Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-1998 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 19, 1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary, Ted Reynolds, 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 JANUARY 5, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of January 5, 1998 as written. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING 2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-97 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend City sign regulations, specifically Orange Municipal Code Section 17.36.060(A); Sign Program" guidelines. The ordinance amendment would allow sign programs for large commercial developments (of 25 acres or more) to propose criteria that differ from limitations contained within the City sign code, if a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. This item has been continued from the May 5, June 16, August 18, October 20, and December 15, 1997 hearings.) Mr. Jones stated this item has been before the Commission several times over the last several months. Staff believes substantial progress has been made. The Commission has asked for additional information pertaining to directional signs, wall sign area and wall signs projecting above a roof top. The Commission seems to be more comfortable with the directional signage language than the other issues. The Mills Corporation would like to address the Commission regarding the issues of wall and projecting signs. Staff has not had the opportunity to provide any analysis to the Commission regarding the information Mills is presenting, and is looking for direction from the Commission. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Engen. City Mills. 1 City Boulevard West, thanked the Commission for allowing them to speak and make a presentation on their graphics for the Mills project. They felt it was difficult to craft language for the ordinance that promotes the kind of creativity they are seeking, yet provides comfort and control for all areas of the City. Henry Beer. Communication Arts. Boulder. Colorado, is the consultant and lead designer for the Mills Corporation. He made a presentation showing the imagery and graphics Mills Corporation is wanting to use. He realizes some of their ideas would not be appropriate in other parts of the City. They are proposing a project that is extremely difficult to draw the line between the environmental image and the architecture. They propose to hang pictures on obelisks as image greeters in the parking lots to convey messages about lifestyles, products, images and people. They will emerge from the entry throats of the project out into the parking lots. Commissioner Pruett asked if the images change. He is trying to visualize a product changing. 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 Mr. Beer said the elements are designed to change annually. They are not electronic images and he showed the Commission a sample of the images. Commissioner Romero asked if the images were at other Mills centers. (No.) He wanted to know who makes the decision for the display of these images. Mr. Beer thought they would jointly have to craft a strategy to enable the process to be managed. The developer wants the image to represent the very best of what the project has to offer. It will call for a new kind of partnership between the developer and City. Commissioner Pruett asked if there was an intent to identify a product or is it more like a piece of art work that does not have a name of a product or identifying anything specific. Mr. Beer replied this idea was so new that only a few people have looked at it. They were thinking of it as imagery and lifestyle rather than as an advertising means. Chairman Bosch stated a number of sites in the City are currently appropriate, and others in the future within the Sphere of Influence would be appropriate to the application of the ordinance. The scale and type of images that are dramatically and dynamically represented with this concept are such that will be visible for great distances. They will present images of a scale that will be discernible at a great distance, including many residential areas. There are other existing major commercial sites where this could be applicable. He asked what their analysis has identified in terms of the distance of visual impact in the positive sense for commercial purposes, and what is their comment relative to the potential impacts or potential for controlling where there are cut off needs to protect the privacy of a homeowner. Mr. Beer replied they have not done an extensive analysis, but they are crucial issues that need to be looked at. He didn't believe, though, that the obelisk present levels of illumination that would exceed what are in the existing office buildings that are externally illuminated. He thought the degree of brightness needed to be regulated and criteria could be established. Chairman Bosch said one of their concerns is that development of a more ambitious sign package on a major commercial site to some degree relates to its relationship to public streets, distance from the streets, heights and sizes. He asked if they had explored the concept of the free-standing obelisk. Mr. Beer said they would be integrating the directories for the project into the obelisk so that there would only be one object. The scale of the obelisk is 32 feet in the parking lot. He explained the dynamic pattern of placement for these signs as they move toward the buildings. Commissioner Carlton commented it would be boring to have the same images displayed for a 12-month period of time. She believed some kind of light display would be more appealing (like Fremont Street in Las Vegas). She asked how many of these images were proposed. Mr. Beer said they were looking within the building complex itself for a minimum of four (4) and a maximum of six (6). Then, five (5) per entry times four (4) entries. Mr. Engen said they were trying to keep the City ordinance in mind. When looking at the images and the way they are dealing with the elevations on the buildings, they were actually showing the name of a tenant on the face of the building. Some of the elements go above the parapet walls. He asked how an ordinance could be written to allow and promote this type of imagery, yet protect the City in other areas where it is not appropriate. He suggested a simpler approach of allowing projects of these sizes to go through a CUP process and a comprehensive sign program be presented and evaluated on its merits, based on its location. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett sees this concept as integrating signage and art. He would like staff to look at this concept to see how it can be managed. He wanted to limit the imagery to a small area for advertising, and focus more on the art rather than the advertising. It might help encourage more of a creative and artistic approach to advertising. Commissioner Carlton would like to see more input from staff and suggested continuing this matter. 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 Chairman Bosch also thought this needed to be continued. The key concern is that this will apply citywide and he recognized the challenge of balancing the need for creativity and at the same time changing commercial advertising. An ordinance cannot be written to address a single site; it must be applied citywide. There are ways to provide for individuality within that through the comprehensive sign program, but even that has to set some limitations that reflect community standards and values, and to protect all properties in the City, while providing the creativity that a major development could benefit from. He also thought it would be appropriate for staff to look at implications with regard to the City's historic efforts relative to billboards. It's hard to limit commercial speech. In addition to enhancing and protecting the commercial vitality of the City, the City as a whole must be looked at, and the visual and property impacts upon other uses, whether they be residential, single or multiple family, or institutional. There are different kinds of neighbors, but they all must be considered in terms of potential impacts. Commissioner Carlton could see the value of creating a landmark so to speak. It needs to be unique and innovative, but where do they draw the line in the ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-97 - City of Orange "Sign Program" - to Wednesday, February 18, 1998. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2095-94 AND 2016-93 - DANNY K's CAFE AND BilLIARDS The applicant is proposing expansion of the dining area by constructing an outdoor patio on the east side of the building, adjacent to Main Street. The site is addressed 1096 North Main Street. This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. NOTE: The public hearing was opened. Applicant. Danny Kuykendall. 1096 North Main Street, is the owner of Danny K's and they are proposing to build a patio off of the east side of the building. Because the non-smoking ordinance was approved, they are trying to find a place for people to smoke. They will be expanding their dining area to allow people to eat outside. Commissioner Romero saw the building to not have much window area and thought the building was very close to Main Street. The drawings do not show how many tables will be put on the patio. He thought a patio would have been built on the opposite side of the building. Why did they choose to put a patio on the side of Main Street. Mr. Kuykendall did not know how many people will use the patio. They anticipate to have 10 to 12 tables on the patio, but they didn't know how well they will do. Their expansion will meet all City requirements. They will also have a 42" high fence and propose to build a planter around the patio. He has spoken to Sgt. Weinstein about the patio and it does not present a problem. They are also going to remove the tinting from the existing windows and raise the blinds so that people can see out onto the patio when inside the building. The patio already has an exit on that side and there is a nice view of traffic and other buildings. On the entry side, there is no exit. They would have to restrict their parking. It's not as nice an area for a patio. He didn't know if it would be any quieter on the west side. The project will be reviewed by the Design Review Board on Wednesday. Commissioner Romero wanted to know if the applicant has had any discussion with ABC. 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 Mr. Kuykendall responded yes and ABC will approve their expansion after the City approves the CUP. Before serving alcohol, ABC will make an inspection of their site. He explained the waitresses and security patrol the area of Danny K's, and this will include the patio area. Commissioner Smith asked if they were changing the entrance or if there were going to be two entrances. Mr. Kuykendall stated a planter will be built around the patio. The area is well lit and the Police Department is just down the street. They don't anticipate any problems. There is an exit on the south side of the patio because there is a walkway there. This will be an emergency exit only and it is not an entrance. Commissioner Smith noted there was a compromise on the fence. Mr. Kuykendall talked to Sgt. Weinstein and suggested a 6 foot fence. But, it turns out the Police Department did not require a 6 foot fence; a 42" high fence would be adequate. Chairman Bosch noted reference was made to a January 19, 1998 memorandum entitled, Report on Alcohol Regulations for Patios, which was distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting by staff. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett thought the proposed fence was going to be wood. He didn't have a problem with the project, if the emergency gate were controlled. The drawings don't include a landscaping plan and the applicant spoke to a planter being put around the patio. Mr. Jones visited the site and talked to Mr. Kuykendall's partner, who indicated a wrought iron fence would be more attractive. It was staff's understanding the applicant was willing to consider alternative materials if the Commission desired. Condition 3 addresses the landscape issue, but if the Commission wants to identify more specifically the type of landscaping, the condition can be modified. Chairman Bosch concurred there needed to be some type of control on the gate. Alarms are expensive and can malfunction, but at the same time, something needs to be done. In the condition, they might add that not only the gate be locked and only operable from the inside of the patio, and that a sign be placed on the gate stating "No entrance." He liked the wrought iron fence. If a hedge were planted, the wrought iron would be hidden. He was willing to leave this issue to the purview of the Design Review Board. He suggested the condition be modified to include the locked gate so that it is operable from inside the patio, with a sign to direct entrance to the other end of the building, and per the stipulation of the applicant, that the tint be removed from the windows adjacent to the patio, as well as the blinds, to allow adequate visibility and control from inside the establishment. It was noted the project is categorically exempt fro CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Modification to Conditional Use Permits 2095-94 and 2016-93, subject to conditions 1-5, and adding comment to condition 3 to reference the Design Review Board to the concern that of an attractive and adequate fence design be reviewed and that landscaping be compatible with the fence design, and that a hedge to block visibility and access from outside the patio area may also impact the value of a highly detailed wrought iron fence design and they may wish to review other material combinations as well. Also, add condition 6 that the patio gate shall be locked from the outside and only be open able from inside the patio for emergency exiting purposes, and install a sign to the gate on the exterior side stating "No entrance - enter at west side" or similar wording, subject to the approval of staff. Add condition 7 that the applicant, upon approval, shall remove existing tinting film from the windows at the east end of the building opening onto the patio area, as well as the blinds, in order to allow proper visibility and control from inside the premises. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2203-97 - EDWARD HOWARD The applicant is proposing an accessory second housing unit on property zoned R1-10. The site is addressed 2459 North Santiago Boulevard. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. It was noted that the Commission has received three letters from nearby property owners: a letter from Regina Smith, dated January 19, 1998; a letter from Jean Moore, 2310 Orange View, undated - received by the City on January 16, 1998; a letter from Mr. and Mrs. DeTurk, undated, and a letter dated January 18, 1998 from Greg and Vickie Bowden. Mr. Jones presented the full staff report as there was opposition. The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory second housing unit on a lot that is currently developed with a single family residence. The proposed second unit is approximately 625 square feet in area. It will be built on a lot that is quite deep and it is approximately 83 feet wide and goes back to a depth of 178 feet or more. The total property size is 17,600 square feet. The existing residence is about 1,740 square feet and has an attached two-car garage and fronts on Santiago Boulevard. The proposal includes, along with the second accessory unit, a new driveway along the north property line to serve the residents and to provide one additional parking space next to the accessory unit. There are also two hammer head turn arounds proposed as part of the project to allow vehicles to turn into the site and be able to turn around without backing on to Santiago Boulevard. There is no parking provided on Santiago Boulevard and there are two lanes in each direction with bike lanes. On Page 7 of the staff report, the criteria contained in the City ordinance that regulates accessory second units is outlined, and he briefly discussed that criteria. The project does meet all of the City's development and setback requirements. The Staff Review Committee reviewed this project and had a number of questions regarding the location to slopes, site drainage, building setbacks, driveway width and location requirements for safe exiting from the property, and the applicant has revised the plans to address a lot of the issues raised by staff. One of the requirements is that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must file an agreement with the County Recorder's Office to state the proposed structure is an accessory residence and that all requirements of the City are met. The Design Review Board reviewed this project and determined that the accessory structure was compatible with the architectural style of the existing residence. The existing residence is a modular, manufactured house, built in 1976. The proposed second unit is of the same type of construction. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and the Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing was opened. Applicant. Edward Howard. 2459 North Santiago Boulevard, explained they purchased their home in 1976 and have lived there for the last 20 years. They have watched the neighborhood develop around them. The house directly to the south of them is a modular home, and the two houses to the north are traditional constructed homes. He and his wife just had a baby girl and his mom also lives with them. They decided they need more living space for their family and request to build an accessory unit behind the existing house. Their project meets and exceeds all of the City's requirements for a second unit. There was a concern by the Fire Department that there needed to be fire sprinklers in the new home. Also, the driveway needs to be wide enough for the Fire Department to get in if needed. Traffic is a concern of theirs because they live on a very busy street. At the present time, there are only three cars on the property and that will not change with the new building. They have an existing hammer head already, and will add a second hammer head up at the top of the property. He showed pictures of his property to the Commission to show them the size of the lot. None of his neighbors' windows are facing his property and there is a six foot wall that divides the property. Both homes are modular, and he knows some of the neighbors are opposed to this type of construction. This second unit will increase their property values. And, they will renovate the existing home by painting it to match the new house, and landscaping will be done. The second unit is not visible from Santiago Boulevard. Commissioner Smith noted since the Design Review Board, the applicant has changed the front panel entry door to a double sliding glass patio door. She asked why they were doing that. Mr. Howard responded it would be easier for his mother to go in and out of a sliding glass door. It would also add additional light into the house. 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 Commissioner Smith was concerned that it doesn't look like a residence; it looks more like an accessory unit, a work shop, without a specified front door. She asked Mr. Howard to consider double wood French doors or wood paned sliding doors that appear like French doors, but they slide. Mr. Howard did not have a problem with that. Commissioner Smith wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that he, the property owner, must reside on the property for 20 years. (Yes.) And, that the second unit can be rented, but not sold separately. (Yes.) Chairman Bosch noted the siding changes on the west and south sides (looking at the small illustration provided by Silvercrest). Mr. Howard responded that is a raised foundation and the siding will be the same exact siding that is on the existing home. It is T 1-11 siding. All four sides will be wrapped with vertical T 1-11 siding. They provided roofing and siding samples to the ORB. The Commission and applicant discussed the height of the modular unit and the overall scale of the building. A patio cover is not proposed for the project. The applicant is proposing to change out all existing windows of the front house to match the vinyl windows of the new modular unit. Grace Howard. 2459 North Santial;;lo Boulevard, will be the occupant of the new accessory second unit. She and her son are joint owners of the property. Those speaking in opposition: Hugo Bein objected to the modular homes as it will not match the quality of their homes in the neighborhood. Regina Smith. 2447 North Santiago Boulevard. objected to the project because of traffic, accidents, parking, and the second unit will be visible from her house. She shares a driveway with the people in the front house and on numerous occasions friends of the Howards park in that driveway and she cannot get into her own home. They live in an upscale neighborhood and the two modular homes negatively impact their property values. A third modular home will only compound the issue. Jean Moore. 2310 Orange View Lane, complained the project is visible to her and there will be increased traffic problems. She is opposed to more housing in the area. Pat Deteer. 2226 Oranl;}e Tree Lane, looks right down on the modular homes. She moved to this location three months ago. Traffic will be much worse. She believed the value of her property will go down. Applicant's response: Mr. Howard acknowledged there is quite a bit of traffic on Santiago but there will be no more cars than there are now. There are no windows on the side of the buildings that face the yard and there is a six foot wall between the property and Ms. Smith's property. He understood the concern of decreased property values. Their property has been there much longer than most of the neighbors though. They propose 110 feet of driveway, 14 feet wide. They don't need to park in anyone's easement. Some of that easement happens to be on their property as well, so that might be an issue to take up at a later date. No one has ever complained about cars blocking the driveway. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith wanted to know the status of the landscape plan for this project. Mr. Jones replied there was no information on a landscape plan being submitted with the proposal. The applicant had indicated they are voluntarily doing additional landscaping, but he was not sure if there was a specific code requirement for landscaping. He explained the State does require that cities do allow manufactured housing and there are some restrictions, but it is mandatory that the City allow manufactured housing subject to the development standards and other City requirements. The second unit will match the existing modular home. 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 Chairman Bosch's recollection since there is a CUP request, is if the Commission feels additional landscaping is necessary to mitigate potential impacts, and as long at it relates to those impacts, the Commission has the opportunity to condition the project. However, most areas of the City do not require submittal of a landscape plan for single family residential. It's primarily related to any specific project approval. Commissioner Romero thought the landscaping needed improvement. He was in favor of the second unit and feels a mitigation measure is warranted by requiring a condition for landscaping. Commissioner Smith heard the concern of the neighbors and because of that, she was in favor of enhanced landscaping on the site to prevent the buildings from sitting there in a stark situation. It would be easy to blend in some trees to welcome the new building onto the site. She was tempted to say she would like to see another parking space, but she had a feeling the enhanced landscaping would be less expensive than pouring additional cement. She would not ask that the additional parking space be a condition. She wanted the window treatment and slidin~ glass door to be more enhanced. The placement on the property is fine and she didn't see any significant traffic impact. Commissioner Carlton is very familiar with the property and the traffic problems. She felt all of the conditions have been met on this property and it sounds like a worthwhile project, which serves a good purpose. She also would like to see enhanced landscaping to help mitigate the perceived visibility from adjacent property owners. Commissioner Pruett didn't have a problem with the project. When the property was developed, it was built in a way that made sense at the time. By putting a second unit on the property and with additional landscaping, it will add value to the property and possibly will have a positive effect on the neighborhood. He had a concern with the turn around for the second unit. There should be enough of an area for a car to turn around with a car parked in the parking space. It is going to be very difficult for someone to back down that driveway. It would be much better to turn around. The parking space needs to be dealt with in order for it to be a turn around. He didn't have a problem with the sliding glass door being replaced. He likes the concept of families staying together as long as they can. Chairman Bosch stated the applicant indicated he is going to be upgrading the existing residence with new windows and paint and improving the landscaping. It is important to have something in the conditions to assure this will be done as part of the installation of the modular unit. The Commission would like to see the repair of all existing siding and trim on the primary residence, and replacement of windows to match the windows on the second unit. And, that both units be painted to match. He concurred with the wood sliding doors for the entrance to the secondary unit. He is also concerned with the parking space. The site plan does not provide the 25 foot back up distance from the space labeled parking space", and it is also adjacent to the second unit. It really precludes a good move into the hammer head without damaging a vehicle and the building. He would look to no permit being issued until staff accepts a revised plan to demonstrate that the geometrics of parking space and hammer head are sufficient to provide for that turn around space. A new chain link fence internal to the lot is proposed, which is allowed by code in the rear yard. That needs to be placed relative to the parking space and turn around space so that it does not block sight lines and again, does not impede upon the space necessary to maneuver a vehicle. He also supported very strongly that the City is constrained by State law relative to second units. There are specific findings that must be met. Enhancement of landscaping is very important, particularly along the perimeters of the site. An enhanced landscape plan is needed to provide additional shielding, which gives privacy to the second unit and existing house, and provides a better separation from neighboring properties. He believed the neighbors needed to talk in order to resolve how they might provide privacy or screening. The City needs to mitigate any potential negative impacts. The primary mitigation for this project is enhanced landscaping to screen, and the upgrading of the primary residence with regard to its doors, windows, paint and maintenance to bring it up to a quality living environment. This needs to be completed prior to occupancy being granted to the second unit. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEOA review. 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2203-97 - Edward Howard - with conditions 1-7. And, add condition 8 that the landscape of the property be enhanced especially along the perimeter of the property and the enhanced landscape plan can be approved by Planning staff. Add condition 9 that staff accept a revised parking plan to allow a car to turn around, in addition to the car parked in the parking space. Add condition 10 that there would be repair of all existing siding and trim on the primary residence, that the windows be replaced to match the accessory unit and both units would be painted to match. These conditions are to be met prior to occupancy of the second accessory unit. Add condition 11 that the sliding glass door be replaced with a multi-panel French style or wood sliding door, at the discretion of the applicant, but with the approval of Planning staff. The CUP is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to a need in the community. There will not be deterioration of bordering land uses or any special problems created for this area. This permit has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood and appears to be appropriate. This permit is granted subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. This CUP goes with the land; not subject to the individuals who live there. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, wanted the Commission to give more thought to Katella Avenue and East Orange. This is an opportunity for the City to move forward as the City grows. He felt sign regulations do not need to apply to the entire City. However, the ordinance needs more categories in order to be more flexible and creative. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld 8