they would set back two feet to 8 feet rather than 10 feet. With the
cantilever being 2 feet, that brings it to six and with the roof being two feet, that brings it to four -- he gets
the feeling he could stand on his fence and grab the roof. It'sa good looking building; it does match Old
Towne type of construction. He's friends with Mrs. Freitas and he doesn't want to offend her, but he'
s not thrilled with the second story building being proposed.Chairman
Bosch understood there was a 10 foot setback to that garage from the property line.Mr.
Jones responded the plans, as originally proposed, included a 10 foot setback, with the four foot cantilever
on the front. The Design Review Board's suggestions to the applicant was either to reduce the unit
by two feet to keep a 10 toot rear setback or cantilever two feet into the rear to make an 8 foot setback.
The final plans show an 8 foot setback from the cantilevered extension.Rebuttal
Mr.
Arthur understood there is a 10 toot setback to the existing garage. With the two foot cantilever, it does
drop it down to 8 feet. It is confusing when looking at the plans.The
public hearing was Gosed.Commissioner
Walters did not have a problem with the project and the proposed cantilever. It was not overwhelming
for the lot nor for the neighbors. He knew a number of those homes could be described as
a story and a half. He didn'tfeel it was posing a violation of privacy.Chairman
Bosch looked at the cantilever condition as one not originally proposed by the applicant. He believed
the applicant proposed a 4 toot cantilever to the front to maintain the setback. He didn't have a problem
with the 4 toot cantilever. It could be fairly awesome ii not handled correctly and the large garage
door limits the number of outriggers or corbels that could be placed there. The remainder of the building
is very well designed; a good fob has been done in that regard. The only side yard windows are on
a good side yard setback. He had a problem with the recommendation of the Design Review Board to
adjust the cantilever into the setback area, looking for a waiver, which sets a precedent, which could be very
damaging to other lots in the City looking to this as that kind of precedent -- rather than seeking a more creative
solution if they felt it would be necessary to enhance the challenge of the four foot cantilever over
the garage door and driveway. He much preferred to see that cantilever and maintain the setback intact.
Commissioner Smith
had to agree. She did not encourage the DRB recommending the variances. This is relativelyasmallbuildingandshefeltthefourtootcantileverinfrontwouldbelessimposingthangettingto
Mr. Leigh's property line.Commissioner Pruett
concurred. He complimented the applicant on their willingness to work in trying to resolve the
problem. It's important to recognize the applicant was willing to work with the City.It was
noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.Moved by
Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2089-94,
with conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, but deleting condition 2, and deny the Administrative Adjustment Permit94-14. This approves the project with the four foot cantilever at the front -- not into the setback at the
back.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED 7
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2090-94 -SADDLEBACK
CARWASH A proposal for acoin-operated, self-serve car wash, including a request to deviate from
the front yard setback requirement established by the Old Towne Design Guidelines. The site is located
at 512 West Chapman Avenue, situated approximately 75 feet west of theMetrolink -A.T.&
S. F. right-oi-way.N TE: Negative Declaration 1463-94 has been prepared
to satisfy requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act.Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to explain
the project in more detail. The Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan was prepared to detail
public improvements as well as development of private property in relationship to transit oriented development
with the beginning of commuter rail service at the nearby depot. The property is a pad that is located
southwest of the Depot across the opposite side of Chapman Avenue. It was subdivided from a
larger parcel that is presently developed as amulti-tenant commercial and industrial development. The property
adjacent to the subject site, to the north, east and west, all those properties are located within
the Depot planning area and designated for commercial development. The property adjacent to the south is
located in the light manufacturing or M-2 zone and all surrounding property is located within the
Old Towne District. The southern border of the project site is actually the boundary of the Depot
planning area. The applicant proposes to construct a coin operated, self-service car wash facility comprised
of four service bays and 10 open parking spaces.Seven parking spaces are adjacent to three
commercial cylinder vacuum cleaners and aii 10 spaces could be used for drying stalls. The structure would
also include an accessory office and storage area above two of the service bays, measuring
approximately 760 square feet. The nature of self-service operations for this type of car wash require
easy access, and the structure is designed to accommodate drive-thru traffic. Coin operated car washes are
typically open on both ends, with service bays oriented for direct visibility from the street.
Although specific standards were established for different areas within the Santa Fe Depot Plan, there are
no site planning standards that apply to commercial land use classifications.Instead the plan
refers to commercial standards and regulations contained within the Zoning Ordinance,the OldTowne
Design Guidelines and the Design Standards for the Redevelopment Agency's Southwest Project Area.
The architectural standards were established through the approval of the Santa Fe Depot Area Speafic Plan, as well
as the Old Towne Design Guidelines. Staff and the Design Review Board generally feels the project
is not specifically consistent with many of those guidelines, but the basic issue before the Planning Commission
is whether or not the project is consistent with the permitted uses that are specified within the Depot
plan itself. There are a number of conditions of approval that are associated with the project
if the Commission were to vote in favor of the project.Commissioner Walters asked about the building wall
on the west side of the car wash structure -- it appears to be flush against the edge of
the property line with no setback. Is that accurate? (Yes.)Chairman Bosch commented on the setback from
Chapman Avenue -- the staff report refers to the zero setback that is permitted and the 25 toot
maximum clause.
How is that reconciled against the proposal being considered?Mr. Donovansaid this was discussed at the staff level. It'
s a question that was never resolved. There is a similar restriction in the residential quadrants that have a setback of
20 teat. The basic zoning is 10 or 15 feet for setbacks in the R-3 and
R-4 zones. Staff has been applying the more restrictive guidelines.They believe this is more an issue of what the
function of the use is. It was suggested to the applicant the building could be rotated 90 degrees with
a sidewall closer to the street. However, you still run into general
questions about aesthetics, compatibility of the land use and design standards.Chairman Bosch said the rationale would relate
to an interpretation for inclusiveness of a use that wasn'
t clearly considered in the
formulation
of the original setback requirement.The public hearing was opened.Applicant Jerry Greubel,
12805 Newport Avenue, Tustin, represented Saddleback Car Wash. He provided a package to the Commission and referred to
it during his presentation. Their proposal is a modern, 4 bay car wash. He introduced other
representatives involved with the project. The site has been identified as a high density site. Within a one mile radius
they found there are 25,000 people living in thearea.Typically, a car wash of this type needs about
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
area has approximately three times that. Sixty-two percent of the people living in the area are
rentals and that will probably increase over time. Home car washing is predominantly what people in the
area are forced to do when an alternative service is not available. A self-service car wash is the
most popular type of car wash. It is used by 73% of the people who use commercial car washes. He highlighted
a few of the facts about water usage. He read into the record a letter from Jim Gonzales, who
supported the proposed
car wash.Craig Smith, 1157 N. Red Gum Street, Anaheim, a licensed architect on the project, felt they had
a quality car wash. They were proud of the design and felt it could benefit the community. He pointed
out some of the key design points. From the inception of the project, they have designed it to be sensitive
to the context and the neighborhood. The design features have been taken from the Santa Fe Depot
and Post Office. The site design is a good fit for the site. The front setback is in line with the scale from
the point of view that they felt the building does not overpower the street, but on the same token, it
is receptive to the neighbors to the east and west, which are both one story buildings. The design is sensitive
to the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan in that at this time the car wash makes the most sense of the
density and economic viability of the site. But should the density and the plan come into realization,
they designed the project in preparation for that so it wuld be converted to a more pedestrian intensive use.
It could be changed to a
commercal-retail use.Steve Donley, 1157 N. Red Gum Street, Anaheim, one of the architects on the project,
brought the focus back to the issue of the use. With emphasis on the fact that the Santa Fe Depot Specific
Plan sets forth as one of its goals the objective of converting the industrial properties in the vicinity to
their property to medium and high density multiple family. When that is done, it must be implied that it
is within the discretion and it is certainly something that should be considered by the City Council that
other uses (such as theirs) would be consistent with the housing that is going to be set forth and ultimately built
in the area.They have read the conditions of approval and if the project is approved,
those conditions are
acceptable to them.Commissioner Walters asked if they knew of the Old Towne Preservation
Association's opinion expressed on this project? (Mr. Donley was not aware
of their position.)Mr. Greubel met with Shannon Tucker on three separate occasions and have taken input
from the Old Towne Preservation Association to get where
they are today.Commissioner Pruett was not seeing a representation of the lot as shown in the
two exhibits because the setback on the west side of the property from the building is
only five feet.An easement was created specifically for this property and it needs to be utilized.
The easement also serves the property
immediately behind them.Jeff Russell, Grubb & Ellis Company, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., #1500, Newport Beach,
spoke for two different parties. The first is the adjacent Propperty owner, Mr. Charles Miles, who also owns
a number of other properties in the area. The second is Rrst American Trust Company, who
manages the charitable trust, which is the property in question. Mr. Mites is basically in support of the
project. The proposed development will enhance the commercial activity in the area and also provide a
service to local businesses and area residents. They also believe the project, as proposed, is
an architectural styling that is going to enhance all properties in the area. The proposed use converts what
is currently a problem or blighted site into something that becomes an economic asset to the area. It
is unrealistic to expect the property would be viable as a retail or office development for the
foreseeable future, given rents and development costs in the area. This use will be a positive addition to the area.
Wiih regard to the charitable trust, in the past this trust has made donations to a number of local groups in
the City of Orange. The ultimate proceeds from the sale would again go to some of the
same civic organizations Elks Club,
Childrens' Hospital, etc.).Those
soeakina in favor Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, favored the project. She thought more business was
needed
in the City.Those
soeakina in opposition John Ufkus, 20121 East Clark, questioned the visibility and safety issues of
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
Chairman Bosch said those were concerns to all of them. The majority of businesses are patronized by
women and it is the City's intent to provide building safety and other safeguards to protect everyone.
Commissioner Cathcart added on Page 9 of the staff report it did refer to the lighting issues, as well as
other Crime Prevention Bureau recommendations for safety.
Bruce Parsons, Parsons Properties, 636 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, represented the owners of the
property immediately adjacent to the proposed parcel. He had a couple of concerns, but did not
oppose the project. They have never been contacted considering they completely surround the project.Fie questioned the block wall and the actual site plan. He was not aware of the easement for the
driveway. The site plan was drawn, but he was not sure of the dimensions. Their building buts up right
next to the property. Overall, he thought the use was good and he was happy with the design of the
pproject. There is an existing block wall on the easterly property line. It's not really clear if that is going to
be replaced by a new block wall or if it will be modified. It's his understanding it's on their side of the
property. His only other concern would be the maintenance of the driveway and easement.
Susan Hobbs, 133 North Pixley, didn't understand the project. Her number one concern was safety and
security. She's afraid at night. There's a lot of foot traffic and quite a bit of darkness. Would lights be on
the whole time? Would the project always look nice and inviting? Or, would it be a hang out for the
wrong type of people?
Rebuttal
Mr. Greubel responded 50% of their customers are women. They can't afford to let 50% of the business
go away. Right now, the area doesn't have a lot of lighting because the businesses close down at night.
They will provide a lot of light to the area by adding additional lighting. One bay of the car wash will
remain lit at night. Depending on the volume of business at night, it's best to adjust the lighting.
It was suggested to keep the lights on in all the bays, but dim them down for safety reasons.
Commissioner Pruett asked where the vacuums will be located? Condition 7 refers to all coin operated
machines be located in the front of the fadlity.
Mr. Greubel thought the condition referred to vending machines and they will be located in the front of
the building.
Mr. Russell clarified the actual easement is across what is now Mr. Miles' property, immediately to the
west of the site in question. It is to the benefit of Mr. Greubel's proposed development; to the
detriment of Mr. Miles' property.
Commissioner Cathcart referred to the site plan. Given the concerns of Mr. Parsons about the buildingtotherearbeingupclosetothepropertyline -- is the drawing correct or is reality different than that?Mr.
Donley believed the drawing was correct. There is a strip of land that exists between the rear Property
line of their property and the actual, physical location of the building behind them. At this point in
time it is the mutual responsibility of the current property owner and the owner behind to maintain the driveway
and he imagined they were going in to improve it and it would remain a reciprocal maintenance problem.
They would address it with an agreement.The
Commission would like to see an agreement between the two parties for maintenance of the driveway.
The applicant affirmed they will maintain that driveway.Commissioner
Smith wanted to know where the coin operated machines and appliances were and how many
there were? (12 machines)Mr.
Greubel said the vending machines themselves should be facing the street. The actual operation of the
vacuums will be in the back of the caz wash.The
token machines need not be out in front as they have no value.The
public hearing was dosed.10
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
Commissioner Cathcart was not sure Mr. Parsons was satisfied.
Chairman Bosch read condition 1 regarding the correct easement. It was an appropriate condition to deal
with the easement because in reviewing the title report it was hard to tell who the easement benefited.
Commissioner Pruett asked ii the building were proposed and submitted as a commercial establishment,
as it may eventually be developed, would the conditions be significantly different from the standpoint of
setbacks and other issues such as parking? Is the Commission approving something that will set the
stake for an approval of another use down the road that would have conditions that might not be able to
achieve given the property as the way it is today?
Mr. Donovan said the answer would be maybe. It it were a restaurant, it would clearly have problems
with the parking requirements. Retail space was even and if it became industrial, there would be a lighter
rate -- there would be a surplus of parking. The proposed use, it it changed, would need to be reviewed
by the City.Chairman
Bosch said any use allowed in the zone would be allowed by right without a conditional use permit
if the parking meets the requirements. If the setback in the ordinance says zero feet and you're allowed
to go up to 25 feet, where does it say you can vote for something that has this setback?Mr.
Donovan said there was a difference among staff over this issue. And it was discussed at length with Mr.
Greubel when the plans were submitted. He didn't know if he could answer that except to say the concerns
the D.R.B. expressed -- the intent is to keep the development close to the street. They were looking at
it in terms of what the context of the guidelines were for each building. It should be pressed up against
the property line rather than what is proposed. The D.R.B. didnot think it was compatible with the
Design Guidelines.Chairman Bosch
had a legal question in that unless the staff report says this is what the ordinance says,he was
looking for a way to vote for this. The Commission must work on the basis of the ordinance in lace. The
ordinance says the front setback must be between zero and 25 feet. Tell him where in the Paw theycandothis.Mr. Soo-
Hoo's understanding from the staff report is that the Old Towne Guidelines require either a zero front
setback on West Chapman, which this property is located, or a front setback not to exceed 25 fast,apparently
depending on the interpretation. Since the Old Towne Guidelines were adopted by ordinance,
he thought that was a valid issue as to how a building could be proposed that would exceed the
25 feet without some other form of application such as a variance.Chairman
Bosch likes what the project represents other than a use that doesn't exist in today'smarket place.
Therefore, they must deal with current reality. He didn't know how, unless there is something indicated
in the code that allows this, or there is some other vehicle before the Commission they could vote
on something that doesn't meet the City'sordinance. How did it get this far?Mr.
Jones thought this was one of those projects that had layered ordinances. As the project has moved along,
it has created some confusion. Maybe a variance should have been processed at the same time.The
applicant understood this to be a commercial zone and there really wasn't an understanding this was in
the Depot'sSpecific Plan area. When it was discovered to be in the Depot area and then there were design
guidelines that applied as well; staff was uncertain whether the use itself was really envisioned as part
of the Depot'sSpecific Plan area. It was finally decided to bring it forward to the Planning Commission
and it was too late when it was discovered the setback was an issue. There is some ambiguity
when looking through the Depot Specific Plan given the design guidelines.Mr.
Donovan said at this point they could re-advertise the meeting and advertise it as a variance, or as an
alternative, ask the applicant to redesign the project if that would be consistent with the Commission.
Chairman Bosch's problem was there was an adopted specific plan that shows the area within the
boundary of it; it's not ambiguous or vague whatsoever. There are guidelines that are the ordinance. It
speaks of a zero minimum to 25 toot maximum setback. He's looking for a way that legally says this is
how the project fits in and this can be adopted under the ordinance and be consistent. How can they
vote for something that doesnR meet the ordinance? That's a terrible precedent to set.
11
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
Commissioner Walters did not have a problem with the project. It's a decent design and a good use for
the lot involved. He concurs with what is being said. The solution lies on its face. It must go out for re-
advertisement and come back with a variance request, along with the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Smith had a problem with the specific use in the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan. She
worked on the Depot Plan since 1984; she sat on all the committees that spoke to the design of the area.
She thought the client was misinformed by City staff as to the feasibility of this use from the beginning of
the project. The use is not prescribed in the Depoi's Specific Plan. She thought it fit into the intent of
the Depot Specific Plan. It violates the ordinance and she couldn't understand why staff didn't catch that.
She believed there has been some controversy back and forth with the project with the applicant being
informed at some point that no, maybe he couldn't submit this plan. There's perhaps some ruffled
feathers, so it must be handled delicately. She would vote against the project because she felt it was
not an appropriate use for the area.
Commissioner Pruett thought the project must come back as a variance to get the appropriate approval,
because he didn't believe the applicant would try to re-design the project. n the other hand, he
shared the concerns of Commissioner Smith. He's not sure if it is an appropriate use for the Specific Plan of
the Depot area. He's still up in the air on the issues. One of the issues that must be resolved is
the
easement.Chairman Bosch explained a variance is not a casual thing. It must be demonstrated as to why
the variance is needed. Specific findings need to be made in support of the
project.Commissioner Smith thought the staff should be fully apprised as to what is contained in the Specific
Plan so that applicants are treated fairly from the begmrnng and not jerked around in the process
and spending a lot of money to bring something forward that doesnY comply. That whole design was
put together to improve, revitalize and enhance the street. This is one of the first projects to come up
and right away the City throws the rules out the window. She was not in favor of doing
that.Commissioner Cathcart offered his feelings about the redevelopment process. Sometimes you need
to start out and somebody needs to make the first move. With the railroad tracks being an edge, they
must do something to get things on the other side of the tracks to come towards the Plaza. You have to
get people using that area. He thought if they waited around for the pertect project, they may be
waiting around beyond their lifetime. When talking about the current, best and highest use Tor a certain
property,it's really based on the entrepreneurs out there in the world that come to the City with
development ideas. Unless the public sector is in the market to buy the property, business has to generate its
own demographics or generate its own business. One of the issues that has come along is that the
City needs to stimulate development in the Old Towne area; the City needs to revitalize -- get people down
there 24 hours a day. The Depot needs to get going -- the whole area needs to be vibrant. The reason he
finds the proposed project exciting is that it has the ability to change into what they would like to see later.
The setback bothered him because it was not in proper form; it must be done in another way. He preferred
the leeway of 0 to 25 feet being a good thing rather than everything set right on the front of Chapman.
He felt sorry for the applicant in that the staff did not properly inform the applicant about this.Even
if this came back to the Commission as a variance, what language would they use in order to vote for
the project that would meet the legal implications? He personally did not have a problem with the use
in the area. He wanted to see something happen along Chapman. He's tired of seeing vacant lots and
no activity after 5:00 p.m.Commissioner
Pruett said it was important for the applicant to recognize it was not a slam dunk approval if
the project were brought back under a variance. The project must meet the legal test.Mr.
Soo-Hoo read the required findings for a variance. "In accordance with the Orange Municipal Code,
there are two required findings the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a variance. 1) That
any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby
authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 2) That because of special
circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code is Tound to deprive subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications." They must meet the
test of both required findings. There is one decision the Commission could make at this hearing. In order
to even accommodate the conditional use permit application, the Commission must make a finding that
the use is similar in character to and not more detrimental than other uses permitted by the Santa Fe
12
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
Depot Area Specific Plan. Without such a finding, the CUP application would not even be appropriate to
consider before the Commission.
Commissioner Smith referred to Table 2 -Permitted Uses. The two uses that come close to this
proposed use are auto parts and accessories and service stations, which are permitted in the C-1
district and the Depot
area.Commissioner Cathcart's feeling was that this was less detrimental than a service station.
Chairman Bosch agreed with
that.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, in considering Table 2 -
Permitted Uses in the Development Standards for the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan, it would bethefindingofthePlanningCommissionthatthecarwashusewouldbeconsideredassimilarincharacterto
and not more detrimental than service stations as permitted by the Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Wafters
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED
The Commission established it was their finding that they could consider a carwash subject to the
requirements and findings of the conditional use permit. Now the problem becomes one of conformancetotheordinancewithregardtosetbacks. It was appropriate to ask Mr. Greubel to come forward and
discuss this hurdle.
Commissioner Cathcart, in listening to Mr. Soo-Hoo, would have a problem with the variancelanguage.He would find a variance would be a grant of special privilege and that the size and location of the
site doesn't really hinder the applicant in any other
way.Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Greubel if he were willing to look at another layout of the site that meets
the objectives relative to visibility, marketing, placement on the site, etc. to see if he could get the
intended use and meet the ordinance required setback? It would require the re-design of the site to
place the parking currently along the street side in the back and to look at the turning radius there. Thenseewhatkindofyieldcouldstillbeobtainedforparkingattherearportionof
the site.Mr. Greubel was impressed with the way the Commission has handled this problem. It shows a
lot of thought and concern and he appreciated that. His concern is to provide a qualdy project. He stipulated to a continuance in order to redesign
the project.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, with the concurrence
of the applicant, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2090-94 • Saddleback Carwash to
January 16, 1995.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart,
Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2091-94 -
SANTIAGO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH A request to allow a church within an existing commercial center, and to allow thejointuseofparkingfacilitiesonpropertylocatedat7444EastChapmanAvenue (
within Orange Crest Plaza).NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant
to Section 15301 of the State of California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report waswaived. The
public
hearing was opened.Aoolicant Robert Murphy, 7926 East Briarwood Road, pastor of Santiago Hills CommunityChurch, asked for this change because they needed a place to meet. They have been meeting inleasedschoolfacilities. For the past year they have been meeting at ChapmanHills Elementary School. It's beenagoodplace, but they're growing as a congregation and they need a permanent place. They want togivesomestabilitytothecommunity. Many of the people live within walking distance of the new location
of
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1994
want to be a real vital part of the community and the location is a good one for them. They have a good
working relationship with the business owners in the two shopping centers; they're all favorable of the
church relocating to their center.
Those ~peaking in favor
Bob Hahn, 7620 East Briarcrest Lane, is an area representative of the Santiago Hills Action Committee.
He's not a member of the church, but wanted to speak in favor of the CUP request. Since the church has
been in their community for the past three or four years, they have bean an integral part of the
community. They have been a good neighbor and the church membership is made up of members of
the Santiago Hills Community. They believe the church would be sensitive to the parking restraints in the
area.
Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, is not a church goer; however, the Santiago
Hills Community Church has been a very active force in the community. They've come forward with lots of
projects; it's a good influence on the community. He supports the project as long as the parking can be
handled.
The public hearing was dosed.
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, noting the project was
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 2091-
94 with the conditions as
listed.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Prueri, Smith,
Wafters NOES: None MOTION
CARRIED IN RE: ORAL
PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, asked if there was a place where people
can inquire what they can buy or lease in Old Towne? Is there a list available for people to look
at?Discussion ensued as to the planning process and documents relating to the OId Towne area. It
was suggested an information meeting be held to talk about issues that keep arising with the
design standards. It would be nice to be better informed for the applicants going through the planning
process.Clear graphics showing how they overlay one another and what they do would be very beneficial.
The guidelines need to be looked at and reviewed for new
uses.IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 10:55 p.
m.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Prueri, Smith,
Wafters NOES: None MOTION
CARRIED
sld