HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-1997 PC MinutesL Yx"<:;: /~
o. 6.;; ,::)I".,.) L I
MINUTES
Planning
Commission City
of Orange June 16, 1997 Monday -
7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner
Romero 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 6/2/97.Movedby
Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch,
Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner
Romero
MOTION CARRIED IN RE~
CONTINUED HEARING 1. ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 1-97 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal
to amend City sign regulations to allow comprehensive sign programs for large commercial developments (Of25acresormore) containing criteria that differ from the standards contained within the City signcode. Staff recommends that these comprehensive sign programs be made subject to approval bythePlanningCommission.NOTE: This
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines.This item
was continued from the May 5, 1997 hearing.)Jim Donovan,
Associate Planner, presented the full staff report. The revised proposal is different from the firstproposalwhichwaspresentedatanearliermeeting. Originally staff was looking at a blanket review throughtheconditionalusepermitthatspecificallyonlyallowedthereviewfor25acresormore.The revisedproposalisaresultofthePlanningCommissionaskingstafftoprovideasurvey' of what other citiesweredoing, and also an analysis of options that may be available to control the quality or size of thesigns. Staff suggests this review be open to all property owners of commercial centers, using more ofanapproachwherepeoplecantaketheaggregatedisplayareaofallfourbuildingelevationsinacenterandbreakthatupaccordingtowherevertheyfeeltheyneedtheexposuretoprovideincreasedsignarea. Staff is also recommending some limitations on free-standing signs. The amount of the display areawouldnotbeallowedtoincreaseatallbeyondwhattheexistingcodeallows. These provisions are tobelayeredoverwhatisalreadystatedinthecode. The formula for restricting the display area on free-standingsignsis1/2square foot of display area per linear foot of property frontage. The difference is thatstaffmayallowdeveloperstobreakupthenumberofsignsandallowhighersignsincaseswheretheycanmeetthesetbackrequirements, if the proposal is reviewed and approved through a conditional usepermitwithacomprehensivesignprogram. Staff does not anticipate this ordinance amendment to beapprovedatthishearing. They received a fax from the Mills Corporation, requesting a continuanr,esotheywouldhavetimetoanalyzetheproposalandseehowitworkswiththeirplans. In addition, stiff hasmetwithsomeofthelargerpropertyowners, including the Mall of Orange.1
Plaming Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
They informed staff they had no response either way to the ordinance amendment. They didn't believe
they would be changing their signs any time soon.
Commissioner Smith referred to Item e. on Page 4. She didn't understand the section. Mr. Donovan
explained the City does not regulate signs within the Mall of Orange. Anything in a pedestrian arcade,
which has an enclosure over it, with multiple tenants in a mall, the City requires a building permit, but the
sign code does not necessarily apply in terms of the height of the letters or display area. If there is adestinationorientedmallthathasanopenareaatthecenteroftheproject, no one sees those signs from
outside the project. It's not anything that needs to be governed from an ordinance, but rather throughthesigncode.
Commissioner Smith asked if a parking lot were a pUblic right-of-way? Mr. Donovan replied no. A public right-of-way would be arterial highways
or official city streets.The pub.lic hearing was opened and closed as there
were no public comments.Chairman Bosch appreciated the ordinance amendment was not in final form. He didnotwanttoseelanguagethatutilizedwordssuchasapproximatelyorshould, or openendedstatementswhenreferringtothresholds (maximum or minimum). An ordinance should not make suggestions.
It should be worded in a way to tell people exactly what the limits are. He had a concern about Item c. on
Page 4. It stated:Display area for wall signs may be calculated upon the combined length of all
building elevationsas an aggregate limit... The word B!! needs to be defined better to reflect elevations that
are allowed to have signs under the basic sign code. He wanted a clear definition so that people will
not be mislead. He was concerned there were locations where people would not be allowed to put signs on
the
facade of a building.Mr. Donovan commented staff thought developers could pick up the extra display
areas on those areas where maybe there was an opportunity for them to put a sign, or it'san exposuretheydon't necessarily want to advertise from, they could increase the display area on the opposite sideofthebuildingbybankingthatdisplayareafromoneportionofthe
project to the other.Chairman Bosch understood the intent relative to projecting signs (Itemd.), including those extending upward beyond the roof line without being considered roof lines, but the language
was very difficult to interpret. He suggested some simple diagrams to illustrate the
potential effect of this.In reference to Item f., Chairman Bosch was concerned about the use ofanimationorothermovement,sound and artificial scents may
bepermitted on wall signs... They need to lookintowhatthismeans.What are the potential impacts? Where is this concept coming from and
how does it work?Item g., the last sentence states: "Pylons or other supporting elements and architecturaltrimshallnotbecountedincalculatin9displayareaforafreestandingsign." Architectural trim cangettobeextraordinary,if not defined more discretely than that. He would like a definition on whatarchitecturaltrimmeans
relative to a sign.Item i, speaks to the initial review and recommendation by the Design ReviewBoardonthesignprogram, which he concurred with. The last sentence needed to be tightenedupforanordinanceamendment: "Given the variability of graphic design, materials andlighting, sign applications for individual tenants ~ be subject to finar approval by ORB." A better definitionwasneededsopeoplewouldknow
what the thresholds are.Chairman Bosch's other concern was just a follow up, as they see on other items subjecttoCEQAintheOldTowneHistoricDistrictincludingtheproposedexpansionoftheFederalRegisterHistoricDistrict,this ordinance amendment is categorically exempt, but it was important to be sure thatwithregardtotheOldTowneHistoricDistrict, where it is possible that the ordinanceamendment, upon adoption, may apply, how a sign program fits there and what it's relationship is relative toconformancetotheOldTowneDesignStandardsorGuidelines. Were there special rules that need toapply? Does it then become SUbject to
CEQA in that regard?Mr. Donovan said staff could eliminate anything the Ccmmission wasuncomfortablewith. Architectural trim is something the existing code specifically calculate~ now. Staff's concern wasnottoinhibitcreativity;however, they will re-word that section. Sign programs are specifically
written
Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
and in many cases they tend to be open ended. But staff will try to be more specific. The Old Towne
Standards do apply and staff will note that in the document. They are not requesting any waiver of those
standards in the ordinance amendment.
Commissioner Carlton appreciated the survey of the other cities and the information in the staff report.
Commissioner Pruett referred to Item b. where they talk about the materials that were encouraged. He
asked if they were setting it up to limit the materials? By suggesting certain materials that sometimes
becomes a limiting factor. They want people to be creative in terms of what they do and he was
concerned they may be limiting their resources. He agreed with Chairman Bosch on Item f. - the issue of smell
and sound in terms of the signs. It raises some major issues. The other item was g. The pylons and
other supporting elements not being calculated in the display area of the freestanding sign -- while he appreciates
the fact staff is trying to allow the individual to be expressive, he was concerned about the mass
of the sign and the mass of the structure. It could outweigh the sign itself.Commissioner Smith
thought all points were excellent. She was willing to see some new things;however, artificial
scents do not belong in this ordinance amendment.Mr. Donovan
said staff could strike sound and smell from that section. Their main intention was to encourage the
use of animation and neon in the signs.Chairman Bosch
was worried the ordinance amendment needed to be very carefully crafted in a way that it will
not be abused; that it remains a privilege that is both creative and beneficial to the City and neighboring residences.
Materials should be left up to the individual merchant and not be addressed in the ordinance.
The burden should lie with the applicant in proposing a creative sign.Commissioner Smith
thought the comments about calling out how the ordinance applies in Old Towne was excellent.
She thought there were some large areas in Old Towne, which in the future could be develo~d
into larger spots, such as the Depot area.Moved by
Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-97
to the meeting of August 18, 1997.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None
Commissioner
Romero MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: NEW HEARINGS 3.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2177-97 - DARYA RESTAURANT A
request for a shared parking arrangement, to allow Darya Restaurant to expand into a vacant adjacent tenant
space. The added restaurant space would be used during evening hours only. The site is located on
the west side of Tustin Street 300' north of Briardalerraft Avenues (Tustin Plaza Shopping Center,tenant
space addressed 1840 North Tustin Street).NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301{a).Chris
Carnes, Associate Planner, explained the applicant just presented a totally different floor plan for their
proposal. Mr. Carnes explained this was not the time to consider revising the floor plan and suggested
the applicant request a continuance until July 21, 1997. Staff needs some time to review the revisions
and make their recommendations.The
public hearing was opened.3
Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
Aoolicant
Arthur Bahart, 74 Prometory. Newport Beach, was the architect of record for this project. Unfortunately,he did not have all the information to complete his plans. He asked for a continuance to allow time forstafftoreviewtherevisedplans.
The public hearing was dosed.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit21n-97, per the applicant's request, to the July 21,1997 meeting to allow revision to the
plans.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett,
Smith NOES:
None ABSENT: Commissioner Romero MOTION
CARRIED 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1522-97 - MR. AND MRS. DAVID
KERR Proposed demolition of a detached garage and the construction of a new detached garage and a new
596 sq. ft. addition on to the rear of an existing 1922 California Bungalow, located in the Old Towne Districtat838East
Washington.Mr. Jones explained staff has recently implemented new procedures relative to processing theprojectsinOldTowne. This project has come forward along with the Design Review Board'srecommendationreviewingthereplacement
structures.No one was in opposition to this item; therefore, the reading of the full staff report was
waived.Commissioner Smith had questions on the mitigation measures on Page 2 of the NegativeDeclaration.1 said the new addition's roof ridge is within 10% height of the existing roof height. She assumed itwastallerthantheexisting
house.Mr. Jones said the applicant could speak to this issue as he did not have the information in front of
him.She was nervous about #6 - the chimney will have a brick finish - and she would like to have that defined.Shesaiditwasspelledoutinthestaffreportthatitwasbrickveneer. She wanted to make sure it was actualbrickandnotplasticbrick.Mr.
Jones referred to the Minutes of the Design Review Board which required the new chimney to be of brickveneerormasonry.Item #
7 - the garage door shall be of a panel design in wood or wood composite type of material. So that me~s, it would not be aluminum in any way, shape or form.Mr. Jones
said the Design Guidelines provide some flexibility, but the garage doors would be of wood material.Item #8 -
windows shall be wood and of similar proportion as existing windows. In the Minutes it says all windows to bewoodorofsimilarmaterial. It doesn't say they have to be wood. Do the mitigation measures apply tothehouseandgarage?Mr. Jones said
the Design Review Board's action does clarify that there will be no aluminum frame sliding windows and itspecifiesthatitbeofwoodorsimilarmaterial.The public hearing
was opened.Aoolicant David Kerr,
838
East Washington, said they have been to the Design Review Board and they approved the plans. Theyhavereadthestaffreportandconcurredwiththeconditionsofapproval.4
Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
Those soeaki"9 in favor
C.M. Thomson, 1660 North Main Street, drew the plans for the Kerr's. Commissioner Smith's questions
were discussed at length in the ORB meeting. The windows need not be wood. but they need to look
like what is there now. The fireplace is a metal fireplace, which means it does not have a brick chimney
going up from the foundation. Their point was it had better look like a brick chimney from the outside.
The new addition is within 10% of the roof height, but is lower - not higher than the original roof. The span is
a little shorter, He would like to be added to the mailing list in order to get staff reports. Specifically,he
would like a copy of the conditions to make sure he covered all of them.Commissioner
Pruett said the roof line shown on the plan is higher by a foot.Mr.
Thomson said the existing house at that point -- they broke the pitch and this brought it down. They went with
a straight pitch from one side to the other. And they brought it back up to the pitch of the rest of the
house in the kitchen area.Commissioner Smith
addressed the front elevation. It doesn't looklike the house looks right now. Will there be
some changes to the front elevation? There are louvered windows there now with an exterior porch.Mr.
Thomson
said the windows were fill ins. They were not doing anything to that portion of the house and it
never came up in discussion.The public
hearing was dosed.Commissioner Smith
said the portion they were considering was just fine. The garage was in an appropriate place
on the property (even more appropriate than the present location). The room addition on
the back is very nice. She didn't think the ORB made a site visit to the property. That's not the way
the front of the house looks. She suggested that with all the time and money put into the design to make
the back match the architectural style of the house, the owners might want to consider removing the louvered
windows from the front porch and put in something more consistent with the style of the house. The
front porch looks cluttered.Mr. Kerr
intended to remove the louvered windows from the front of the house. The plans show the way the house
was originally built in 1922. It has the three pillars in front, which is very unique and currently with the
windows and louvers it really doesn't showthe pillars from the outside. Once the room addition is built,
they could eliminate all the glass and covert the porch back to its original condition. They're using the porch
for storage space at the present time. .Commissioner Pruett
encouraged the property owner to make those improvements, but it was not in the Commission's
purview to require them to do so with the proposed action of the garage and addition.Moved by
Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to certify Mitigated Negative Declaration #1522-
97 as adequate and complete with the proposed mitigation measures, and approve ORB #
3216 as consistent with the Old Towne Design Guidelines, subject to the nine conditions/
modifications to the subject plans as applied by the ORB at their meeting on 5/21/97.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith None
Commissioner
Romero MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: MISCELLANEOUS 5.
APPEAL 439 (ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 97-3) - DAVID BENNETT The
applicant is appealing a decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny an Administrative Adjustment request
for a 20% reduction of a required front yard setback in the R1-40 zone. The property location is
6203 East Cliffway Drive (Crawford Hills, custom lot).
5
Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
Mr. Jones presented the staff report. The Crawford Hills projects have smaller lots or are on very steepterrain, and have front yard setbacks of 18 f~t. This particular project has a required 20 foot ~inimum
front yard setback. The applicant's request IS for a 16 foot setback, or 20% of the 20 foot requirement.The project is a very large, single family house with two separate garages. The parcel is irregularlyshapedandhastwotiersthatcomprisethebuildablepadareas. The street in front of the proJ?9rtyslopessomewhatsteeplyandisunevenwiththepadelevations. The front elevation of the garage IS 16
feet high. It's in an area where the pad is six or seven feet above the surrounding streets. The ZoningAdministratorreviewedthisprojectanddenieditonthebasisthathefelttherewasadequatesiteareato
reposition the house and to meet the minimum standards by doing so. The applicant has provided a
letter which outlines his justification and reasons for not complying with the code. There are two fin.dinQsrequiredbythePlanningCommissionrelatedtoAdministrativeAdjustments: 1) That the reduction In
standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and 2) That issuance of
the permit does not compromise the Intent of the code. A setback is typically related to providingadequat~ open space and buffer areas between structures.
The public hearing was opened.
Aoolicant
David Bennett, 6297 East Paseo Aldeano, Anaheim, said they have been working on their plans since la~t
August. They were having difficulty in getting a house positioned on the property due to the severe splitinthelot. They were staying within the requirements, especially under the envelope -- a 30 foot structure,20feetfromthestreet, which would be obtrusive to the neighborhood. In trying to keep with the appeal oftheneighborhood, they lowered the side entry garage. The property next to them is about 60 feet abovethem. There is a real steep hill between them and they couldn'twiden the house. They tried to makethegaragealittlebitsmaller, but were unable to do so. The entry way is almost even with the garage
door. If they were to shorten the garage to fall within the 20 foot setback, they would back out of thegarageandfalldownintotheentrywayarea. If they moved the house back, it would throw the garage
up on the top off the pad and throws the entry way down into the lower level. They've been forcedtobuildamulti-level house just because of the topography of the property.
Commissioner Smith looked at the roof plans on the front page of the blueprints. It looked like a portionoftheroofhangsovertheline. She couldn't tell if the four foot variance is four feet along the entire frontofthegarageorisitjustaportionofthefrontofthegarage?
Mr. Bennett said the part she was looking at was the side where they needed to put in a retaining wall.That is the lot above them. The front of the property is down below. They need to come out four feetalongtheentirefrontofthegarage, which is all on top of the front pad. The rest of the house sits back35feetfromthestreet. The garage down below the house is a 4-car garage -- two cars wide with 2 carsdeep. It is, however, a standard garage width of about 20 feet. The one above is a normal size garageasfara~ the doors are concerned, but it is 30 feet wide. They can put two cars in the garage up above.
Chairman Bosch said Mr. Bennett was asking for 16 feet to the main wall of the garage, but there is aprojectionofthegarage (the window). (The window will stay inside the 16 feet.) The dimension on theplaniswrongthen. He looked at the property to understand the request. It's a great design challenge.If the applicant had to move the garage back or adjust that, the whole house would move with it. Heunderstandshowdesignsintegrateto~ether, but also how a program is driven by setbacks and propertylines. Also, because of topography, if it were moved back, the garage door would back them into theentrysteps. He appreciated the cost concerns too, but the applicant could have lowered the garage alittlebittoreducethenumberofstepsdownintothemainentrance.
Mr. Bennett said he was not raising the garage. By cutting the pad it would put them lower than thestreetonthesouthside.
Chairman Bosch said the street at the south property line was 748 and at the north property line it was730. There was a 10 foot differential. About where the driveway comes in is roughly the same as the padofthegaragewithalittleleewayfordrainage. The potential existed there to do that. Also, they electedinloweringtheprofileofthehousetodropthemainfloorofthehouse, rather than keep it up a little bithighersoitwouldsolvetheproblemofloweringdowntheentryway. What is driving the need? Thepieceofpropertyitselforaparticularsolutionthattheapplicantwouldlovetodo? It appeared to him tobethelatterofthetwo. The applicant needed to explain his reasons because the Commission was
6
l..AJrl.rrIISSIIJrIHr l.."rlllll. SitU) "IH r ::'111111....11.-.:1 111_. .:I ....__ ... ........ ._ ._n_ t ____ _ ___ __ _.
Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
trying to determine why the adjustment was unique to the property and made necessary by it, given the
amount of time and effort that went into setting up the setbacks for the estate zoning. There seems to
be som~ room to play with the plans. He didn't see how the applicant is driven by something that was
beyond his control once he knew what the property was like.
Mr. Bennett wanted to be sure they could utilize the top of the property. They understood the setback
was about 15 feet; they subsequently found out it was 20 feet. When they measured the pad up top, it
was just big enough for a 2-car garage. Theydidn't anticipate extreme costs in building retaining walls
to be able to support a garage at that level. They didn't want to bring in a lot of dirt or grade the
lot;however, they have designated an area to be graded. They're asking for a little leeway on the
garage because of the topography of the
property.Commissioner Pruett pointed to the plans and referred to the five foot setback from the front of
the garage to a line. What was that
line?Mr. Bennett said the line represented the "envelope" of the
property.Commissioner Pruett understood the applicant was creating an entry way where people step down
to the front door. (Mr. Bennett replied there was a five foot drop from the first steps into the entry.)
All the different levels were limiting the applicant's ability with mOVIng the garage back. They discussed
the garage and entry way at length. It was felt the design issue could be solved and thus eliminate the
need for an
adjustment.Those sDeaking in
ODDosition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said this was one of the most
sensitive building areas in East Oran~e. These 17 custom lots overlook Orange Park Acres. The residents in
OPA persuaded the City CouncIl to put together 23 pages of building conditions in the CC&R's. If
people start changing the rules that have been in place, it will destroy the conditions that were originally put
in place to protect the area. The setback needs to be at least 30 feet and the homeowner has
more homework to
do.
Rebuttal Mr. Bennett understood Orange Park Acres residents do not want to look up and see cookie
cutter homes on the hill. They have made sure their proposed home is appealing for all
neighbors.The public hearing was
dosed.Commissioner Smith asked what would happen if the garage was four feet smaller? Would it be
too small to be a legal
garage?Chairman Bosch said there were two issues: One inside the garage - there would be four feet less
space, but it wouldn't be in the area where the cars were parked. The second issue was by shortening
the garage, it moves the garage door into a location where there would have to be modifications to the
design of the front entry and steps because the door would encroach over the step area as it is currently
designed.
Commissioner Smith asked how many enclosed parking spaces were required on the site?
Mr. Jones replied two parking spaces. As long as the owner can park two cars in the garage, they can
have a garage that extends deeper and provides additional parking capacity. In this case, the owner has
their two-car garage requirement up front and whatever additional parking they want to provide, as
long as they are within the development standards and the building envelope. They exceed the
minimum
requirements.Commissioner Carlton said the community that comes to mind is Nellie Gail Ranch. There are
numerous homes that are 7,000 and 8,000 square feet that mayor may not be on curves thatdon't have the 20
foot setback. Tnen, driving through the community you can see the back side of the homes which are
very attractive and a lot of those are on very steep slopes. The overall aesthetics of that community are
not unappealing. She was sure they made some exceptions. She was more inclined to work with
a
Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1997
homeowner who was trying to accommodate the rules and yet has a difficult situation with the house.
There has got to be a compromise somewhere.
Commissioner Pruett was not convinced the issue couldn't be resolved through looking at the front entry
and how that could be softened or dealt with in some way to create the necessary room to make the
modifications to the garage so that ingress and egress could be achieved. The issue of the variance --because
there does exist a 4-car garage on the other side of the house, he didn't see it as a need that is
a special situation that deserves a variance. In granting this request, it could set a precedent in terms of
special benefit to a particular property owner. He could not support the appeal.
Chairman Bosch shared Commissioner Carlton's viewpoint of the beauty and aesthetics of Nellie Gail
Ranch. That was based upon rules that the citizens elected to apply to that development prior to the
development occurring. Similarly, this community elected, with an incredible amount of input from the
citizens and elected bodies, to set standards for the estate housing in a zone that applies to not just this
particular street, but to all R-1-40 housing and lots in the City. The Commission must look at
what the precedent might be for those as well. It's physically possible to meet the zoning ordinance
and still provides some relief and articulation to the front facade of the gara~e, since projections are
allowed into the setback areas. The cost impacts might be offset by a reduction of several feet in the size
of the building. The houses across the street are in a different zone and they are a different product. There
is a transition from one zone to the other, from one type of housing to the other. He sympathized
with the applicant's desire and concern, he saw a great danger in setting a precedent on these lots
because of the history of them. The design can be modified to fit on his property and be able to meet
the building requirements. He could not support the appeal and sided with the Zoning Administrator'
s decision.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Appeal
439 of Administrative Adjustment 97-03 for a 20% reduction in
front yard setback.AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton, Pruett,
Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner
Romero MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones explained the appeal rights
to Mr. Bennett.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn tothenextregularlyscheduledmeeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:
35
p.
m.
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Carlton,
Pruett, Smith None Commissioner
Romero
MOTION