HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1997 PC MinutesI
c''l .._";/.( "-:..-.J J.500.
0(;>-~MINUTES P1annil19. Commission
City
of Orange
July 7,1997
Monday - 7:00
p.m.PRESENT:ABSENT:STAFF PRESENT:
Commissioners
Carlton,
Pruett,
Romero,
Smith Chainnan Bosch Joan Wolff,
Senior Project
Planner,Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant
City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant
City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording
Secretary IN RE: ITEM
TO BE CONTINUED 5. ORB APPEAL
2-97 (ORB #3223) CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUILDING -
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY An appeal of
the Design Review Board's decision to deny the design proposal for a new "Business &Information Technology" building
at Chapman University. The site is located on the southeast comer of Sycamore Avenue and
Glassell Street.Staff received a
letter from Chapman University, requesting a continuance for two weeks to the July 21,1997 meeting.Moved
by Commissioner
Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue ORB Appeal 2-97 to the
Planning Commission Meeting of July 21,1997.AYES: Commissioners
Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner
Bosch IN RE:
CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 6/16/97.Moved by
Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:
Commissioners
Carlton, Pruett, Smith NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner
Romero ABSENT: Commissioner
Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE:
CONTINUED HEARING 2. ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 3-97 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal
to amend certain provisions of the Orange Municipal Code (Title 17, Zoning Ordinance) to address issuesrelatedtofencing, roof mounted equipment, paving of front yard areas in residential districts, rockcrushingequipment, and accessory structures.NOTE:This
project is categorically exempt from the prov.sions of the California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.1 r -
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1997
This item was continued from the June 2, 1997 hearing.)
Ms. Wolff presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. The various changes to the
Zoning brdinance were implemented at the request of City Council and others were initiated by staff.
This is the second hearing on this item. At the June 2 meeting, the Commission voted to approve
portions of the proposal and to continue others. The Commission requested staff to look at the
provisions for fencing, roof mounted equipment and accessory structures. Regarding fencing, this is a
proposal to prohibit the use of chain link fences in front yard areas of residential and commercial zones,
and also in side yard areas on comer lots. At the previous hearing, the Commission was concerned with
this type of limitation on large lots where the keeping of large animals is permitted. Staff added an
exclusion to allow the use of chain link fences in R1-20, R1-40, and R1-R zones when
such fencing would be used to contain large animals. The other provisions were kept as originally proposed
and that would prohibit the use of barbed wire and concertina wire in residential and commercial
zones, and also provisions that assign responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of tract perimeter walls.
The next item staff looked at was the roof mounted equipment. The Initial proposal for
screening roof mounted equipment required that satellite dishes that are less than 20 inches in diameter would be
allowed to be mounted on the roof, not be visible from adjacent public streets. The Commission
had two concerns regarding this provision. One was that the provision would be overly restrictive on lots
that have streets both in the front and the back, and secondly, the restriction did not address the visibility
of antennas from ad/'acent properties, which would actually be impacted in a larQer way than the general
public that would uti ize the adjacent street. Staff modified the provision to reqUire roof mounted dishes to
be screened or integrated into the design of the structure in a manner that minimizes the aesthetic
impact on adjacent streets and properties. The provision recognizes that the small dishes less than 20
inches in diameter would not have a major aesthetic impact, and allows for some discretion in the review
process. The last item staff looked at was accessory structures. This was initiated by staff in an attempt
to create some more specific distinctions between accessory structures and accessory second housing
units, and to discourage conversions of accessory structures to units that can support fully
independent living. The reason for that is because when accessory structures are converted to living units,
they invariably cause problems in the neighborhood. Staff's initial recommendation was to limit the
plumbing facilities in accessory structures to no more than 1/2 bath, but upon further consideration, staff is
now proposing an additional restriction thatallows a 1/2 bath only in accessory structures that are less than 150
square feet in size. Accessory structures larger than 150 square feet would not be allowed to
have any plumbing facilities unless a CUP were obtained to allow an accessory second housing unit. The
only exception to that would be in workshops or garages where it was proposed to allow a utility sink.
Staff received one letter in support of the amendment having to do with
chain link fences.Vice-Ghair Smith noted in that letter there was also a request to take a look at garbage
cans in the front yards. In reference to the fencing item, under Materials on Pages 2 and 3, it
mentioned that barbed wire and concertina wire are not permitted except at public facilities. She asked staff to
define what a public facility is. She was looking for another definition
other than "public facility".Ms. Wolff explained public facilities were things like water tanks, electric
power substations or facilities that typically require fairly strong security measures. This exception was put in at
the request
of the Water Department.The public hearing was
opened for public comments.Fred Gillett. 205 East Palmvra, spoke in favor of the ordinance amendment.
He addressed a couple more Sections of the OMC regarding off-street parking. He wanted to know
who would verify the 25%increase of the structure and when does it apply? He spoke about the
square footage limitation of all accessory structuresand questioned if it shouldn't apply
to room additions as well.Ms. Wolff responded when someone comes to the Building Department for
a permit to add square footage, staff looks at that to determine how much square footage is being
added. A room addition to an existing house is not limited to any proportion of the existing square footage
as long as that addition can conform to all the setback requirements of the zone, the
height requirements, all the development standards and it is integrated with the house. All residences are
subject to the same development standards and anyone can add on to their home in accordance
with those development standards. The floor area ratios restricts the amount of building on a property is inten, Jed
to address that aspect of development so as
not
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1997
Carole Walters. 534 North Shaffer. thought it was a shame how some people in Old Towne try to control
everybody. She felt there was nothing wrong with chain link fencing and she was opposed to the
ordinance amendment.
Dave Casselman. 2924 East Lomita Avenue. spoke against the fencing and wall. He was the victim of a
shooting last night and has been burglarized. His house abuts the abandoned railroad track, y.'hich is at
the extension of Wanda. He wants to put up a chain link fence around his property so that his dog can
protect their yard. He cannot afford to put up a block wall fence with wrought iron. This will cause a
financial burden for those people who cannot afford a "cadillac" type of fence.
Barbara DeNiro suggested the City talk to the Orange County Fann Supply for information on chain link
fences. She has thought about putting up a chain link fence in her front yard to protect her property.
Ms. Wolff read from the code the definition of a public utilities structure and felt that was the intent of the
exception. Staff could chan!;Je the term, public facility, to public utility structure. She believed the
residents who spoke had basIc policy issues that were beyond staff's ability to address. They brought
this forward at the request of City Council and this was their response to their directive.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice-Chair Smith stated the Commission would be forwarding their approval of three parts of
the ordinance: the requirement regulating the amount of hard surface paving in residential front yards, the
use of temporary rock and material crushers on construction sites and the correction to a cross reference in
the code pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Commission had three other items to decide
on in making their recommendation to the City Council, which included the chain link fencing
requirements,regulations regarding roof mounted equipment in residential areas, and limitations upon
accessory structures to assure they are not used as, or converted to, accessory second housing
units.Commissioner Carlton asked what kind of direction (specific or general) the City Council was looking
for regarding chain link fences. Were there complaints from the community about the use of chain link
fencing.Ms. Wolff stated the City Council wanted to address some other issues in the ordinance when
they reviewed the ordinance one year after it was adopted in 1995. There was no specific direction as to
how chain link fencing should be addressed. This was staff's best effort to come to some
reasonable compromise where some chain link fences could be allowed and some would not be allowed. Ms.
Wolff was not aware of any complaints that came before the City
Council.Commissioner Pruett thought the concerns of the abandoned right of way and the problems
associated with that should be investigated from the standpoint of trash and it being a public hazard. The
property owner is responsible to maintain that property and it needs to be cleaned up. Security also needs to
be provided. There were a couple of issues with this that were not part of the Planning Commission'
s purview; it would be more appropriate to address these concerns at the City Council meeting. The
other side of the issue was the chain link fence requirements. He thought there were some situations and
some neighborhoods where chain link fencing would be offensive to the neighbors. However, he realizes
in some areas, chain link fencing would not be inappropriate. Staff was trying to establish an
appropriate standard for the entire City and there was an opportunity to seek other remedies through a
conditional use permit to allow chain link
fencing.Commissioner Romero thought the chain link fencing should be continued. He sympathized with
Mr.Casselman's concerns; however, he was of the opinion chain link should not be allowed
everywhere.They need to look into the issue further. The large satellite dishes are a concern to many residents
and the City should help mitigate something that would not be desirable. He was also pleased with
the accessory structures revision as
written.Vice-Ghair Smith was considering all aspects of the chain link fence requirement. She did not
always think it was appropriate in front yards though. She definitely believed barbed wire and concertina
wire were not appropriate for any residential property. She was happy with the way the ordinance
was written regarding the roof mounted equipment. It states in a general way to integrate the 20 ~nch
satellite dish antennas in a way to minimize the aesthetic impacts upon adjacent streets and properties.
The ordinance allows for discretion in the review process and it was not overly restrictive. She didn't
hear any opposition to the roof mounted equipment and believed that could be forwarded to the City
Council
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1997
written. Regarding the accessory structures in residential zones, she had one concern. She wanted to
know why accessory structures could be placed on the property line without the five foot rear yard
setback.
Ms. Wolff explained that provision had been in the code for as long as she could remember. When a
building is on a property line, building and fire code requirements must be met. Staff did not propose
to change the provision.
The Commissioners discussed the requirements for chain link fences. The majority of residences have a
42" maximum height requirement for fencing in front yards. Fencing in the front yard allows a resident to
establish the parameter of the property and allows a resident to keep out nuisance activity.
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City
Council approval of Sections 17.18.140 Fences and Walls in Commercial Districts, 17.14.090 Front Yard
Paving, 17.12.020 and 17.14.240 Roof Mounted Equipment, 17.12.060 RocklMaterial Crushers, 17.04.020
and 17.14.170 Accessory Structures in Residential Zones, and 17.30 Alcoholic Beverage Sales of
Ordinance Amendment 3-97 excluding the residential fencing requirements of Section 17.14.180,
which needs further study. The Commission further recommended approval of changing the words "
public facilities" in Section 17.18.140 under Materials to "public utilities
structures".
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith
None Commissioner Bosch MOTION
CARRIED Mr. McGee attended the City Council hearing on this issue and stated there was not a lot of
elaboration on the Council's direction. They asked that the list of items Council provided to staff be looked at
and included in a future amendment action. If the Commission asked for further clarification, Mr. McGee'
s concem was that the Council would set a public
hearing.Vice-Chair Smith would like to send this forward to the City Council with their recommendations
for and against particular portions of the ordinance. The Commission was in agreement that barbed
wire and concertina wire should not be permitted except at public utilities structures. That 42" high fences
in front yards do not offer a great deal ('
f security.Commissioner Carlton was not ready to vote on this and would like to think about it a little
more and maybe do an informal survey of
the City.Commissioner Pruett would like to continue the item and ask staff to look at dealing with chain
link fencing through the process of the Staff Review Committee. Ms. Wolff felt staff could come back
to the Commission at the first meeting
in August.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Section 17.
14.180 Fences and Walls in Residential Districts of Ordinance Amendment 3-97 and have staff review
and set up a process to allow for chain link fencing to be approved in residential areas through
the Staff Review Committee, and bring this back to the Commission at the August
4,
1997
Meeting.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton,
Pruett,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Bosch MOTION CARRIED Vice-Chair Smith would like to see a price study to compare chain link fencing with
block wall, wrought
iron and wood fencing.
IN RE: NEW HEARING 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 96-183 & VARIANCE 2031-97 -
PAUL CLARK AND GEORGE ADAMS A proposal to subdivide a 19,860 sq. ft. property into 4 individual
parcels. Because the resulting lots and existing development would not comply with zoning
requirements,
Planning Commission Minutes JUly 7, 1997
waivers of site development standards for lot size, lot width, lot depth, building setbacks and parking.
The site is located at 633 West Maple Street (Northeast comer of Maple and Parker).
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1520-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
of this
project.Due to the complexity of this item, Vice-chair Smith requested a full staff report. Ms. Wolff
reported this property is just under 1/2 acre and is zoned R3, which allows multiple family
residential development.The property is located in Old Towne, but is outside the area which has been nominated for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. Most of the properties surrounding the parcel were built
after 1950 and are not considered to be historically significant. The main house on the property that
faces Maple Street was constructed around 1918. The property contains four small houses and the
proposed parcel map subdivides the property so that one home would be situated on each lot. This block
of Parker Street is unusual in that it is only a half width - 33 feet has been dedicated and the street itself,
pavement width, is only 20 feet wide. In this zoning district, the minimum permitted lot size is 7,000 square feet
and comer lots are required to have a minimum of 8,000 square feet. This project proposes to create one
lot that meets the minimum standard and that is the lot with the largest existing home on the comer.
The three lots to the rear are substantially smaller and two of the lots are less than half of the
minimum required size. The lot dimensions are also substandard to code requirements and the existing homes
are situated so that they do not meet minimum setback or parking requirements. The applicant, however,
is not proposing any physical changes. If the subdivision is approved, their intent is to sell the lots as
is.The sale of the property would foster a new pride of ownership attitude and result in an upgrade to
the neighborhood. Staff is concerned with this project and it has to do with the potential long range
impacts of the proposal. Parker Street cannot support additional development; it doesn't have the width
to support two-way traffic. Staff is recommending that there be conditions, if the Commission
decides to approve this action, for the subdivider to dedicate and approve a 12 foot wide traffic lane. This
would be to provide for adequate circulation and access to the property. As with all variance applications,
in order to approve the project, the Planning Commission must make findings that there are
unique circumstances pertaining to this property that deprive it of the same rights and privileges that are enjoyed
by other properties that are in the same zoning district and in the
general vicinity.The pUblic hearing
was opened.Aoolicant. Georae Adams. 7425 Lewis Street. thought this would be a good project for the City
when he first looked at the property, but the road is not wide enough. It has been rental property forever
and it is in terrible condition and is operating with a negative cash flow. He truly believed
individual ownership of these homes were in the best interest of everyone. It did not make sense to build
more apartment units. They were trying to improve the situation and were not proposing to increase the
density. He understood staff's concerns with the property. By widening the road, though, it destroys
the property.Commissioner Carlton looked at the property in the past for her customers, who have turned
it down because it is a difficult piece of property. She wanted to know if the owners have been cited
for any code violations? (No.) If this were an FHA loan, they would impose a whole list of requirements
and all code violations would need to
be addressed.Commissioner Pruett stated the variance requirements must be met and he asked why
the applicant thou~ht he met those requirements. He heard It would create a non-conforming
use
of substandard hOUSing.Mr. Adams explained the road was the main problem; there would be no property left if
the road were widened. They were not chanQing the property by increasing the density and did not
believe they were granting the property any special privilege. By subdividing the lots and selling the houses,
it will create
pride of ownership.Mr. Adams, Ms. Wolff and the Commission discussed each of the reasons for the variance
request as Mr.Adams was not aware of some
of the problems.The public
hearing was closed.It was the consensus of the Commission there were not enough compelling reasons, which
are not self-imposed, to approve the application, That's not to saysomething else can't be done
with
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1997
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to deny Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1520-
97.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith
None Commissioner Bosch MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Tentative
Parcel Map 96-183 and Variance 2031-97 based on the finding that special circumstances have
not been found and granting the variance would constitute a grant of s~al privilege. If the property
were divided into four lots access and parking problems would be intensified; that the existing lots
would be substandard and to further divide the property would create more substandard, non-
conforming lots; that parking would be a problem on those particular properties where it is also out of
compliance. There are not unique circumstances attached to the property to justify a waiver of multiple
code requirements on three
of
the
proposed
lots.AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners
Carlton,
Pruett, Romero, Smith None
Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wotff explained the appeal
rights to the
applicant.IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 4. ORB APPEAL 1-97 (
ORB #3207) - LUCKY SUPERMARKET An appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to deny the proposed
installation of additional wall signs at the Lucky Supermarket Store located at
940 North Tustin Street.No one was opposed to this item; therefore, the full reading of the
staff report was waived.The
pUblic hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Dennis Stout. 871 North Maolewood Street. represented Lucky
Markets. They brought this request to the DRB a few months ago and it was a different design. Theycondensedthesi9nstogethertobemoreincomplianceandsoughttheCommission's approval on the
resubmission of their signs.Commissioner Romero wanted to know how long the banner had been up,
but the applicant's representative did not know. He saw the signage as being repetitive. He has observed
with the new or revised grocery stores a nice, clean look in the front of the store. He asked
why Lucky
needed the additional signage?Mr. Stout understood it was a very competitive market and not every Lucky has a delilbakery. It's a big lIing point for them. Lucky wants to boost their sales and bring in new
clients
through the additional slgnage.The
pubiic hearing was closed.Vice-Chair Smith understood there was no variance or special
privilege. According to the ordinance,L~cky is entitled to put these signs up, but it was a discretionary decision of
ORB
to not allow secondary slgnage.Ms. Wolff said no variance was required; that code gave an outright grant of two
signs per two tenants in the tenant space. The code also allows by discretion an additional two signs
if the reviewing body thinks
the additional signs are appropriate.Commissioners Carlton and Pruett did not see a problem with thedeli/bakery sign. The seafoodlliquor sign offers products that are already in the store and was not really
necessary.
That
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1997
Vice-Chair Smith liked the proposal the way it was proposed. Without the two signs, the building
looks vacant on that end. Itdidn't bother her to have both signs, but she would compromise and go with
the consensus of the
Commission.Commissioner Romero's initial thought was to keep the building clean as the other grocery stores.
He appreciated the thought of reducing the signage rather than eliminating it
altogether.It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEOA
review.Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve ORB Appeal
No.01-97 and allow the DelilBakery signage at Lucky Supermarket, but omit the Uquor/
Seafoocl
signage.
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Bosch
MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett supported the signage of the delilbakery because it is a service thatisprovidedratherthanaproductbeingoffered. He thought the liquor/seafood sign offered products in
the store.6. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF THEATER SIGN PURSUANT TO CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN - CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY A request to approve Waltmar Theater sign in accordance with Chapman University Specific
Plan.This was being heard by the Commission because the recent amendments to the ChapmanUniversitySpecificPlancalledforthisparticulartypeofitemtobereviewedbythePlanningCommission
for approval. There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was
waived and the public hearing was
opened.Aoolicant. AI McQuilkin. Chaoman University. 333 North Glassell Street, stated their proposal was for
a free-standing marquee sign that would be located outside the Waltmar Theater. The
recent amendment of the Specific Plan included specifications for the marquee, which the proposed plan complies
with. The ORB approved the sign proposal with conditions that the upper portion of the marquee be
opaque and the letters be illuminated, and that the overall height of the sign be reduced so thattheclearancebetweenthebottomofthesignandthetopofthebrickplanterbelimitedto12to18inches. These conditions are acceptable to Chapman University, and they will modify their
plan accordingly.The Commission asked Mr. McQuilkin about the total height of the sign and discussed thelightingissuestomakesurethelightingdoesnotprojectontotheadjacentresidentialproperties. It was
noted the sign's lighting would be turned off at 10:00
p.m,The public hearing
was closed.This project is categorically exempt from
CEQA review.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the actionofORBNo. 3224 for a free-standing sign at the Waltmar Theater at Chapman University, subjecttothetwoconditionsofthe
Design
Review
Board.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton,
Pruett,
Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Dave Casselman. 2924 East Lomita Avenue. was concerned about the abandoned
railroad tracks at Wanda, from Collins to Walnut. His house backs up to apartments and the abandoned tracksisnowCityproperty. There is trash, graffiti and security issues that need
to
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1997
Vice-Chair Smith stated they would ask staff to look into these problems and forward this concern to
the City Council as
well.IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the nextregularlyscheduledmeeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.
m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero,
Smith
None Commissioner Bosch MOTION
CARRIED
Isld