Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission December 21,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of December 7, 1992, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1997-92 -JOHN AND LISA WHITE A request to allow the construction of a second story addition onto an existing single story single family residence in the R-2 (Residential Duplex District) zone, surrounded by single story residences on three sides. Subject property is located at 250 North Center Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes Applicant December 21, 1992 John White, 250 North Center, explained their reason for the C.U.P. request. He and his wife have two children and currently live in a 2- bedroom house, which does not meet their needs. They want to add another bedroom and bathroom and possibly a bonus room. They want to maintain the existing 75' setback in the front to allow their children to play there. It is a safe area because it sits back from the street. They want their architecture to blend in with the existing architecture in the neighborhood -- Craftsman style. Their plans were approved by the D.R.B. after two hearings. At the first hearing D.R.B. requested they provide five feet of additional setback on the second story (north side) to give it more of an architectural balance. The D.R.B. also requested they use a garage door plan that. was more in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations. He didn't think these two recommendations were incorporated in the set of plans being reviewed by the Commissioners. They meet all the minimum setbacks or exceed them. There is a minimum impact on the lot, as it appears from the front. Per Planning staff's recommendation, they are eliminating the single car garage and building atwo-car garage to provide the required covered parking. They are retaining the front of their house so as not to impact the neighborhood. He spoke to their neighbors and verbally the neighbors made no objections. Commissioner Bosch didn't see many comments about the materials. He noted there is an existing stucco on the outside of the house. He was looking for comments on the intent and detailing of the stucco. It looks like a fairly contemporary style in terms of the detail, the gabled ends of the house and the like. It doesn't appear the D.R.B. addressed that issue. He's looking for something that would continue the applicant's intent to be contexturally appropriate in Old Towne by doing some detailing that assures that it carries forward some of the attributes of a historical stucco style. It might be appropriate to look towards adding venting under the gables, trim detail at the windows, and look to the D.R.B. to give their assistance in doing something that is still economical and carries forward the intent into the final drawings. Mr. White's goal is to blend in with the neighborhood. They thought by maintaining the existing material, using stucco and by using the same architectural plan, they would blend in with the neighborhood. He 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1992 doesn't want it to be a blemish to the neighborhood. If there is a recommendation, he would be happy to entertain that. Commissioner Smith commented Mr. White had a rather large front yard on a standard size lot. She wondered since the whole block is predominantly one story, why they didn't choose to fill up the lot with a single story unit rather than going up. Mr. White wanted to provide a safe area for their children to play in the front yard. By moving the house forward to the street, it would create a risk factor of safety and they didn't want to change where the front of the house started in order not to encroach on the existing neighborhood. He showed the Commission some pictures of his neighborhood. From the street, the proposed second story would be obscured from view by the trees. Commissioner Murphy explained before the Commission in the conditions that was included in glass in some of the windows on be amiable to that? a couple of other projects have come last several months and one of the the projects was that of translucent the second story. Would the applicant Mr. White stated the bathroom window faces out forward and they were planning to use obscured glass there. They were not planning, although have no reservations, to using obscured glass on the other windows. Commissioner Murphy asked if Mr. White had any problems with the conditions of approval in the staff report? (He had no objections.) The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch appreciated what the applicant has done to preserve the front of the house. He understood Commissioner Smith's concerns about impacts of the second story vs. a single story, but it is kind of nice to see an addition that does maintain the living environment as much as possible without totally encroaching upon the setbacks. He personally believes the applicant has done a good job of maintaining the existing environment. He is concerned though on some of the windows and would like to see a condition added relative to requiring utilization of translucent glass in the lower pane of the windows on the north and south elevations at the second floor only. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1992 The rear yard setback of 22 feet to the wall is more than substantial in terms of preserving privacy to the rear. He also felt an addition to Condition 2 was needed. "And that specific wood detailing be added to the exterior elevations complementing the stucco exterior design, but increasing the historically context of that exterior design to comparable stucco exterior historically contributing houses in the Old Towne District." Commissioner Smith had some problems with the design and she didn't feel it was the problem of the applicant, rather this was not handled well at the D.R.B. The Design Guideline for Old Towne clearly calls for pre-1940 structural design to infill structures. This house is not a Craftsman design. She didn't know what kind it really was. The siding in Old Towne of stucco applications generally applies to a Mediterranean or Spanish-style structure. The style does not fit on the block. To her knowledge, this house was called a "garage" house. She was also concerned about the block being impacted by the two story design. It is a very well preserved block with several contributing structures. She thought the design, if not given some extensive work, especially done in stucco, would cause deterioration on that side of the street. There is an opportunity here for this to be developed as appropriate infill and the plan, as presented, is appropriate. This particular design is out of context with the neighborhood. She was not comfortable with the second story in this context. Commissioner Bosch heard Commissioner Smith's concerns relative to specific architectural styles and it is important to the Old Towne Design Guidelines that have been developed by the City. He wanted to check with the applicant to see if he were willing to take the plans back to his architect for additional work on the exterior elevations to resolve the detailing problem. With the appropriate design, the two- story could fit into the context of the neighborhood. It would be good to see something that met the needs of the applicant and at the same time fulfills the stylistic intent of the City's Design Guidelines. Chairman Cathcart liked the idea of having a street scape that moves in and out rather than everyone sitting on the same setback line in the front yard. The deep front yard offers a nice change. He believes there has to be some sensitivity to infill additional design work on detailing in order to make the project look more of a conforming nature than 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1992 what it is now, which is a non-conforming structure. Would the applicant be willing to continue the hearing? Mr. White's original plan was to take the front of the gable roof and extend it up to a second story so that it would sit farther back and on top of the existing structure. The building guidelines would only permit that type of addition if they put atwo-car garage in the middle of the front yard. That was not an appropriate action to take. The current plan was the only feasible option considering the existing house and meeting the two-car garage requirement. Commissioner Smith explained the Design Guidelines were put into effect in Old Towne to ensure that everything would work together. When an opportunity comes up for a new structure on a vacant lot, it is encouraged that the new structure complement the others. And, when a property which is non-conforming, not pre-1940, is amended in any way or changed, it is also required that the structure be built to complement the existing structures. Commissioner Bosch said there were several issues being discussed. One issue is the ability to make the design in terms of site plan appropriate within the context of the existing dwelling, neighbors and the neighborhood. Another issue is how appropriate is the presentation cosmetic or stylistically the form and mass of how it is detailed), how appropriate is that to the guidelines for the exterior design of the building. Mr. White was willing to continue the hearing. Mr. Godlewski said the revised submittal needs to be in by February 1, 1993 in order to hear the item at the February 15, 1993 meeting. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1997-92 to the meeting of February 15, 1993, to be placed first on the Agenda. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1992 IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1998-92 -THE FLIP SIDE A request to allow the operation of a non-alcoholic non-smoking nightclub and to allow the shared use of a parking facility for a property located in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone. Subject property is located at 612 North Eckhoff Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant David Rose, 20798 Brana Road, Riverside, sent a letter stating their position to obtain this Conditional Use Permit. He has read the staff report and the only concern is the payment of the TSIP fee, as required by the City ordinance. They met with the Appeal Board this afternoon. Mr. Godlewski reminded the Commission the TSIP fee is not a matter before them at this time. Mr. Rose said there were two options to consider. One is addressing the prior C.U.P. which was originally adopted in 1987 for the first club that vacated the premises about six months ago. The other is the C.U.P. application presently before the Commission. With this application, the use has changed -- they're asking fora commercial use in an industrial zone; therefore, the TSIP fees are applicable. If the old C.U.P. were modified, those would not be applicable. They tried to come under the old C.U.P. 1601. Unfortunately, due to complications on both sides, that time period expired and they voluntarily applied for a new C.U.P. Chairman Cathcart explained the hearing was on the new C.U.P. Anything else that transpires would be between the applicant and City staff. 6 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Murphy said they had going to use 8 employees/security Would there be a problem with approval? (No problem.) Those speaking in favor December 21, 1992 mentioned in their letter they were type personnel for their operation. noting that in the conditions of Bob Walters, 20012 Gray Lane, was intrigued by this project. He believed it needed whatever support and endorsement it could to help it become a reality. He wanted to add his endorsement for the nightclub and requested a favorable vote be entertained for the issuance of the permit. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, thought this was a great idea and it was long overdue. She hopes it is approved and hopes it is a great success. John Denton, 5200 Averton, Long Beach, spoke in favor of this idea. There's a real problem with drugs and gangs; a lot of people are getting hurt and it is unnecessary. It's good they are putting this in an area where it doesn't really disturb the neighbors and it's a club with no alcohol or drugs. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy noted the the provisions of the California the Guidelines Section 15301. project was categorically exempt from Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1998-92 subject to conditions 1-5, amending condition 2 to provide at least eight security persons. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch commented relative to the duties of the Planning Commission the key thing is appropriateness for the area it is in. This is really a great enterprise, but it also has to be in the right spot in the City. Clean fun without alcohol, drugs and smoking may be noisy but 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1992 hopefully far more controlled. It's a great asset to the City and an appropriate use for this zone. IN RE: NEW HEARING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1420-92 -CITY OF ORANGE Hearing set to determine compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act for Negative Declaration 1420-92 evaluating the impacts of a Public Works Project to install a storm drain between Chapman Avenue and Palm Avenue on Orange Street. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Mr. Johnson explained this project is an extension of a project already awarded to a contractor. They hope to extend this portion with the work that is going to start after the first of the year. It's a project that will be financed with CDBG money and it will benefit the Downtown target area, which has been subject to some flooding during heavy rain fall. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Negative Declaration 1420-92 in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and wildlife. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92-195 - ALBERTSON'S A request to subdivide by parcel map a 13 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Jamboree Road for financing and leasing purposes. 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1992 There was no opposition; therefore, a staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Applicant James Sanchez, 612 North Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, has reviewed the staff report and agrees with the conditions of approval. He noted three typographical errors and requested clarification: Conditions 9, 14 and 15. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch noted the project's environmental impacts had previously been addressed and approved by E.I.R. 868. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 92-195 with conditions 1-15 as noted in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting January 18, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p. m. sld 9