Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1997 PC MinutesL--,. IJ t;;57JC. c~.;). 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange June 2, 1997 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cartton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: 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 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 5/19/97.Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2176-97 - MESA INSTITUTE Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by' Commissioner Romero, to table Conditional Use Permit 2176- 97 and hear the matter after the second item on the Agenda as the applicant was not present. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cartton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 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. issues related to fencing, roof mounted equipment, paving of front yard areas in residential districts, rock crushing equipment, and accessory structures. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Joan Wolff, Senior Project Planner, presented the staff report. Direction was given to staff by the City Council to address concerns that were raised at their meeting of April 8, 1997. They identified additional zoning issues that were not adequately covered by the existing code: 1. The construction and long term maintenance of perimeter tract walls. 2. The amount of hard surface paving in residential front yard areas. 3. Chain link fencing citywide. 4. Barbed wire and concertina wire in the residential and commercial areas. 5. Regulations regarding satellite dishes and solar panels in residential areas. Staff identified three additional issues that also required a code amendment: 6. Use of temporary rock/material aushers (on construction sites). 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 7. Clearer distinctions between accessory structures and accessory second housing units. 8. Minor correction to a cross reference In the code pertaining to sale of alcoholic beverages. There were three items having to do with fencing -- perimeter walls, chain link fencing, and barbed wire and conbertina wire. Staff packaged these three items together as a set of changes to Chapters 17.14,which is the residential districts, and 17.18, which is the commercial districts. First, they added a clarification that perimeter tract wall fencing would be maintained by the homeowner's association. If there were no homeowner' s association, then the responsibility would be on the individual homeowner on whose propel"! Ythe fence existed. Also, that any repairs to perimeter walls should match whatever is existing.Chain link fencirl$J would be prohibited in the areas in front of residential and commercial structures, and also in exterior side yards on comer lots. Barbed wire and concertina wire would generally be prohibited in the commercial and residential zones. Staff created some exceptions for public facilities -- water tanks,power sub- stations and for temporary uses or vacant lots - where there would be chain Hnk fencing.The next issue was front yard paving. Staff proposed a limitation to allow no more than 60% of a residential front yard to be covered with paved surfaces. Staff looked at the entire area in front of a residence, rather than just the 20 foot front yard required setback. The intent was to avoid the parking lot situation where an entire front yard is paved. There are provisions in the ordinance now that would prohibit that within the 20 foot front yard setback area, but not in any area that is beyond that. Staff arrived at the 60% figure by looking at recent site plans/developments (side entry garages, circular driveways, or small lots).Regarding roof mounted equipment, one of the thin~s to look at are the changes in technology. The code requires satellite dishes to be ground mounted In residential zones. That code was in place when satellite dishes were huge. Now, they have gotten fairly small. Staff created a provision that allows roof mounting of small dish antennas 20 inches or less, provided they can be mounted in a way that they are screened or located in a manner that they are not visible from the adjacent streets. Staff was also asked to look at solar collectors. State law has some strong prohibitions against overly regulating those. Staff put some language in to request they be placed in as sensitive a manner as feasible, but they were not allowed to totally regulate them in a manner that would prevent them from fulfilling their purpose of coHecting sun light.Staff recently had a request, as part of a demolition permit for the Broadway at the Orange Mall, to permit a material crusher on the property. Staff has also had rock crushers used in conjunction with other large scaled grading or demolition operations. There are some impacts that need to be addressed.Hopefully, they can be addressed during site plan review or conditional use permit process for the project. Staff is recommending that a conditional use permit be required prior to bringing a rock crusher onto the site, and be heard by the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission (because of the temporary nature of this type of use).Accessory structures in residential zones has been a long-standing problem. It has generated a lot of complaints and code enforcement activity when accessory structures are proposed, which basically look like and act like living units. The only development standard in the code at this time that limits accessory structures is the size limitation -- no more than SOOk of the area of the principal structure on the property.Independent living is not permitted in accessory structures; however, staff sees many units coming across the counter where there is a full bathroom, countertop, sink and they can tell it is an independent living unit. Staff looked at different ways to address this type of situation: Possibly restricting the size of the type of unit, restricting plumbing by allowing only 1/2 bath (one toilet, one sink), prohlbitin~ plumbing altogether -- they want to look for a compromise because there are certain situations where It would be appropriate for a bathroom facility. The Commission may want to think about this issue and possibly look at, in addition to the 1/2 bath restriction, adding a size restriction as well to try and get it handle on these because of the problems they have presented In the neighborhoods where they do exist.There is a modification to the definition of -Accessory Structure- and an additional standard under the Development Standards.The last change has to do with alcoholic beverage control regulations. It is a housekeeping change with no change to the function of the existing code.2 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Commissioner Carlton had a question about the roof mounted equipment where it is restrictin.g the dish to 20 inches or less. Many properties have streets in the front and back. Does that mean It can't be visible from the front street or from the street it backs up to? Ms. Wolff said the way it is written, it is not allowed to be visible from any public street. An enclosure may be needed, or the dish would need to be placed under an eave. Commissioner Smith asked If staff had a recommendation as to the size of the restriction that might be practical for accessory structures? A 10x12 structure does not require a permit. Ms. Wolff explained the restriction right now is Hmited to 50% of the area of the main structure on the property. Mr. Jones has researched the issue a little more. Mr. Jones said staff had talked about a restriction that would be in the range of 150 to 200 square feet as bein~ something that would create a space that would be large enough to be useful, but not so large that it would provide enough space for independent living. The public hearing was opened. Public comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10462 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was concemed about the animals in Orange Park Acres and the prohibition of chain link fencing. It would be hard to build wood fences. Why can't chain link fencing be allowed in rural areas? They dOn't really want to put pipe fencing in the front yard. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Wolff stated the chain link fencing was a concem of staff's as well. Chain link is allowed in rear and side yards. The problem would be on the corner lots. Staff could add some kind of provision restricting these limitations to smaller lots and allowing chain link fencing in the exterior areas on yards in the R 1- 40 zone, or possibly when built for the purpose of enclosing pasture areas. The size of the lot would be one way of distinguishing when a person could or could not use chain link fencing.Chairman Bosch would like staff to research that a little more so as not to create non-conforming uses in areas where the intent is to allow for animals.Commissioner Carlton was a little concerned about the roof mounted dish antennas. It may create a hardship If a property is on the interior of the tract. When placing it on the back of the roof, the people backing up to the property have to look at the dish, even though it is not seen from the street. It is unsightly no matter who is looking at it.Chairman Bosch questioned when does distance become a screen when something is still visible. The problem is for those that do not relate to the building elements. There are others that are set well back In below the higher building elements. There may be some cases where color blends in. The screening may be a bigger eyesore than the dish in some locations. There needs to be some control. How do they a~mmodate the technology without damaging the design?Regarding the screening of mechanical equipment, it refers to solar panels as well. He suggested adding words to Section 17.14.240 on Page 6, last bolded sentence, to the end of the last line, after the word diminished, and integrated into the design of the structure when building mounted.On Page 7, relative to RocklMaterial Crushers, in addition to the temporary rock and material crushing operation they know there may be temporary mixing or batch plants. He recommended in line 2 of the proposed text, after the words, "or material crushing operation," add mixing or batch plant, in conjunction with temporary grading or demolition activities...He needed more information regarding the Accessory Structures in Residential Zones to assure they were not removing from the average citizen the ability to do something that really helps their lifestyle.such as setting the square footage to the limiting criteria relative to a habital room or plumbing. He would like to continue that portion of the Ordinance Amendment, as well as the roof mounted Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Commissioner Romero thought 200 square feet was rather large, and would potentially allow it to become almost a second housing unit. He suggested something much smaller -- maybe 150 square feet maximum, but more in the range of 100 squareleet.Chairman Bosch hoped there was some combination of square footage and some other physical identifying feature that would be enforceable that would not preclude the two-car garage size type of structure where it was appropriate on the Jot. The project was categorically exempt from CECA review. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve portions of Ordinance Amendment 3-97; those with regard to Chapter 17.14 - front yard aving; modifications to Chapter 17.12 relative to rocklmaterial crushers, adding the wording to read: Any r~uest to establish a temporary rock or material crushing operation, mixing or batch plant, in conjunction with temporary grading, demolition or construction activities shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator." The rest of the text remains as written. Also, recommending approval on the correction of Chapter 17.30 relative to the Alcoholic Beverage Sales code references. The fencing in Chapter 17.14 and Chapter 17.18 with regard to chain link fencing on larger lot areas or where larger animals may be allowed and the roof mounted equipment in Chapter 17.12 is to be continued to allow further definition and investigation of appropriate design features to assure that the intent of the proposed ordinance is met. Planning staff shalf retum to the Planning Commission in 30 days with research and a response to those items. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2176-97 - MESA INSTITUTE A proposal to establish a vocational training center for adults within an existing commercial office building.The site is located at 150 North Feldner Road. . NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) per State CEOA Guidelines Section 15301. The full.reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner Romero has known Mr. Nichols for over ten years, but was of the opinion he could make a fair decision on the proposed project before the Commission. ADDlicants William Beau, architect, and Paul Nichols, Director of the school, worked closely with Mr. Donovan to work out the details and issues that may have been a concern. They have read the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Romero asked about the access gates on the property. Would they be removed or are they going to remain? The applicant would like to leave the gates up and keep them open during normal hours. The Fire Department requested a special access key to these gates. If it is an issue, the gates can be removed. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEOA review. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June2,1997 Commissioner Romero thought 200 square feet was rather large, and would potentially allow it to become almost a second housing unit. He suggested something much smaller -- maybe 150 square feet maximum, but more in the range of 100 square feet.Chairman Bosch hoped there was some combination of square footage and some other physical identifying feature that would be enforceable that would not preclude the two-car garage size type of structure where it was appropriate on the lot. The project was categorically exempt from CEOA review. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to recommend to the City Council to approve portions of Ordinance Amendment 3-97; those with regard to Chapter 17.14 - front yard paving; modifications to Chapter 17.12 relative to rock/material crushers, adding the wording to read: Any request to establish a temporary rock or material crushing operation, mixing or batch plant, in conjunctIon with temporary grading, demolition or construction activities shall require approval of a conditio!1al use permit by the Zoning Administrator.- The rest of the text remains as written. Also,recommending approval on the correction of Chapter 17.30 relative to the Alcoholic Beverage Sales code references. The fencing in Chapter 17.14 and Chapter 17.18 with regard to chain link fencing on larger lot areas or where larger animals may be allowed and the roof mounted equipment in Chapter 17.12 is to be continued to allow further definition and investigation of appropriate design features to assure that the intent of the proposed ordinance is met. Planning staff shall retum to the Planning Commission in 30 days with research and a response to those items.A YES: Commissioners Bosch, Cartton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 217&-97 - MESA INSTITUTE A proposal to establish a vocational training center for adults within an existing commercial office building.The site is located at 150 North Feldner Road.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEOA) per State CEOA Guidelines Section 15301.The full reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened.NOTE: Commissioner Romero has known Mr. Nichols for over ten years, but was of the opinion he could make a fair decision on the proposed project before the Commission.ADDlicants William Beaubeaux, architect, and Paul Nichols, Director of the school, worked closely with Mr. Donovan to work out the details and issues that may have been a concem. They have read the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval.Commissioner Romero asked about the access gates on the property. Would they be removed or are they going to remain?The applicant would like to leave the gates up and keep them open during normal hours. The Fire Department requested a special access key to these gates. If it is an issue, the gates can be removed.The public hearing was closed.It was noted the project was categorically exempt from CEOA review.4