Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-1996 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission May 6, 1996 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2147-96 -GECKO'S The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a proposed restaurant and cocktail lounge with recorded entertainment and dancing. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of May 20, 1996. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2147-96 to the meeting of May 20, 1996. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 4/15/96 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bosch requested taking Item 8 out of order and hear it at this time. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to hear Item 8 - CIP/GP CONSISTENCY FINDING at this time. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 8. CIP/GP CONSISTENCY FINDING Proposed 7-Year Capital Improvements Program for the years 1996-97 through 2002-03. State Law requires the Planning Commission's General Plan conformance review to include only the first year's proposals. However, the entire 7-Year CIP has been reviewed by staff. Scott Morgan, City Manager's Office, presented the 7-Year Capital Improvements Program. On 4/12!96 the City Manager distributed the CIP for the next 7 years to the Planning Commission and City Council. On 4/16/96 a joint study session was held with the City Council to consider the recommended plan. The recommendation on which the Planning Commission must make a finding is to the General Plan conformity. Also, highlighted on Page 16, the projects that require amendment prior to being implemented are the Fire Station #8 -design and construction, which requires a fire station symbol to be inserted to the General Plan. And, Station #3 -design and construction, which the revised location for Fre Station #3 needs to be determined. At that time, it may require an amendment to the General Plan. Public Comment Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, asked if the signals were induded for this year at the post office? The Commission referred her question to City staff. The Commission's role was to look at the land use issuesof any items in the Improvement Program that are not currently earmarked and approved by the City on the General Plan. The two items that were discussed has nothing to do with the signalization, nor do they require action this year. Mr. VonSchimmelmann said their agreement is being reviewed by the post office and needs to be executed by them. The signal can then go out to bid. City staff hopes to go the City Council with an agreement by the last meeting in May or the first meeting in June. signalization is in this year's budget and is not included in the 7-Year CIP. Ms. DeNiro asked if Fre Station #3 was at Shaffer Park? Chairman Bosch explained the current location is in Shaffer Park. They don't know where the new location is; that's why the Commission cannot act on revising the General Plan at this time. Ms. DeNiro asked what happens to that property when it is not used for the Fire Station? Chairman Bosch said that was a good question and it would need to be resolved at the same time. Ms. DeNiro noted Fre Station #8 was in the Loma Street area. Was that City funded, or was that funded by a housing project? Chairman Bosch's recollection was that it was tied to the development of the Serrano Heights related project. Instead of lieu fees, they have to contribute the Station or money to build the Station before a certain number of houses are permitted. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to the City Council that the proposed Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Years 1996-97 thru 2002-03 is found to be in conformance with the City of Orange General Plan except for the relocation of Fire Station #3 (Project No. 2619N) and the new Fire Station #8 (Project No.'s 2679N and 2680N). And, further, that the General Plan be amended before funds are expended on either relocated Fire Station #3 or new Fre Station #8. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2148-96 -ADRIAN CAYETANO A proposal to establish an automobile rental agency with on-site auto storage. The site is located at 765 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Mr. Jones presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. The existing site development consists of a 2,457 square foot single story residence that was converted to office use in the early 1970's. The applicant is proposing to develop a car rental business on the subject property. The proposal would be to use the existing house, which is used as an office. That would remain unchanged. The parking area at the rear would be used for rental car storage, employee parking and customer parking. There are a total of 10 parking spaces provided at the rear of the site. The proposal is to store approximately 8 rental cars on the site. There are two employees that will be on the site. Vehicular access is provided via an existing 10 foot wide driveway that runs along the north property line. The Staff Review Committee evaluated this project at three of their regularly scheduled meetings and some of the areas of concern included site access, off-street parking, noise and night time security. Regarding the parking, the City's Parking Ordinance currently does not contain a specific provision or requirement for rental car agencies. One of the actions the Commission is being asked to take is to establish what the requirement should be for this specific use. Staff's concern has been that with 8 of the 10 spaces marked for storage of cars, two employees on site -that takes up the 10 spaces and there are no additional spaces for guest parking. In addition, the office itself is about 2,500 square feet and considered separately as an office use, would require 10 spaces just on its own use. They have contacted some of the surrounding cities to see what kind of standard they have. Of the 4 or 5 cities staff contacted, none specifically had a standard, although two indicated that in similar situations they would require that parking be provided for the office square footage and then additional parking be required for the storage of cars. In looking at this project, staff has a suggested condition that would require a maximum of 5 cars be allowed on site, to be stored during business hours, and the remaining 5 spaces be restricted to employee and customer parking. Staff felt this restriction, in conjunction with an additional condition to restrict the use of the office building to the car rental agency business or a single tenant, should provide adequate parking on site. Site access is also a concem with the 10 foot wide driveway, which can only physically accommodate one way traffic. If a vehicle is exiting the site at the same time another one is entering, it may cause vehicles to stack out onto Tustin. One potential solution is to require cross access easement rights with the two adjoining properties to the north, which are similarly developed with offices in the front and parking lots at the rear. There currently is a chain link that is stretched between the two properties and prevents these lots from utilizing each other's parking. The property owner is requesting that the proposed project be contained entirely within their subject property. They do not feel they can obtain or are interested in pursuing that option. The project backs up to residential uses behind them. Some noise was a concern; however, there is an existing 6 foot high block wall located along the property line separating and buffering the site from the residences. Again, the restriction that no major car repair, such as tune ups, be provided and that it be limited to minor repairs, such as replacement of light bulbs. They don't believe noise should be a concern. The Police Department was concerned about the potential for car theft in the evening hours and they have added a couple of conditions requesting additional lighting and that there be some type of barrier constructed in the driveway that could be installed in the evening to prevent the potential for criminal activity. The public hearing was opened. A~olicant Steven Hecht, 1901 Avenue of the Stars #1600, Los Angeles, was the attorney representing Mr. Cayetano. John Brusard is the owner of the property and was present to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Cayetano and Mr. Brusard had the opportunity to review the staff report and prepared a 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 response to some of the items in the staff report. Their response was passed out to the Commissioners. They took each of the issues in order. The first issue is identified as #2 which has to do with the approved number of parking spaces on the property for the automobiles. The recommendation is 5. They would like to request it be increased to 7. Mr. Brusard referred to the plot plan for the 10 parking spaces. If a person is storing cars, they don't need to move them in or out. There are actually 13 spots. They agree with staff's position that 5 spaces would be adequate, but if you take 5 from 13, there would be 8 other spots that are available. They felt 7 would be deemed as reasonable. It would leave them 6 other spots for coming and going. This is a private lot and is fenced off. He has used it for 27 years. There was a concern about the driveway. He has maintained the property with 10 employees and has never had a problem with the driveway. The concern could be handled easily because there is an 85 foot driveway that goes clear back the length of the property. The proper courtesy is to back up and let the incoming car in the driveway. Mr. Hecht explained Mr. Brusard is the sole occupant and user of the property; no longer is there an active CPA practice, where clients came on a regular basis. The use of the property has diminished over time. Mr. Brusard said #3 talks about the sole use of the property. He gave the Commission a background of the intended use of the property. Mr. Cayetano and Mr. Brusard are both businessmen. They would like to accomplish what the Commission would like -- a single use only property. Hopefully, if Mr. Cayetano is successful, he can afford to take over the entire property. He would like to buy the property from him. He would like to sell it to him, but in the current economic times, he's trying to nurture the business along. If they could share the building, then it would be economically successful for both of them. He explained his business activities and most of his clients require his presence at their businesses or homes. He realizes the best use of the property is retail, rather than a private use for John Brusard. The three properties north of his are all vacant. They are vacant because they cannot find a renter who will pay rent. Restricting the use to one business does not provide for the current economy. He requested he be allowed to do business there, along with Mr. Cayetano (Item #3). The sixth item expresses concern about security. He, too, was concerned with security. He has existing timed lighting and could not understand why additional lighting was being requested. There was also sensored lighting in the back. Nobody can enter the back of the lot without the sensored lighting coming on. That's for the safety of his own employees, customers, and neighbors. There is a sensored alarm system and heating system on the building for fire. He and his neighbors have established their own Neighborhood Watch". He requested that Items #5, #6, and #7 be deleted. Regarding Item #8, it referred to ingress and egress to the property and the security of the parking lot. He's had more security problems since the property has been vacant. They are going to put clubs on each car in the lot and there is no danger to the neighbors. Chairman Bosch explained the word "bulwark". It was a fixed device, steel or concrete, that is not continuous like a fence, but is low, about 3 1/2 feet high, that allows pedestrians to pass between the objects, but doesn't allow vehicles to be driven through. They're set into the ground and prevent vehicular movement across the line which they establish and at the same time prevent parking spaces being utilized by others from off site which may use the asset of parking spaces. Mr. Brusard said he had two Pine trees and a car cannot be driven between them. It would be considered environmentally correct. He was not opposed to a gate between the two properties. Commissioner Smith was concerned about the request to have a second business on the property because it would generate a need for more parking. If the Commission were to approve a second business, that goes with the land. If the property were sold, it would still mean two businesses could operate there. That second business might not necessarily be what it is currently. Mr. Brusard requested it be restricted to one business and Mr. Brusard. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 Chairman Bosch referred to the City Attorney regarding limiting the property use to an individual when the rights go with the land. Mr. Soo-Hoo said that was the problem. He knew of no way the City could limit the use to a specific individual. They could limit uses, but could not limit a property use to a certain person or entity. Commissioner Smith said Mr. Brusard saw the parking lot as having storage for 13 cars. It was already determined there were 10 spaces. Where would they put three more cars? Mr. Brusard referred to the drawing (Items #5 and #6). There is a spot between there to store rental cars. Enough for almost four cars. If he wanted to store six cars, he would back them up along the fence. Commissioner Romero asked if they knew how many cars Mr. Cayetano plans on renting? Mr. Brusard said hopefully Mr. Cayetano will have 50 cars rented out on a long-term basis to businesses. Commissioner Romero said that could potentially be a very large problem with ingress and egress. He personally couldn't agree with the three additional spaces, but even if it were approved, it would cause more problems. With 50 cars and the potential for 10 or 15 cars being turned in at the end of the day, where would they be stored? Mr. Brusard said Mr. Cayetano hopes to have that problem in order to get his own lot. Commissioner Romero asked if the vehicles were new or used? Mr. Brusard said they were mainly used. Commissioner Romero said that caused a concern for him with regards to maintenance. Space would be required. He could not agree with the three additional spaces. Public Comments Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, said the Commission covered most of her concerns already. She wanted to know more about the ingress and egress. How would it be monitored? There's too much going on. Rebuttal Mr. Hecht responded Mr. Cayetano intends to conduct his business in conformity with the restrictions proposed by the Planning Commission. There shouldn't be too much going on. Mr. Brusard commented he has served 450 clients (preparing tax returns) during the past 20 years. The doctor next door had over 450 clients and there hasn't been a problem with traffic and cars. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith needed clarification on the southerly driveway. Chairman Bosch explained the southerly driveway approach was still in place along Tustin at this point. It was a driveway approach with nothing behind it. Commissioner Smith said condition 5 didn't make sense to her. The condition is subject to closing the existing southerly driveway approach. Then Mr. Brusard commented there was no plan to close the southerly approach. Why would the approach be kept if it didn't go any place? 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 Chairman Bosch said that was the point of City staff in looking at this. Whether or not it has been a problem over the years, it's a potential problem. Mr. VonSchimmelmann said it was staff's policy to have approaches that aren't used or approaches that don't lead to anything, removed. There are several reasons for that. Curbs and gutters on the street are used to carry water and driveway approaches detracts from that. It's just good practice to eliminate as many drive approaches as are unnecessary. Removal of the approach would be at the applicant's expense. Commissioner Pruett had some real concerns with the project. It primarily has to do with the ingress and egress to the site. He recognized the current use of financial services and 400 clients does have people entering and leaving the facility; however, he didn't believe they would be coming in at the same time. There is a large number of clients going to and from the doctor's office. That's where the concern is. The approved use for the properties that share the adjoining driveway -- the traffic problems cannot be solved. A conditional use permit should not be granted if it will cause deteriorating border land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. He didn't feel the applicant had sufficiently addressed the issue of the special problems of ingress/egress. The current use does not address the issue or indicates how it would be mitigated. Having the property available for dual use also presents a problem that would contribute to that same issue. He could see where the applicant might be able to manage the parking if he did stack cars. But to approve that number of parking, then would it be approved for other uses down the road as well and create special problems there? He was not clear on how that was resolved. He was not convinced this was an appropriate use and could not support the conditional use permit at this time. Commissioner Smith thought exactly opposite of Commissioner Pruett on this project. She would rather see a use and activity on the property rather than a vacancy. By her observation, there seems to be three buildings there that appear to be vacant. She took the liberty of talking to a couple of people there on both sides of the street who agreed they would rather see a business in place there in terms of security for all of their properties. She thought since other cities do not have parking standards for car rental businesses, that there is not a strong precedence set for the amount of parking that is required. She thought they could limit the permit to a potential of how many cars could be on the property at any single time, which they have already done. A violation of that is a violation of the code and would be subject to citation, fine and all the other consequences. Although the property would support one business, she didn't think it would support two because of the limited parking and limited ingress/egress, based on the fact the CUP goes with the property. In response to Mr. Brusard's request, she thought the conditions needed to remain in place (conditions #4, #5, #6, and #7). Mr. Brusard may already be in compliance with the conditions of approval. She would be in favor of not requiring condition #8, which is providing the barriers. That's just another expense and she wasn't sure if it would serve any great purpose. She drove to the back of the property and thought there was a problem with the narrow driveway. The responsibility would be on the businesses and if someone were approaching in the driveway, the person exiting would need to back up. Signs should be posted and anything possible done to prevent accidents. Occupied buildings and businesses are better than vacant buildings, which lead to crime and other problems. She favors the project with modifications and added conditions. Commissioner Romero felt the request was not a sound principle of land use. The building - an old residence -was not constructed primarily for a business purpose way back when. These few properties are not very easily rented or used for retail type of businesses. The current use of the building, as an accounting and financial business, is the best use for the property. Appointments are made, not jointly, but one after another. Therefore, ingress/egress would not be as much a problem and there would be parking spaces. To have a potential of 50 trips per day, based on staff's review, would increase traffic. He could not support the request. Chairman Bosch thought a number of good things have happened along Tustin with regard to being good stewards of properties that existed before people knew Tustin would become such a major arterial highway that it is today. And those uses that have succeeded in the conversion of residences to businesses, which are allowed with certain restrictions under the ordinance, have been primarily those that are service businesses with limited clientele. That's worked very well over the years. In fact, there are 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 a number of uses that are allowed under the zoning ordinance for the site, with the size and number of parking spaces that could have a fairly tremendous clientele coming and going at any given period of time without appointments. Some of those have occurred along the street and put themselves out of business because of their success, or access and parking problems they created for themselves. He would like to see something done that continues the life of these structures in a way that is economically meaningful to their owners, as well as beneficial to the community. He'd like to see the property owners, hopefully in the future, find ways to work together better. Some of them have worked together well with shared driveways or shared parking. It will be nice to see that expanded over time to see some consolidation to get a better use, even though the site is quite shallow along this area. The Commission must deal with the item before them. His concern is with the car storage. It depends entirely on how the car rental business is operated whether or not the parking is a problem on the site. The City does not have control over stating that only long-term car rental shall occur vs. short-term car rentals. How is that policed? He couldn't be in favor of increasing that by taking up a portion of the drive aisle for more car storage because there is simply no room available to maneuver. If one of those cars has to be pulled out to get another one in place and ready to give to customers arriving to rent a car, or to be driven off site, the car that is pulled out has to be placed somewhere and there is no place to put it without utilizing a shared parking agreement with the adjacent properties or impacting the use of those properties. The legally prescribed spaces in terms of parking space standards and drive standards are essential for orderly use of a parking lot, and would limit to the analysis that staff has given for the site. Over time, when there is any significant improvement to the interior of the building, the Americans for Disability Act comes into effect, requiring handicap accessibility which means a handicap parking space will take two spaces rather than one. He didn't want that hardship to occur now and then losing a business in the future. The issue - is a car rental appropriate for the site vs. some other use - is based entirely upon how much storage is necessary to make it work. He was torn on that. The driveway approach is a disaster, but it has been that way because of the street widening. What the City has to look for is hopeful uses that have people who are use to using the site, such as employees and normal clientele. There is no way to control that and still keep an open business climate; it's really a tough site. He believed the conditions of approval recommended by staff in this case are appropriate, except condition #3 is interesting. He didn't think the condition works as it is written. The Commission didn't know how the building would be subdivided over time. A successful car rental business with off site storage could evolve successfully. There could be an overwhelming parking problem on the site. The use itself -- they might be able to restrict it by a stringent restriction on the number of rental cars, on hours of operation, and number of employees on the site. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Conditional Use Permit 2148-96 based on the finding that there are special problems with this project that have not been mitigated. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero NOES: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith did not understand Chairman Bosch's proposal for condition #3. She wanted to know if a car rental business could work at this location if it were limited to how many cars could be stored on the site? Chairman Bosch's concern was that regardless of the number of cars, which should be limited on the site, somehow establishing a limitation to the number of employees was more critical to the maintenance of the parking supply on site, once there is a rental agency. He couldn't see any way to limit the number of employees effectively in the use allowed in the zone. He was looking for a change in that condition which might have made the proposal workable. Commissioner Pruett explained there was a recommendation from staff, or a potential solution to the ingress/egress problem for the site. It could even have some impact on the two adjoining sites. That was to acquire a cross access easement, across the two adjoining parcels to the north, to where there would 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 be a one way driveway ingress and an egress at the other side. That would solve some of the problems. That would make it more compatible to the area as well. But, the property owner did not want to pursue that at this time. Mr. Jones explained the appeal process to the applicant. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2149-96 -PACIFIC RANCH MARKET A proposal to allow a wine tasting area within the existing market. The site is located at 7540 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Jim Tsujioma, 2104 Apricot, Irvine, represented Frank's Market dba Pacific Ranch Market. They want to provide a better service for their customers in the area by putting in a wine tasting bar. He has read the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Romero asked what methods Mr. Tsujioma planned to use to prohibit drinking outside in the front patio area? Mr. Tsujioma responded they were required by ABC to only serve wine in a sectioned off area, which they have established with a railing, wine bar and seats. They will be monitoring the area closely because if they are found to be in violation, they would lose their license through ABC. Commissioner Smith asked about the size of the vessel that the wine would be served in for wine tasting? What is the tasting limit for customers? Does the store presently sell wine? Mr. Tsujioma said they will use a regular size wine glass. The ABC has a requirement of charging for the tasting of any alcoholic beverage that is served. Most places will charge a minimum of $1.00 a sip (2 oz.). Or, they may charge $5.00 for five different flavors of wines. The store is currently selling wine. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Soo-Hoo made a comment about the conditions of approval. He didn't believe the City had the authority to limit CUP's to a single individual. That's what appears to be suggested by condition #4 -the last sentence. He urged the Commission to delete the last sentence from that condition. The provisions followed by ABC may cause the license to be individualized, but that would be a State procedure and the City would not be involved with that. Commissioner Smith was not much in favor of wine tasting sites. It seems like people can actually drink a lot inexpensively without the same monitoring one would have in a club. Up to 5 tastings in a single sitting is quite a bit. If the store already sells wine, it would be an appropriate use. She, herself, was not in favor of wine tasting rooms. Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with this request. This is a growing trend to offer services of this nature to a sophisticated buying public. From that standpoint, it will be a response to services that are not only required by the community, but in many cases, demanded by the community. The nature of the use was compatible and would not cause any problems. It's not a bad use and will not be abused because of the setting. 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 Commissioner Romero approved of the request. Ranch Market is an upper end type of store. Specifically with regard to condition #1 if something occurs within the next two years that is very detrimental to the community, he would strongly recommend revoking the CUP at that point in time. Ranch Market has a pleasing environment and wine tasting would be an added addition to the community. It was noted this project was exempted from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2149-96, with conditions 1-12, amending condition 4 by deleting the last sentence; and recommend to the City Council as to the public convenience and necessity that are served by this request. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2150-96 -CIRCLE K The applicant is requesting to downgrade their existing alcoholic beverage sale license by changing their license from a Type "21" off-sale General License to a Type "20" off-sale Beer and Wine License. This would limit alcoholic beverage sales at this location to beer and wine only. The site is located at 492 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. There was no opposition and the reading of the full staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Lynn Duff, 1341 East Maple, requested the downgrade of the license on the Circle K store on Tustin. The paperwork is now complete and this will finalize their package. Commissioner Pruett expressed his appreciation for Circle K following through on this. He explained Circle K wanted to move their liquor license to another store. The Commission took action on that and requested Circle K to come back to this location in order to downgrade (remove) the liquor license because it was an area that the City preferred not to have that status. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project was exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2150-96, with conditions 1-10; and recommend to the City Council as to the public convenience and necessity that are served by this request. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED NOES: None 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2152-96 -JOHN & LISA BISHOP The applicant is proposing a second story room addition to a single story single family residence located in the Old Towne District. The site is located at 265 North Shaffer Street. 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental C~uality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was opposition to this item; the full presentation of the staff report was presented by Mr. Jones. The current property is developed with a 994 square foot, single story, single family house and detached two-car garage. The house is a 1913 California Bungalow. The 200 block of Shaffer Street is made up of homes built between 1895 and 1929, with the majority of the homes of the Craftsman and California Bungalow style. Of the 18 homes on this block, three are 2 story in height. The project does back up to a 2 story home and has a 2 story adjacent to the south. The applicant's proposal specifically is to do the following: add a 157 square foot addition to the downstairs including what would be an interior stairway going up to the upstairs, and a den. It also includes to add a 512 square foot second story consisting of the master bedroom and master bath above the den, and cantilevered over a portion of the rear yard area, and to install a wing wall and decorative support columns to support the second floor. The second story would increase the overall roof height from 18 feet to 26 feet. The project plans are in conformance with the R-2-6 district Development Standards. The Staff Review Committee reviewed this project at their April 17 meeting. Staff's concern has been to ensure that the second story addition meets the Old Towne Design Standards requiring that new additions be compatible with the existing historical features of the property in terms of massing, size, scale and architectural elements. And, that the 2 story construction be designed to minimize the impact of privacy on adjacent properties. The Building Division indicated potential seismic concerns about the "soft story" design and noted that steel beams may have to be installed to meet current earthquake standards. Condition 1 H. would require that the DRB review and approve any new exterior changes resulting from seismic retrofitting to address that concern. The DRB initially reviewed the project on March 20 and expressed a concern that the second story design had a top heavy look. The Board continued the item to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans and provide a stronger design base at the ground level. The DRB again reviewed this project at the April 3 meeting, in which the applicant added a den to the ground level and the DRB recommended approval, subject to seven conditions. Those conditions are outlined in the staff report on Page 5 dealing with requiring that all materials and colors match the existing, request they extend the existing south roof overhang) from the main house back (east) two feet beyond the master bathroom addition, pull in the master bathroom wall eight inches to offset it from the plane of the main house, extend the downstairs study two feet to the north, the shed dormer window to be multi-pane or stained glass in lieu of a single light pane, and two additional conditions from the applicant: To use river rock on the planter wall and on pier bases of columns at the rear of the house, and to match the existing height from grade of first course of clapboard siding on the new addition. The revised plans, submitted April 15, show the following conditions that the number, size and placement of windows on the second floor have been modified to address the privacy issues related to the adjoining properties. The bay window has been replaced with a smaller window, and the west bedroom window has been elevated. The plans currently do not reflect the recommended conditions which are on Page 6 (conditions 1 A-H) and they do not reflect the conditions 1 B., C., E. and F. at this time. Chairman Bosch asked if staff has seen any revised elevations? He was interested in the modification to the west elevation windows. Mr. Jones was not aware of receiving the revised elevations. The applicant may be able to speak to that issue. The public hearing was opened. Applicant John Bishop, 265 North Shaffer, said he and his wife have designed their project to minimally impact the area. The roof lines are dropped down to approximately between a 6-6 and a six foot top plate to give it more of an attic feel. The reason they are building up rather than going out or sideways, they are not affecting the existing 1913 house. The area they are affecting was built in 1960. There is an established navel orange tree beyond the addition. There are tremendous plantings and hardscape planters around 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 the addition. They have articulated the lines on the north neighbor's side so they wouldn't have to look at a flat wall like they (the Bishop's) do to the people behind them. They understand the request for the trees; however, the way the established planters are, they're approximately 18 inches tall and 30 feet long. The distance between the fence and the planters is approximately 2 1/2 feet. And the distance beyond that to the house is 2 1/2 feet. If a tree were put in that area, it would destroy the planter or not allow them access to their side yard. They didn't want to push out any walls on the original house because it would take away from the original character. They've taken into consideration the original siding on the addition. The main house now is 12 feet away from the fence; the addition will be 9 feet away. Whereas, the neighbor to the north is only 3 feet away from the fence. Chairman Bosch understood from the DRB discussion is that there's modification to occur to raise the west bedroom window. Have they planned any changes to the bedroom windows upstairs in terms of the sill height? His concern was privacy from the windows to the neighboring properties and yards without distorting the architectural elements. Mr. Bishop knew about pushing the master bath wall back 8 inches and making the roof line continuous with the main house. He didn't recall that particular item. Mr. Jones referred to condition 1 C. - to pull the south master bathroom wall to the north 8 inches to offset it from the plane of the main house. It was Chairman Bosch's confusion there. He asked if Mr. Bishop had produced any drawings to reflect the latest DRB requests? Mr. Bishop replied no. They were told they could be written in and they're ready to do that. Commissioner Smith asked what they were trying to accomplish by the addition? Mr. Bishop said they needed the addition for more space, to make room for a new baby. They tried to keep the addition under 500 square feet because of the school fees. They first pushed out the wall and the DRB said to bring back the -- the reason the bathroom pops out is because they brought back the entire wall about 3 1 /2 feet, along the master bedroom. The column has to be where it's at because the driveway access is a certain 20 feet from the garage entrance. That use to overhang over a planter that is there. But the DRB didn't like it because it seemed top heavy. They wanted to keep the project very contained to have a low cost addition. But since starting this project, they have been able to add a den. Commissioner Smith asked why they didn't do a single story room addition straight off the back of the house? To her, the design seems to be somewhat awkward. It's a very large cantilevered second story over a very small den. Mr. Bishop said they didn't push out backwards because of the existing navel orange tree and all the other hardscape in the yard. They currently have a patio, which would need to be eliminated if they built straight out. It only cantilevers at the bathroom. They were trying to retain the view and have a patio area in the yard. Commissioner Romero asked what the Bishops had planned for the neighbors' privacy? Mr. Bishop said they could wave to their neighbors through every window because all the windows line up. They have fixed curtains on each of the windows. Commissioner Romero suggested a tree could still be accommodated in the 2 1 /2 planter area by using root barriers. They're not very expensive. Mr. Bishop responded ideally it would work, but he has seen many trees tear out existing planters. He would like to avoid the tree if possible. 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 Chairman Bosch, looking at the privacy angle, said there were several windows looking to the east and west as the exposure for view windows. He asked if Mr. Bishop considered utilizing at least the lower pane of the double hung windows at the stair landing and in the bathroom with obscured glass? Mr. Bishop would consider that. Public Comments Richard Caveche, 275 North Shaffer, wasn't too concerned about the privacy issue because they can wave to each other now from all the windows. But more on the lines of scale and mass is his concern. Directly behind the Bishops and catty comer to their house is a large, 30 feet tall, 2 story garage with a unit on top. It dominates the back yard. They're wanting to soften up the mass of the building. They have no objections to the addition. Landscaping and some sort of a tree would be helpful. Commissioner Pruett asked if there was room on his side of the property for a tree? Mr. Caveche thought about that and he could plant a tree on his side of the yard. It would be more effective if it were up against the house. They preferred not to, but it's an option. Commissioner Pruett said it appeared they were neighbors who got along real well and maybe this was an issue that could be worked out between them. Betty Murrill, 603 East Almond, served as Secretary to the Old Towne Preservation Association. Since their President had to leave, she was asked to express the concerns of OTPA. They do not feel the architectural design is compatible because of the mass compared to the rest of the house. The roof line should be gabled. In reading the staff report, it looks like the applicant did not follow the DRB's suggestions and changed their plans accordingly. One issue being extending the roof line straight back and avoiding the cantilever. It would be more pleasing to the eye. There is too much addition for the house. They hoped they could be more sensitive to their neighbors by following these suggestions. Chairman Bosch noted the project does have a gabled roof. It's at a right angle to the main gable. Rebuttal Mr. Bishop said he and Mr. Caveche both agree the building behind them is over sized. Recently they planted an Oak tree which will hopefully grow to a huge size and block the view to break up the line. If there is an opportunity for them to work out a place that seems to be reasonable to plant a tree, it would benefit both of them. As far as the architectural style, the addition is entirely at the back of the house. The existing house is not affected. All the fencing is block wall at 6 feet. It's very much a Craftsman style addition; it doesn't cantilever other than the bathroom. He was sensitive to Old Towne; that's the reason they live here. The backyard is what sold them on the house and it is very special to them. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett didn't have a problem with the project. He thought the DRB's recommendations dealt with the issues of trying to capture all the sensitive issues. The issue of bulk and mass to the north property owner might be a concern, but rather than stipulate and place conditions, he preferred the two property owners work something out. Commissioner Romero liked the house and the area. He didn't know how they could live in 994 square feet, and for that purpose only, he believed it should be approved. He favors the project, especially in light of both neighbors mutually agreeing to additional foliage. Commissioner Smith's comments were based precisely on the view of the Craftsman style building and proposed addition. She had some problems with the design. It's a drastic compromise to the existing architectural style. It still appears to be top heavy in the back and it does not reflect the true Craftsman 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 design. Although she appreciated the rationale for the design to preserve the yard, she thought there was a different way it could have been done, or a better way that would still preserve the integrity of this style of architecture. She didn't like the 2 story addition onto the back of the small house. It produces a massing that just doesn't fit with the original building. The existing house is definitely affected by the addition; you have to consider the building as a complete package -- not something that is done in portions. She would be more in favor of it if it didn't have that section (2nd story over the open air with the two columns). That doesn't fit with the design of the building. She complimented the applicants on their creativity with the design. It serves their purpose, but strictly from an architectural viewpoint, she knew what the City approves will set a precedent for other applications in the neighborhood. She would not want to see another addition like this one on any other small Craftsman. This particular house is in pristine condition; it's beautiful. The exterior appears to be barely touched over all these years. It's a shame not to put an addition on it, which is truly in the Craftsman style. She also complimented the applicants for their sensitivity to the neighbors in the design of their windows. She noted the addition behind the applicants is huge and in her opinion was way too big for that particular lot and neighborhood. Their house won't look that big, but it will still appear "big" in the neighborhood streetscape. She would not be able to vote in favor of this project as it is shown right now. It's not a true Craftsman design and she couldn't compromise her value on what she feels about that. She knew the application was before the Commission because it was considered a 2 story. What makes this a 2 story rather than 1 1/2 story? Chairman Bosch recollected inside the house there is a second floor with habitable space, but outside with the way the windows are handled in that space is by dormers or other devices that penetrate the main roof, thus appearing to be more of an occupied attic and part of the roof of the building rather than clearly reading as a second floor. The applicant has lowered the plate line substantially on the two eave sides of the proposed addition, second floor, to reduce the height and keep within the height limit and maintain the roof slope. But have put in a dormer type window only on the one side. When looking at this from the north and south sides, it appears clearly to be two stories; whereas from the east side, because of the dormer and roof line, it is a tall 1 1 /2 stories. Commissioner Smith understood if the appearance is clearly that of a 2 story, it's 2 stories. If it appears as a 1 story, even though there is a second floor living space, that's considered 1 1 /2 stories. Chairman Bosch replied that was correct. And the windows are established as eyebrows raised, dormers or clear stories through the roof plane on that second story area. Chairman Bosch appreciated the sensitivity with which the applicant has detailed the building and to maintain the detailing, the scale of materials, windows, etc. of the existing building. He had a lot less concern over the columns because there were a number of examples in Old Towne of front porches with similar column designs, although typically with a knee wall on the front porch to define the mass of a second floor above (example: the northeast corner of Palmyra and Shaffer). From the front elevation they could apply the same criteria of the house looking top heavy because of that, but it works. He looked at the other concerns -- that of the relationship of the massing and design of the roof of the second story with regard to the main mass of the house. It's a twofold concern. The elevations submitted to the Commission do an injustice to the design in terms of extenuating the height of the second floor because they don't show the whole length of the house on either the north or south sides. And the main part of the existing dwelling's roof and maybe close to the walls is a 40 foot long (about twice the length of the addition proposed in the same direction). It's one-third the length of the existing dwelling plus the porch that's in front of that. Looking at that, this has less of an impact on the overall design of the existing dwelling and on it's relationship to the neighborhood. His next concern was that it was unusual to see the second floor roofs where they occur at right angles -with the ridge at a right angle to the main roof. More often in the Old Towne area, you will see a story and a half that is offset and typically the ridges are running with this style in the same direction throughout the house. He looked for a solution that might be rotating the roof 90 degrees, given the capability of reducing the plate height at the support spaces, such as closets, bathrooms, stair landings and the like where headroom isn't a problem over a portion of them that would help. But, because the plate height has been reduced already to reduce the mass, it will cause a real problem from the bedroom upstairs. He thought it would be something to look at. It does however have the impact of creating a bigger mass from the back yard. You must decide which impact is preferred. 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 It's a matter of judgment. Is this an exact replication of a Craftsman style second story addition to a single story home? Many of those that occurred in the early history of the style in Orange were full tear offs of the roof and addition of a second floor to the top, often following the second floor line pretty well or placing the columns outboard, or even having some cantilevers. There are dozens of cantilevers in Old Towne. What's the greater damage? To destroy the living space of the rear yard and remove the historical relationships of the rear yards with the neighbors, or is it to change forever the roof line at the rear part of the residence as it relates to either the street or the neighboring residences? In that case, which is the truest relationship to the existing style? There is no easy answer to that. The front elevation of the addition is set back 40 feet from the front facade of the dwelling. It might be a fairly minimal impact. If trees were permanent, he would plant the tree to shield that front facade along side the house, rather than shielding the neighbor's yard. Mr. Jones read the definitions of 2 stories and 1 1/2 stories from the Orange Municipal Code. Commissioner Smith thought the roof line was acompromise -the roof line going the opposite direction. It obviously looks like an addition. She really appreciated the applicants efforts to keep the roof line low. Her main concern with the proposal is that it will set a precedent. This would be the third two story on the street. She could live with it if the roof line was turned around. Chairman Bosch thought the zone allowed a second story, but only with a conditional use permit. Whereas, the 1 1 /2 story could be done. Does the proposed presentation of the second story for a particular site mitigate any potential negative impacts or negative precedent on the remainder of the immediate neighborhood? And, it has to be judged in each case on its relationship to the neighboring houses and that's why he had the concern with the roof line turned too. He would like to ask the applicant what else they may have looked at with regard to the roof line, or their willingness to do so? Commissioner Smith would also like the applicant to come forward. With the Chairman's proposal of turning the roof line, if the height were raised a little bit, would that assist it? Chairman Bosch stated as long as it stays within the maximum height of the zoning ordinance, he didn't have a problem with that. It would reduce the mass of the building towards the property line and would have less of an affect of being top heavy to the sides. But, again, it would have more of an impact to the rear. Mr. Bishop brought forward the original design. The DRB asked them to change some things around. There was a couple of concerns. The room use to be 24 feet deep and 21 feet wide. The house is 24 feet wide. By rotating it, it allowed them the same size room and allowed them to bring the roof lines down, thus eliminating the cantilever over the back yard. The DRB also wanted them to bring that wall in 3 feet 4 inches. They had a concern about the gables not aligning, the overhang, and how to get enough room to allow for a stairway and master bedroom. They also boxed out the beams (like the front porch). The den was not included in the original plans. Chairman Bosch concurred with the DRB's concerns about it "hanging all out" there. The provision of the study on the first floor was a substantial improvement to that. The cantilever was too heavy. Obviously, there was a higher ridge height on the second floor. Although with the current plan, the body of the master bedroom is about 22 feet wide and the length of the addition is 22'6". So the major mass of what they have is essentially square with the pop outs for the stair landing and for the tub/shower area of the bathroom. It might be entirely possible, depending on how the windows would be handled on the north and south facades of the bedroom, to rotate the roof 90 degrees and maintain the plate height. He didn't have a problem with the off set ridge. In fact, he preferred that. Mr. Bishop said by doing that it would eliminate windows towards the front of the house, and eliminates the windows on the side as well because of the plate height being too low. There would only be one window that would look over the top of a real nice orange tree. 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 Chairman Bosch suggested going to a dormer or a raised eyebrow for those windows on the sides. He was looking for a solution that would make everyone happy. Commissioner Smith would be inclined toward approving the project if the Chairman's suggestions could be implemented. It would appear then to be in the Craftsman style and she would consider that to be a major compromise to the design. Chairman Bosch asked the applicant if he would consider a two week continuance to look at the Commission's suggestions? (Yes.) Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Chairman Bosch, with the applicant's concurrence, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2152-96 to the meeting of May 20, 1996 in order to look at the roof concept to see if it could work. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 7. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposed amendment to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code, modifying provisions for adult enterprises, adding provisions regulating sexually oriented adult businesses, and establishing an administrative process for approval of shared parking plans. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1498-96 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Mr. Soo-Hoo, City Attorney's Office, presented the full staff report for a clear understanding of the amendment. This matter is a follow up to action that has been taken by the City Council earlier this year. Through recent court decisions, it has become rather obvious that the conditional use permit vehicle will not be allowed as a regulatory device to regulate sexually oriented adult businesses. Unfortunately, the City's zoning ordinance focuses on the CUP vehicle as the regulatory tool. The problem in the court system with this approach is that the courts view sexually oriented adult businesses as being protected by the First Amendment as speech; therefore, any use of discretion on the part of the City to regulate these uses is seen as a form of censorship, which is not allowed by the First Amendment. In response to this, earlier this year the Council established a number of development standards to regulate these uses. The development standards would be applied without the use of discretion, without the use of a CUP. The standards were placed in Title 5, which is the Business Licenses section of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission is to recommend to the City Council appropriate adjustments to the zoning code, recognizing that the new regulations would now be placed into a different Title of the Municipal Code. The definition in the zoning code that defines adult enterprises will now omit sexually oriented adult enterprises. There will be a new definition placed in the zoning code for sexually oriented adult businesses and this definition will then also refer the reader to the appropriate provision in Title 5, which will contain the regulations. The zoning code will now also allow as a permitted use sexually oriented adult businesses in the C-3 and M-2 zones. This addresses the courts concern that all cities have adequate locations for such uses in the city. Staff believes the C-3 and M-2 zones meet that requirement. Lastly, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of an administrative process for shared parking. This addresses the normal situation in the industrial zone where parking improvements have already been made, but the improvements are made to the industrial standards which would not be adequate in a normal case for a commercial enterprise or an adult use enterprise. In exchange for the property owners agreeing to enter into a deed restriction, which would ensure that hours of operation for all the businesses within that property are compatible and offsetting so that at any given time the parking requirement for any business in operation does meet the Orange Municipal Code requirement that the staff can administratively approve. Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to certify the Negative Declaration and to approve the amendments as outlined. 15 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1996 The public hearing was opened and closed. There were no public comments. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to the City Council certification of Negative Declaration 1498-96 and to adopt Ordinance Amendment No. 2096 to amend Section 17.04.020, Section 17.04.038, Table 17.18.030, Table 17.20.030, Section 17.18.060, Section 17.20.050, and Section 17.34.100 of the Orange Municipal Code. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: COMMENTS Commissioner Pruett was encouraged by the fact that young couples like the Bishops are investing in the downtown area. That's the future of the community. He was really pleased to see them trying to establish themselves in Old Towne and wanting to make an investment. Commissioner Smith appreciated the Bishops establishing themselves in the neighborhood. She sees another value as well -- that of the existing neighborhood. Some of the houses are well over 100 years old. It's the retention of the great history of Orange and some of the Commission's work can be educational in calling out for a good design and architecture that is true to the neighborhood. It's people's willingness to retain what they have in Old Towne that makes the neighborhoods so lovely. Commissioner Pruett read in the paper over the weekend where the City of San Clemente adopted the requirements of the Mills Act so that the property owners in their Old Town section were able to take advantage of property tax credits for making improvements to their properties. It was unfortunate the City talked about that issue last year and didn't do anything on it. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting May 20, 1996. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None sld MOTION CARRIED 16