Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-1997 PC Minutesr.. / ,(.) (" :;;. 3 0<', .J.. _ . '/1 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 20, 1997 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Vem Jones. Manager of Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR v :Z LJ L~.J l;1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 1/6/97.Movedby Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue approval "O~~~J;) .U.J~Minutesof 1/6/97 tothe nex1 regular meeting.AYES:NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 2. APPEAL NO. 435 - CHEVRON U.S.A.An appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny Variance 2024-96, a request to construct a 70'tall freeway oriented sign. The property is located at 1940 East Katella Avenue, adjacent to the southbound on- ramp to the 55 Freeway.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311.This item was continued from the November 18,1996 and December 16,1996 hearings.)The full staH report presentation was waived as there was no opposition to this item. The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Ted Grove, Project Manager, Robert Rscus & Associates, 2050 South Santa Cruz #2400, Anaheim, gave a brief overview of where the project started and where it has come to as of this heariniil. They originally proposed a 70 foot high freeway sign to be installed at their station. The intent is to gain visibility oH the freeway and to gain additional business from the northbound and southbound freeway commuters. The reason they initially asked for a 70 foot high pole was to get the sign high enough for commuters to see the sign from the freeway and there were a large number of tall trees that obstructed visibility. Since that time, Cal Trans has trimmed those trees and brush. Visibility has been opened up tremendously. At the last hearing they talked about sound walls and potential new construction of the 55 Freeway. They contacted Cal Trans and were told in the foreseeable future they have no plans to expand the 55 Freeway or install any new sound walls at that location. At worst, the on and oH ramps may be adjusted slightly, but the elevation changes would not aHect their site. They have taken a second look at their needs for the visibilny of a sign. They wanted to modify their request to reduce the overall height of the sign from the current 70 feet down to a 40 foot overall maximum heiiilht. The pictures on the wall show the sign flagging they did when they first applied for the variance. Coming north on the freeway, a 40 foot 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 sign would give the northbound commuters visibility of the sign. The sign will be partially blocked if it is lower than 40 feet and would not be eHective for freeway visibility. Public comments Barbara DeNiro. 1118 East Adams, asked what the height of the signs on the other side of the street were and also, how many signs were allowed for anyone business? Mr. Jones responded in terms of what is allowed on the property, a business is allowed one sign extending to a height of 15 feet, which they currently have. The applicant has requested a second Sign, which exceeds 15 feet. The variance is two-fold in this request. Across the street there is an Arco station and some other businesses with signs. Those signs range in height from 25 to 35 feet. There are some signs immediately behind Chevron, which have been in existence since before the sign ordinance restricted the height of signs. The HoJo Inn sign is 53 feet and The Shiki sign is 45-50 feet high.Rebuttal Mr. Grove said the Arco sign is a bit lower in height than theirs, but n is higher in elevation in relationship to the freeway. Their site is lower with the freeway a bit more super elevated as far as sight. They need that extra five feet to get them to 40 feet for the northbound traHic to see the sign. Chevron has a sign that was installed on Santial10 and Nohl Ranch Road, off of the 55 Freeway. They just want an equal base of competition at their site on Katella and the 55 Freeway is a good source to generate income.Commissioner Romero asked if the sign at Santiago and Nohl Ranch Road was 35 feet?Mr. Grove replied it was, but the 35 foot sign at Santiago could be seen in its entirety. It was a diHerent situation.Commissioner Smith asked if the sign were going to be measured to the bottom of the sign to obtain the 40 foot high sign, or is 40 feet the maximum (tip top of the sign)?Mr. Grove explained 40 feet was from the top of the sign (the high point of the sign structure) to the finished grade.Commissioner Carlton asked if it were possible to raise the existing sign higher? Would that achieve the same thing rather than to have a second sign?Mr. Grove said the existing sign has another purpose in itself in that the State Weights & Measures governs service stations. By those regulations, service stations must post both price and brand on the adjacent street frontages the stations are located next to. The 15 foot monument sign ( primary sign)serves that purpose. 11 shows the Chevron logo and the prices. That sign addresses traffic on Katella who are the main customers for the station. The secondary sign will bring additional traHic to them from the freeway.Commissioner Romero asked if there has been any more discussion with Howard Johnson about adding a Chevron sign to their sign?Mr. Grove replied the two companies cannot come to an agreement or resolution on that issue. Howard Johnson's was asking Chevron for an extremely large amount of rent. Chevron was not agreeable to the condnions.Commissioner Pruett asked what the height of the actual sign age was -- not the height of the sign, but the signage itself?Mr. Grove responded the sign cabinet was 9 feet 10 inches in height and 8 feet 8 inches in width.Commissioner Pruett asked if they were talking about 40 feet to the bottom of the sign or to the top of the sign?Mr. Grove said they were talking about 40 feet to the highest point on the structure -- the top of the sign cabinet to the surrounding drain. 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 Commissioner Pruett asked if that were the case with other signs? The staH report says the HoJo sign is 53 feet in height. Mr. Jones explained the number is suppose to reflect the height to the top of the sign. Chainnan Bosch's recollection was that the HoJo sign was a replacement of the existing sign that was wnhin a couple of feet of that same height years ago. Mr. Jones responded that was correct. Chairman Bosch explained the Commission needed to make certain legal findings for the variance request. The Sign Ordinance, with regard to service stations, was passed after some adjustment a few years ago in response to the concerns in the community. There are requirements for granting of a variance stated In the Orange Municipal Code. That's a concern because they want to be sure a precedent is not being set or damaging other areas. And, that there is some special impacts upon the sign not caused by the property owner that would allow the finding for a variance. The two findings that need to be made are first, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. What conditions have changed that has denied the owner a reasonable use of the property outside of their own marketing, which is important, but doesn't relate to the appropriate land use issues. The second finding is that the variance must be subject to conditions to assure that any adjustment doesn~ constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. His concern is that everyone wants to be seen. Then, everyone puts up a higher si~n. The responsibility lies with the applicant to identify where they believe the hardship is that they didn t cause relative to the use of the property and the specific circumstances that would allow finding in either of the two regards. And how, if that is the case, the City could assure that they wouldn~ be causing a precedent that would severely damage other people's rights to be seen who are further from the property? Mr. Grove responded he felt that each variance is its own case in itself and each one needs to be looked at individually. At this particular location they need to generate revenue oH of the freeway. It is the best source for them to increase business. Chevron may have over looked the fact that there was a potential for business when they constructed the site by not choosing to install a freeway sign. Other businesses in the area are allowed that privilege and they are not. They don~ have an equal share of business. The other service stations are pulling traHic oH the freeway and doing better business than Chevron. Chainnan Bosch asked what changed? The station was rebuilt just a few years ago, including the sign that is currently in place. It was acceptable then, but now there is a hardship? He appreciated the market demand; there was no question about it. Mr. Grove said that was a tough question to answer without a Chevron representative at the hearing. Commissioner Smnh asked if the sound attenuation wall was as high as it is now? Mr. Grove replied there was a sound attenuation wall to the south of their property. There are no sound walls next to their station. There use to be a lot of landscaping trees out there, but Cal Trans has trimmed them away. Commissioner Pruett referred to the Zoning Administrator's report, dated 10/21/96, Page 2 under Discussion: He did not understand the second paragraph. It said, "Chevron already had one sign that was pennitted on the property's frontage. The Sign Code assumes all property owners would choose the front of the parcel as the location to place the sign. A sign is therefore the only structure that is pennitted in the required yard subject to the 2 foot setback and maximum height of 15 feet. Buildings located behind the setback area may be pennitted as high as 32 feet. The applicant's siQn is proposed at the southeast interior corner of the site, adjacent to the freeway." What is trying to be said? They have one sign, subject to the 15 foot limitation and that is the sign that is on front of the property. Mr. Jones replied that was correct. They have an existing sign that is in the front setback, along Katella Avenue. Commissioner Pruett was confused by the statement, "Buildings located behind the setback area may be pennitted as high as 32 feet." 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 Mr. Jones said that was a reference to the fact that on buildings themselves they usually put sign age. So there are signs that could be mounted on the building (on all four sides) at a higher height, up to 32 feet. But there is no real relationship between the building and the fact they are allowed one permitted monument or free standing sign at 15 feet. Commissioner Pruett understood Mr. Jones to say, if they had a building that was 32 feet in height, they could put a sign on n and it would not have an impact. Mr. Jones replied yes, they were allowed a wall sign for each face (elevation) of the building plus the 15 foot high sign, which is typically in the front yard setback. Commissioner Pruett said because they don~ have a 32 foot building, then they are trying to get something that is higher than 15 feet? Mr. Jones was not sure what the heillht of their building was. He was hearing the applicant ask for a sign that was hillher than their existing sign because they want to pull the freeway traHic in for business, as well as traffiC on Katella Avenue. Commissioner Pruett was still confused. He said there is a situation where a building is 32 feet in height, a person is not limited from the standpoint of a sign. But, yet, if a person doesn~ have a building 32 feet in height and they ask for a sign that was over 15 feet, they must seek approval of it if it is outside the setback area? He assumes this is beyond the setback area; in the back of the property. Mr. Jones stated this specific request was at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant essentially is requesting two signs, the second one to be elsewhere on the site, ex1ending above 15 feet. Chainnan Bosch thought it would be helpful to have discussion relative as to why there is a difference on building mounted vs. free standing signs. They are really two different areas of discussion. The site being discussed has a variety of signs that are building mounted as well. The type of building for the use they propose is not 32 feet tall. They allow wall signs. There are signs on the islands and on the main building, as well as on the canopy of various types. Over the years, a differentiation has been made between building mounted and free standinl! because the building mounted is on a mass building already placed on the site and hopefully the sign is already integrated into the building. So, recognize that the free standing sign can be competing with the building signs or cluttering up the site and thus has caused visual intrusion such that on major boulevards such as Tustin, studies have found that through the mass of free standing signs competing with one another, as well as with traffic signs and building signs, that, in fact, they lose their eHectiveness. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Romero was not satisfied with regard to a condition that would assure the adjustment would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity for the special circumstance requirement. For that reason, he was not in favor of the variance. Chainnan Bosch asked for clarification from stan. The Zoning Administrator's action was an outright denial of the variance. The Commission was looking at both the appeal and must first judge whether or not the appeal should be considered. If so, then review conditions surrounding the sign if they move ahead. Correct.) Commissioner Carlton thought the original application was for a much higher sign. She disagreed on the findings. She felt n deprived the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. They had no control over what happened in the past. There is no room for additional businesses on that property. Probably, this would be the last request for a high sign on that side of the street. She leaned towards favoring it. Commissioner Smith thought they should entertain the appeal. She would be in favor of the lower height and believed the property was deprived of privileges that other properties in the vicinity have. However, she thought the application could have been presented a little bit better. There has been noncontact with the Planning oHice since the continuance was requested in December. That makes it diHicult for the Commission to know what's in the mind of the applicant. It would have been helpful even to have 4 r Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 a short letter from the applicant to say they were willing to go to the 40 foot height. She could have thought in diHerent tenns. She was definitely opposed to 70 feet. The 40 foot hei!jht was ~uch more reasonable and believed it was not an improper land use, given the fact other busmesses In the area have the signs up there, includin!;l the HoJo's sign, which is even taller than the one being requested. The applicant was a little remiss In not getting back to staff to let them know the applicant's thoughts. She was in favor of the 40 foot height, but no more based on the finding Commissioner Carlton mentioned. Commissioner Pruett agreed with Commissioner Smnh regarding final action on the appeal. In terms of final action on the variance, he was not so sure he would agree to the 40 foot hei!;lht. He recognized that n was less than what the applicant came in with, and it's always good to come in With something larger that you can negotiate down from. He appreciated they were now at 40 feet. He thought they were walking a very fine line in tenns of the issue of special privileges. The reason he says that is because when he looks at the variances that have been approved along the freeway, there has not been any that have been approved at 40 feet. They have been approved at 35 feet and 32 feet, but nothing at 40 feet.. He was concerned from the standpoint of height that is being requested. If approved at the 40 foot height, this will not be the last one the City will see. Several more will come in with similar requests at that location and other locations as well. He could not approve the 40 foot height, but could approve a 32 to 35 foot height. Chairman Bosch still needed further clarification on the appeal. The appeal is to the Zoning Administrator's denial of a request for 70 feet. (StaH responded that was correct.) In the Chairman's opinion, he was against supporting the appeal. There are two things to consider: One is with regard to the appeal to allow a sign of 70 feet. The appeal has not been withdrawn so the Commission needs to act on that. He, too, was against the 70 feet; therefore, against the appeal. Then, secondly, he was willing to consider the variance application before the Commission. He concurred with Commissioner Pruett in this case. It appears the Zoning Administrator, through the number of activities of Z.A. reviews for properties in proximity to the freeway, because of pre-existing conditions which surround this site,that in fact there are privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that are similar to that being requested by the applicant. In his mind, that prOVides the finding as Commissioner Carlton stated. He felt though that 40 feet was pushing it. He would be in favor of 35 feet. If the Commission favorably considered a motion to grant a variance, subject to that finding, which would allow it to occur and also allow a second sign on the site, diHerentiating from the monument sign towards the street orientation, then the 35 feet seems to be supportable.Commissioner Carlton believed it was stated earlier that some of the other sites where there were signs of 28 to 32 feet in height are on higher elevations; they're practically level with the freeway. So, it wouldn't require a higher sign. This particular site is down in a !lully. She could see the rationale for another few feet on the side for visibility. She doubted a 32 foot sign would do any good.Chainnan Bosch appreciated her comments. That's why he was looking at 35 feet. Forty feet, however,was pushing it. Everyone wants more and they didn~ have control over the conditions on every site. He was worried about maintaining the integrity of the ordinance that was either well thought out when it was adopted, or it now needs an over haul, based on so many conditions or variance requests that says it is inappropriate.Commissioner Smith understood what the Chairman was saying about denying the appeal regarding the 70 foot high sign. She would be in favor of the compromise for a 35 foot high sign. That seems to be compatible with the other signs that have been granted there, with the exception of Howard Johnson' s sign.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Appeal No. 435. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Variance 2024-96 with the sign height set at 35 feet to the top of the sign, based on the finding that it does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones informed the applicant of their right to appeal the Commission's action.3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-96 - CITY OF ORANGE An amendment to Trtle 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to make minor changes in the Zoning Ordinance,and to correct omissions that occurreo with the comprehensive update of the Ordinance adopted in 1995.NOTE:This amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) per Section 15305 of the State CEOA Guidelines.This item was continued from the November 4,1996 and December 16,1996 hearings.)Joan WoIH, Senior Project Planner, said most of the changes were resolved at the previous two hearings.At the last meeting there was one concern that was addressed in the public hearing which had to do with the front yard setbacks for historic commercial properties in Old Towne. There was a concern that the existing standard would cause a number of existing historic structures to become non- conforming. In order to avoid that situation, there was an exception staH wrote into the code to allow existing commercial and industrial structures that have zero foot setbacks in the Old Towne area to maintain that setback when a building was added to or modified. The subsequent pages of the document are the changes that were reviewed at the last two hearings and there were no further comments made.Commissioner Pruett referred to Page 1 - Setbacks in Old Towne, (5) Exceptions to (2)-(4) above: He asked ~ that were 2 through 4 or 2 and 4? Ms. Wollf replied 2 through 4; she would write it out rather than use the dash to make it easier to understand. The public hearing was re- opened.Public comments Carole Walters, 534 North ShaHer, asked about the word, "omissions" on the Agenda. What were those omissions?Mr. Jones replied there were some sections that were adopted back in September, 1995 by the City Council that were omitted or left out of the Municipal Code document when it was actually put together.Staff is simply bringing those forward to make sure they are now included as part of the Municipal Code as they should have been the first time.Ms. Walters asked who worked on the document besides Ms. Wolff? Did this have any1hing to do with OTPA trying to put all homes in Old Towne on the Historic List?Mr. Jones said Joan WoiH was the only staff member who drafted the text. This process started approximately 9 months ago and it has taken awhile to get through the system.The public hearing was closed.It was noted this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEOA review. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 3-96 with the one change on the Setbacks in Old Towne, item (5) to read: "Exceptions to (2) through (4) above:" AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The Commissioners thanked Ms. WolH for an excellent job on a diHicult document.Commissioner Smith wanted to clarify for Ms. Walters work began on this document about five years ago and has gone through the public review process.Ms. Walters asked for the corrections/omissions to the document as she would like to know what it is.StaH gave her copies of the packet and document she requested.Chairman Bosch believed there were other items that he heard concerns expressed and he would like the Commission to think about a few other areas of the ordinance that may not be appropriate: One is the amount of front yard paving that occurs in residential areas. It is sometimes hard to differentiate between what is a parking area and what is hardscape, decorative paving. Another might be residential chain link fences. Whether those are still an appropriate use. The third one is the use of razor wire and barbed wire, which is not prohibited in any place by the ordinance as long as it is within the height limits.It could have a negative impact on the neighbors and it should be discussed. Over the years there has been a concernre!jarding roof mounted equipment. These concerns need to be looked at and studied at a future study session.IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 4. ZONE CHANGE 1185-97 - STANDARD PACIFIC A second revision to the Parkridge Hills Planned Community Text, to allow a modified (10'-0" minimum)front setback for single-story residential units. This proposed revision aHects Planning Units "D" and "E"Tracts 15027 and 15264) under construction east of Lama Street on Goldenrod.Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) 1204-88 was previously certified by the City of Orange as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice Chairperson Smith conducted the hearing.NOTE:There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staH report was waived.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Mike White, Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa, was before the Commission last year in April regarding the reduction of the garage setback and the turn in garage situation to 10 feet.The Commission approved that action and it was adopted by the City Council. They are currently building a product with that 10 foot condition. Out of all their plans, this is the most popular. Over the last year, their construction and sales departments have been getting requests from prospective buyers about the feasibility of turning that third car garage into a bonus room or oHice. Todate, they have told buyers they can~ do that. They would have to pursue that on their own after closing escrow because the developer would be violatingthe current zonin!j ordinance. However, they Will be opening a new product within the next week. They will oHer a Single story with another turning condition -- a little bit different garage configuration. But, they want the flexibility for this particular plan to offer or allow the prospective buyer to convert the third car garage into an usable, habitable bonus room or office. He concurred wnh staH' s Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 Public comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, supported the project. He has been looking at other subdivisions and one of the things he likes about this project is that it changes the view scare. as you look down the street. You don~ see the houses all lined up in a row. lt's nice to see a little vanatlon and it gives the homeowner a choice. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Carlton referred to Page 2 of the staH report, at the bottom of the page, under Discussion. "The Planning Commission suggested that if pennitted, reduced setbacks be limited to planned communities or a new residential tract." She asked what would be the procedure if a house burned down or if there were other kinds of damage to it, and the owners wanted to rebuild with this configuration? Mr. Jones explained this zone change was specific to the Parkridge Planned Community text and would apply only to the specific development. It is restricted further to only single story homes of a Plan 1 type. If the homes were built and then destroyed for whatever reason, then the owner could rebuild it as a single story structure, consistent with the approved floor plan within 10 feet. This would not apply to any homes in Old Towne or elsewhere in the City. lt is restricted to the specific community. Overall, there is a restriction that no more than a third of all the units can be within the 10 foot front setback. Commissioner Pruett asked how many lots were they talking about in the development that will be single story? What percentage of the lots are anticipating the 10 foot setback? Mr. White responded the ordinance allows that only a maximum of 72 can be built in this condition. They hope they can build 72 homes, but that is a market-driven thing. As they proceed with the project, they might find a lot of interest with this particular plan, orthe)' may find there is not much interest in the plan.Because the size of the house it doesn't necessarily fit on every lot. It's a hillside condition so it is restricting on its own. They will try to develop 25% of each plan; however, they will not exceed the 72 that is allowed.Commissioner Smith asked how many total homes were allowed in the project?Mr. White replied 209 homes. There are a 109 lots in Parkridge Estates. They may only build 25 of those lots wnh this condnion.Commissioner Romero asked if the bonus room/office option would be part of the developer improved part of the home?Mr. White said it would be developed by Standard Pacific, but they won~ know until they actually sell the house if the buyer is going to take this option. It just gives them flexibility.Commissioner Romero was concerned about having empty homes and the driveway has been put in place. Is that property then a 3-car garage home to be sold that way? Or, would the developer modify the plan to be an option and pull out the driveway that swings into the bonus room?Mr. White hoped to know the options before the driveways are poured. However, if theV have a completed Unit and it is standing inventory and a buyer wants the bonus room option, tYPically the options are paid by the buyer. It's a cost that is built into the price of a home and it would include the removal of the driveway.Commissioner Romero didn~ want a yard full of concrete of which five cars would be parked on.Mr. White's intent is for the driveway to be removed if the bonus room option is elected and a front yard would be put in.Mr. Jones clarified the numbers on Page 2 of the staff report under Proposal. It is written into the ordinance that this 10 foot setback is applicable only to single-story homes and will not exceed one-third of the total number of units, which is 220. Seventy-two (72) would be approximately 1/ 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 number is not correct and the Commission wanted to keep it at the 1/3, then that adjustment could be made. Mr. White did not have a problem with the 1/3. Two hundred twenty (220) was the maximum that was allowed under the original zoning. They actually developed less density. Mr. Jones said it should be 69 units instead of 72 units, if 1/3 were taken of 209. Commissioner Pruett said, after looking at n, they're not really changing the number of front setbacks. That is the issue. But, he thought Commissioner Romero brought up an interesting point: That is the issue of the driveway and making certain there is a straight in driveway. He proposed th.at th.e se<?Ond sentence reads: "Garages shall be set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet for a straight In dnve with a front facing door." Delete the new language and leave the original language. It basically indicates the Commission is looking for a straight in driveway for those driveways that face the street. Mr. Jones thought the revised language was fine. Mr. White said the concern was if they built the driveway and then someone takes the option later and doesn't remove the driveway. He thought it would be appropriate to add language such that if the portion of the garage is going to be habitable, then that portion of the front yard shall not include a driveway. Commissioner Pruett said if someone were going to convert that garage to habitable space, they would have to get a permit. Some language to that eHect would be appropriate. Commissioner Smith asked how much of the driveway would be removed when there were future modifications? Commissioner Carlton thought that would need to be covered in the CC&R's. Mr. White said they would make sure to disclose to buyers if they take the third car garage and if they convert it into habitable space, which is allowed under the zone, they must comply with the ordinance. That would be removing that portion of the driveway that facilitates the third car garage. Unfortunately, the CC&R's are already recorded. However, they can add it to the White Report and to their Disclosure. Commissioner Pruett suggested adding a sentence to the proposed addition to the text: After the sentence, Single-story residences having a side-entry garage with a swing-in drive shall have a 30-foot paved back-up area provided between the garage door and the far side of the driveway. Add-Garages that are converted to habitable space shall be required to remove the swing drive.Commissioner Romero had another suggestion. If the bonus room is subsequently converted from a one car garage, the existing concrete driveway would be removed to a resulting straight in drive to the existing two car garage to a maximum width of the existing two car garage.It was noted that E.I.R. 1204-89 has been prepared and amended to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project and E.!. R. 1204-88 was previously certified by the City of Orange.Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1185-97 and declare that the proposal is consistent withthe City's General Plan upon the chan(Je of the maximum number of units would reflect 69 instead of 72 (one-third of the total units), and in addition, would add: If the one car garage is subsequently converted to a bonus roomlhabitable space, the existing concrete driveway to the one car garage shall be removed to create a resulting straight in drive to the existing two car garage to a maximum width ot the existing two car garage. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1997 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1517-97 - CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Environmental evaluation of a sewer line construction project within public right-of-way along Chapman Avenue from Eckhoff Street to Rower Street and on Rower Street from Chapman Avenue to LaVeta Avenue.Commissioner Smnh asked about the funding for this project -- was it CDBG grant monies?Mr. Hohnbaum replied no, n was coming from the sewer assessment funds.The public hearing was opened and closed as no one wished to speak.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve Negative Declaration 1517- 97. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Smith echoed the Chairman's suggestion of further study to look at the Development Standards, especially the front yard paving area, as it was an issue in the last item heard by the Commission.Commissioner Pruett congratulated Chairman Bosch on being selected as .Citizen of the Year". It was well deserved and he had a great amount of respect for him in the way he managed the Planning Commission meetings and other things he encounters.Commissioner Smith also congratulated Chairman Bosch and publicly acknowledged the honor bestowed on him by the citizens of Orange. His speech was magnificent and summarized for everyone the true meaning and spirit of volunteerism.Chairman Bosch thanked the Commissioners for their comments. He said it was an extraordinary privilege to be granted the opportunity to serve and he enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission.He thought it was a great team and staH who supported them; it takes everyone's involvement to keep them in balance along the way.IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob BennyhoH, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, didn't know whether this was the proper forum to bring up the subject of sewers. However, a couple of years ago Bob Walters and Mary Ann Chamberlain got together and annexed 10 homes plus the Salem Church property into the City of Orange. One of the rules of the annexation was to get sewers to the residential properties. Nothing has happened yet. Ms. Chamberlain has left and the City is short handed; there's not much staH can do about it. He asked who he should talk to about this concern?Chairman Bosch referred Mr. Bennyhoff's question to Planning and Public Works and requested staH to continue looking into this issue.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p. m. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED