Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1998 PC Minutesn J 51)o.q.:2 ~ C) t . ~.. MIt-{tJTES :.. I Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: April 6,1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2209-98 - ERNEST SARKISAIN Robert D. Mickelson, representing the applicant, submitted a letter dated March 25. 1998, withdrawing ConditionalUsePermit2209-98 -- a request for a nightclub at the KolI Center on State College Boulevard.Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept the applicant's withdrawal of Conditional Use Pennit 2209-98. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2213-98 - SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH To approve the expansion of church and school facilities including a new parish center and classroom buildings. The number of elementary school classes would increase from 1 per grade to 2 per grade (1 through 8). Parking requirements would be satisfied by shared use of the existing parking facility. The site is addressed 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1550-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Applicant requests to continue this item to April 20, 1998.Chairman Bosch abstained from participating because of a conflict of interest.Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2213-98 - Salem Lutheran Church - to the meeting of April 20, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2214-98 - SPIRIT AND TRUTH WORSHIP CENTER A proposal to approve the removal of all buildings and redevelopment as a community church with a singular building, approximately 5,625 square feet. The site is addressed 4700 East Walnut Avenue,formerly the "Rrst Korean United Methodist Church". 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. Applicant requests to continue this item to April 20, 1998. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Conditional Use Pennit 2214-98 - Spirit and Truth Worship Center - to the meeting of April 20, 1998.NOTE: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 16,1998 Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 5_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2208-98 AND VARIANCE 2046-98 - EDWARD LAMBERT, JR. A proposal to allow construction of a 2-story accessory second housing unit on property zoned R1- 7. The site is addressed 950 East Fairway Drive.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental .Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.Mr. Godlewski reported this is a request for an accessory second unit on a rather uniquely shaped parcel.The request is for a 2-story unit allowin~ for a tandem type parking situation. The code does not require that there be tandem parking; however, It is to facilitate circulation through the lot for the applicant' s use of their own garage facilities. Code requires only an additional parking space that can either be in a garage or open.NOTE:The public hearing was opened.ADDlicant. Diva Lambert. 950 East Fairwav Drive, said the variance is requested for the odd shape of the lot. There is no way to put up a structure without seeking a variance. The back side of their house backs up to the 22 Freeway. One side of the house faces Caltrans property. They have a 26 foot boat and they want to pull it into their garage and out the other side.Public comments were received.E.R. Zwiener. 927 East Fairwav Drive, spoke against this project. The property is an odd shape and the setback will be cut back to 11 feet. There are no 2-story houses in the area. ResDonse from the aODlicant Ms. Lambert understood the neighbor's concern. The property, as it exists, is an eyesore and there is not much that can be done. There are other 2-story properties on Fairway Drive. Ms. Lambert and the architect have tried to fit a building on the property within the existing setbacks and it cannot be Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 The public hearing was closed. The public hearing was re-opened for further comments.Tawnv Soear. 930 East Fairwav Drive, is concerned about the safety of the bend of the road and the scale of the project to the property. They have had several problems with cars speedinQ at the corner.All the homes in the area are single story. The one house Ms. Lambert referred to as being a 2- story, IS actually 1 1/2 stories. Ms. Spear talked to the owner of that home. She felt the 2-story home could be out of scale to the area. She is also concerned about the second unit being used as a rental.Resoonse from the aoolicant Ms. Lambert does not believe there is a problem with the 2-story structure. Rental units are allowed i.n the R1-7 zone and they have the right to rent the second unit if they desire to. She understands she IS not allowed to sell that unit though. This project will not impact the curve or bend in the road. The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith noted the zoning as being R1-7 and this is a large lot. She wanted clarification on the second unit.Mr. Godlewski responded this is an accessory second unit, known in past years as a "granny unit". A person is allowed one dwelling unit on R1 property, unless a conditional use permit is approved for an accessory second unit.Commissioner Smith wanted to know how the 640 square foot second unit could be placed over 810 square feet of garage area, and the reasons for requesting a variance.Mr. Godlewski explained the applicant is requesting a rather large garage structure and putting the second unit on top of the garage. They want the over sized garage area for their boat. The variance request is for the front yard setback. Twenty feet is required and at the angle thatit sits, it sets back 101/2 feet on one corner, and as close as 8 feet on the other corner.Commissioner Pruett asked what the threshold is between an accessory unit and a second dwelling unit in terms of size.Mr. Godlewski responded an accessory unit is no more than 640 square feet in size, and the parking requirement is greatly reduced. It's to allow what the State called a " granny unit". But, because the City cannot have control over who lives in the units, the City has adopted an accessory second dwelling unit that meets the State requirement for "liJrannr units" and still allows for the use of the structure. The second accessory unit requires one addltiona parking space, either in a garage or open on the property,in addition to the two car garage required for the primary structure. In this case, three parking spaces are needed on site. However, because parking requirements are met, the applicant is not required to provide additional parking.Chairman Bosch's concern is not with the accessory second unit. This neighborhood has not been identified by the City Council as being overly impacted to disallow that consideration. His concern is with the setbacks and variance. The lot is a buildable lot and has a residence on it without the accessory second unit. So, the hardship is not there in terms of making it an usable lot. He's struggling with the amount of variance to gain the accessory second unit. The shape of the lot is very unusual. The applicant chooses to have a separate second unit and he agrees there is no place to put it on the lot, although the applicant is also allowed to do an accessory second unit that is attached to the existing residence (Le.,build the second unit over the existing garage). There is a large garage being asked to be placed in the setback as well. His concern is not the second story. The neighborhood does not have a lot of those,but it is allowed. His concern is the impact on the setbacks and whether a variance is supportable under the hardship findings for what is a voluntary activity. It's in addition to the existing basic use of the lot.Commissioner Romero was also concerned with the variance. He asked what the setback of the existing house is.Mr. Godlewski said the existing house takes access off of Fairway Drive and it is Planning Commission Minutes April 6,1998 Commissioner Pruett asked if the deck areas are included in the square footage of the unit. (Deck areas are not included.) He was also concerned about the variance and the hardship issue. He did not believe a hardship has been demonstrated. Commissioner Carlton said the lot has been an eyesore for years. She didn't know what else to do with the vacant lot, except landscape it. There should be some allowances made to put a structure on the lot. She thought it was a hardship because of the shape of the property. Chairman Bosch looked at the legal findings for granting a variance. He asked if an attempt has been made to mitigate the size of the structure to meet the setback requirements. What is a reasonable threshold, given the shape of the lot. It's not just the accessory unit, but it's the oversized gara9.e as well. Without the garaQe, the accessory second unit could be pulled westerly on the site. It Will still require a variance, but Increases the minimum setback to probably 13 feet. It shows the garage and driveway are driving a portion of the variance request. He was not sure this is appropriate to put in a dual driveway or the dual size garage to support uses other than the second dwelling Unit. Commissioner Smith appreciated Chairman Bosch's concern for the eight (8) foot setback. She thought that was much closer to the street than what she would like to see, given the size of the property that is left behind it. She is more concerned over the size of the unit. She didn't think it was in the spirit and intention of what a granny pad is. And, she was strugglin~ with the concept that the garage underneath the unit is bigger than the unit. And, the size of the garage IS what is causing the request for the variance. Commissioner Smith felt the plan could be re-drawn or re-worked to make it more appropriate. She is willing to look at another proposal for the property, but this one does not fit the neighborhood or to be the best plan for the property.Chairman Bosch always looks at other opportunities for what could be done in trying to allow substantially enough increase in the proposed setback, reducing the variance to a point where the shape of the lot is enough of a hardship for it and the setback loss was inconsequential and not depriving the owner of uses that are granted or allowed by others in the neighborhood. The key thing is the overall size of the lot and what it's use is for. He can't get to a threshold that would allow such a large garage while putting the unit elsewhere on the lot.The Commission asked the applicant of her desire to re-work the plans and come back with a revised project to be more in compliance with the setback requirements. (Yes.)Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2208-98 and Variance 2046-98 to the meeting of May 18, 1998.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2211-98 - DELHI PALACE A proposal to upgrade the ABC license for beer and wine to a full service bar license. The site is addressed 220 East Katella Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.Mr. Godlewski stated this proposal is to upgrade the existing beer and wine license to a full service alcohol license. In this particular application, however, the alcohol served will be to the dining tables.There will not be a separate bar associated with this. And, it is not subject to the new ordinance requiring special provisions for bar type service. The public hearing was opened.ADDUcant. Manohar Lal. 581 South Azusa Wav. La Puente. requested to upgrade their beer and wine license to a full service alcoholic beverages license in Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 Commissioner Smith asked if the applicant were aware of the operating hours listed in the staff report. Yes.) She asked staff about the requirement that alcohol must stop service one hour before closing; therefore, the applicant's alcohol service would cease at 9:00 p.m. If so, the applicant may want to increase the hours of operation. Chairman Bosch noted condition 6 sets different hours for sales, service and consumption. Commissioner Carlton thought the hours of operation were a little restrictive. The Commission discussed hours of operation and hours to serve alcoholic beverages with the applicant. The standard condition of sale of alcoholic beverages will cease one hour prior to closing time needs to be added to condition 6. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett was concerned about the hours of operation. The establishment was created to not hold people there until closing time; it's to move people through. People who are there close to closing should enjoy the same privileges that people do when there earlier. The use may be different in terms of closing time frames on the serving of aloohol. Mr. Godlewski couldn't recall a restaurant application since the Police Department began instituting their one hour prior to closing time requirement. This condition comes directly from the Police Department. Commissioner Romero didn't see the time as a concern. He is in favor of keeping the one hour before closing requirement. Commissioner Smith is interested in bringing the restaurants and alcohol consumption areas into as close as of compliance as possible with each other. She personally believed everyone should be allowed to serve alcohol until closing if they have a restaurant, but the Police Department does not happen to agree with her. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2211-98 with conditions 1-17, amending condition 6 to read: NSales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11 :00 AM to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, with closing time at 11:00 PM; also 11:00 AM to 11:00 PM Friday and Saturday, with closing time at 12 Midnight, but with the additional requirement that alcoholic beverage sales are to cease one hour before the closing time of the restaurant, should it close prior to the hours previously listed. N Approval is based upon sound principles of land use and in response to required services, it will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area, it has been considered in its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area, and it is subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2212-98 - FLOYD CHAPMAN Proposed addition and conversion of a portion of an existing detached garage/storage structure into an accessory second housing unit. The site is addressed 1103 West Maple Avenue.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA guidelines Section 15301.Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition. The applicant is requesting an accessory second dwelling unit. Existing on his property is a rather large, 2-car garage with an attached storage area, of which the applicant rlans to convert approximately 400 square feet to an accessory second dwelling unit, adding on a smal kitchen to one side. The 2-car garage will be used for the Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 residence and an additional parking space will be provided in the side yard setback, betwe~n the sidewalk and the accessory second dwelling unit, behind a 5 1/2 foot fence. There are no variances required or requested as part of the application. The public hearing was opened. Acclicant. Rovd Chacman. 1103 West Macle Avenue, said he was going to knock down his fence on the left hand side of the property for the additional parking area. But, he has a fenced area with a big double gate where cars can park. The second dwelling unit is for his mother in-law who is 84 years old.Chairman Bosch was concerned with the gates being left in place, the front door to the unit could be blocked if the gate were opened. This may cause a problem in the future.Public comments:Tim Dunn. 160 North Lester Drive. said the neighbors were trying to preserve the quality of life in West Orange. Hedidn't feel increasing the density by adding another unit to a single family property is appropriate. It's not a very attractive structure, nor will it make an attractive living unit. This will generate more traffic in the neighborhood. Currently, people choose to park on the street because of the narrow driveways.Applicant's response:Mr. Chapman did not think anything was wrong with the second unit; the building has not deteriorated the neighborhood.Commissioner Romero asked if the applicant had plans to do anything different with the front door to make it look like a residential unit rather than a storage unit. Decorative wood trim around the windows would help to make the structure more attractive.Mr. Chapman said this was a very narrow unit and could not understand why there is concern. The main entrance is the door off of the back yard.Commissioner Smith wondered if there is something Mr. Chapman could do to make the unit look like a residential structure. She asked if he would be willing to upgrade the door that is visible to the street, or add landscaping. ( Yes.)Commissioner Pruett had questions with the fence and gate. There still needs to be a provision for the parking. The safety issue of the gate needs to be addressed. Would the applicant be willing to remove the gate and move the fence around to the side yard (to the east). The fence along the side of the road would need to be lowered.Mr. Chapman responded this would be fine.Commissioner Romero said windows could be added to make it look much better than just a solid wall.Chairman Bosch said the Building Department needs to look at the window size and location. He asked staff if the project goes to the Design Review Board.Mr. Godlewski responded this project is not scheduled for the ORB because it is an existing structure and it is not in the Old Towne District.The public hearing was closed.The Commission was willing to approve the project with a few added conditions of approval to make the building a little more residential looking. It is suggested that the fence be lowered and gates be eliminated, that window treatment similar to the primary residence be added, that the door be enhanced to look like a residential door, that a small canopy over the door be added, and that the two structures be painted to match.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. 6 1' . r--. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2212-98 with conditions 1-5, and adding condition 6 that requires that the project be developed to remove the existing wood fence and install a 42" high fence along the Lime Street property line adjacent to the proposed additional parking space, that the gates to the parking space be removed, that the applicant be allowed to reconstruct a 6 foot privacy security fence between the north wall of the proposed second unit and the north property line, that architectural trim at doors and windows, and other architectural trim features, identical or similar to those on the primary residence, must be provided and illustrated on plans prior to issuance of a building permit, as well as provision of a residential entrance door on the Lime Street facade in order to complete the outfitting of the accessory second unit and architectural details complimentary to a primary residence establishing a residential character of the unit, and the new architectural trim and exterior additions to the structure be painted for a uniform coverage for the building and in the context of the primary residence, findin~ that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community as stipulated under State law and specified in the City's accessory second use dwelling ordinance, that the permit will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located due to the location of the proposed unit on the site and the proposed conditions of approval, that the permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan of the area in which it is located, and specifically with regard to the corner lot with the large lot depth allowing creation of an accessory second dwelling unit and access from a public right-of-way which is superior to that present in most accessory second unit applications, and also not encumbered by the severe restrictions of the narrow interior lots on the block, and that the permit will be subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare of the community and not the individual welfare of the specific applicant.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 8. VARIANCE 2045; DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL #02- 98 - RITE AID Request for a variance to allow the modification of an existing freestanding sign which exceeds the maximum height and sign area allowed by code. (The proposed modification would result in a reduction in overall height and sign area from the existing sign.) The site is addressed 1825 East Chapman Avenue.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.Mr. Godlewski provided additional information. Rrst, is the variance request to allow modification of the existing free-standing sign. The existing sign exceeds the maximum height and area allowed by code.The applicant has the option under the code to change the sign face of the larger sign. The applicant,however, prefers to allow a reduced version of that sign to be installed, which is smaller in area and lower than the existing sign, but still exceeds the area allowed by the code. The second part of the application is the building sign itself. The Design Review Board looked at the proposal to allow the Rite Aid logo awning and approved the words "Rite Aid" on the awning, but disapproved the words underneath it. In addition, the applicant is requesting a wall sign adjacent to the main entrance that says "Open 24 hours"and also on the south side of the building, which says "Rite Aid" and "Pharmacy", " Food Mart" and "One Hour Photo". These signs are allowed by code; however, when the Design Review Board reviewed the proposal, they recommended against those signs.The public hearing was opened.NOTE:ADDlicant. Katie Pierce. 4723 Vista. Lona Beach. is with Collin Signs, representing Rite Aid. She submitted a colored rendering to the Commission. Rite Aid is taking over the existing Thrifty's and trying to make improvements. The big blue awning becomes an icon for Rite Aid. Rite Aid's ancillary services are part of the package. Also, being open 24 hours is an important statement to make. They are allowed to reface the existing sign. She would like to put pole covers over that steel so as not to look at the I-beams. However, she would need to make the sign 17 x 17 for the stucco pole covers over the I-beams, which would be an improvement. They are reducing the height of the sign and reducing the surface area vs. they could be Within the code and keepthe ugly sign.7r~. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 Chairman Bosch asked why the applicant believes a variance would be applicable for the free standing sign in this case. Ms. Pierce responded it would deprive them of the right to make visual improvements in the community. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carlton concurs the existing sign is an eyesore. She is in favor of anything to improve the site aesthetically. The smaller sign is mucl1 more attractive. Commissioner Pruett thouS}ht the special circumstances with this project is that there is a change in ownership and the change In ownership is trying to mitigate the existing sign conditions to bring it more closely in compliance to what the City has in a sign ordinance. There is a benefit to the community in approving the proposal. Chairman Bosch said the key is that this is not an owner-caused situation.Mr. Reynolds focused on the topography issue and wondered if perhaps the reduction of the sign helps because there is a lot of other signage in the area that might be in conflict. He is not familiar with what has happened in the past in terms of other situations.Mr. Godlewski knew the Zoning Administrator typically does look to makingsil;Jns more conforming, even though theydon't meet the code requirements. Anything that can reduce the Size, height or area of a sign to become more conforming is certainly something that is headed in the right direction.The Commission discussed the primary sign and accessory signs as to its height, size and area. as well as it's appearance. The applicant could bring the size of the primary sign face down to 12 x 12. and wrap the steel with pole covers. Ms. Pierce was also willing to make a sight study as to the height of the sign.However, the Commissioners agreed with the 35 foot high sign and accessory signs. with the exception of Commissioner Romero who favored a 20-25 foot high sign.It was noted the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton. to approve Variance 2045-98. with conditions 1 and 2. adding condition 3 that the sign area will be 12 x 12 or 144 square feet, and at a total height not to exceed 35 feet for the free-standing sign, and that the poles will be wrapped in appropriate cladding, finding that because of special circumstances applicable to subject property,reference is made to the Zoning Administrator's approval of a similar variance for the adjacent free-standing sign on the site. The two conditions combined recognizes that the property owner has a right under the ordinance, as currently written, to retain the existing, non- conforming signs and simply replace the face, which would be a detriment to adjacent properties in the area in which the project is located and it would be a negative impact upon the properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located, and that the proposal as conditioned including the sign face reduction is a substantial reduction in the existing, non-conforming condition towards the existing code in providing a great aesthetic improvement, which will assist adjacent properties and the business climate of the zone.AYES:NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch asked staff to look at future line of sight studies regarding sign heights to analyze variance proposals.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve ORB Appeal 02-98 of the Design Review Board's decision and allow the installation of accessory wall signs on the building as shown on the Exhibit offered by the applicant.AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1998 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to a joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session on Tuesday, April 7,1998 at 5:00 p.m., in the Weimer Room to review the CIP Budget for 1998-99. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p. m. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld 9 TT ,--