Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1998 PC MinutesOfss/e.--C d- ')D D . G- . :2.. 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 26, 1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m,PRESENT:ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None l : to \.;., t,. l s..:Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, and Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer y..,~;-:"l~) ;. J.I~) -IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 1, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1998.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes of October 5,1998 as written.AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 2. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 58-98 - RALPH & LINDA ZEHNER Proposed demolition of an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and construction of two (2) duplexes and one (1) cottage unit with garages located behind an existing single family home. The site is located at 630 East Culver Avenue.Negative Declaration 1540-97 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item has been continued from the July 20, September 9, and October 5,1998 hearings.)NOTE:John Waters, architect for the applicant, spoke to the architectural theme of the building intending to reflect the predominant " craftsman" style of the neighborhood. The density, bulk and massing of the structures on the lot were also designed to be consistent with the existing built environment in the Old Towne area, He noted that it was difficult to evaluate the project in relation to development on the immediately adjacent parcels because the zoning was only recently changed to allow development under the R-2 standards and that Mr. Zehner's project was the first to come forward. The buildings are one and one-half story with lapped siding and wood trim. No structure has more than two units in keeping with historic development of the area,After a comment from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Waters noted for the record that it was the applicant's intention that additional wood trim would be incorporated to match the existing house including additional roof treatments, a wood lattice attic vent, and window trim,The applicant, Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver Avenue, spoke to the enabling code sections that brought him to his current design. Mr. Zehner noted that in his opinion the "Zoning Ordinance takes precedence 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 over the Old Towne Design Standards and that the requested five (5) units, in addition to the existing home, is what he wants to move ahead with and is completely within the requirements of the code. The issue of bulk and mass is more than adequately addressed by the F.A,R. in the Zoning Ordinance indicating an allowable ratio of ,70 and his development designed to a .47, The followinQ oersons sooke in favor of the oroiect: Herb Runnells Mike Keller Eileen Hertfelder Darlene Beer Ken Brimlow Those speaking in opposition stated that the Old Towne Standards were not met, the project does not meet the mitigation of the 1993 zone change and the cumulative impact could not be mitigated through the Design Standards. Speakers included: Martha Phelan Joan Crawford Shannon Tucker Carol Skaggs In rebuttal, Mr, Zehner stated that the Phelan's didn't even live within 300 feet of the site, The project could not be considered precedent setting because the code requires all projects to be based on their own merit...as far as the zoning, "that train has already left the station"oo.This project meets the development standards of today. He has the right to develop his property in the R2-6 multi- family zone,The majority of property in Old Towne is multi-family; not single family.Commissioner Smith asked why Mr. Zehner didn't hire an architect early in the process since this is a very difficult project and the first one on Culver.Mr. Zehner had hired a designer, but he didn't have his architectural license.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith asked for the correct interpretation of what applies in this case relative to what supersedes what -- Zoning Ordinance, Design Standards, State Law, General Plan, etc.Mr, Reynolds likes to think of it as one supplementing the other. In the Zoning Code it gives stature to the Design Standards, This was addressed to Mr. Zehner in March. The City Attomey wrote a letter to explain and clarify the situation, The Design Standards supplement the Zoning Ordinance and they have to be read together.Commissioner Smith had trouble with the very large garage building on the site. She is pleased with the rest of the pieces in terms of the reduced size of the cottages, the placement, the refurbishment of the front house and those things. She doesn't see this particular building fitting. It's still too big. The statement has been made that it is required to be this big. It isn't really. If the sixth unit were eliminated,that would eliminate another garage and that would make it five covered garages instead of seven covered garages. She sees this as a self-imposed hardship that the applicant has decided to do. There is no inclusion of cars on the site plans or elevations. She is not sure that the open space break down is accurate. No cement is allowed in the open space, She heard there is 5,000 square feet of open space on the property and hopes that it does not include the cement. The project will not be as clean as the drawing looks after the cars are added. She doesn't know of any other residential property that has six or seven uncovered parking places along the side of one building. The project does not fit with Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 Plan, does not fit with the Design Standards, does not fit with the Historic Preservation Element -- it's a very lengthy process.Commissioner Smith has expressed her concerns over all of these issues, Going back to the hearing in July, she had said that the massing was out of scale and the shape and proportion of the buildings, the open space, rhythm and pattern do not fit with the neighborhood, She had also said the project does not maintain the single family ambiance. For her, it needed to be picture perfect in terms of design, precisely compatible with design standards to get this much density. She doesn't view the project to be precisely compatible, especially in the choice of materials. She realizes financing is an important part of the project,but she also believes corners have been cut. She suggested to eliminate one unit and put the money into the design elements and the materials to make this a premiere project. She's concerned about the placement of the air conditioners, the trash enclosure, and a lot split in the future, She didn't think the shed is appropriate; it should be eliminated or reduced in size. She is concerned about the architectural detail on the shed. At one point, after the shed was built, she saw fluorescent pink toilet seats attached to the entire length of the wall. She likes the idea that there will be underground electricity.In summary, Commissioner Smith stated many people have mentioned the fact this project has been under review for a long time, Part of the reason, is that it was self-imposed by the applicant's failure to get an architect from the very beginning. Commissioner Romero believed Mr, Zehner has come forth with an excellent presentation on how his project conforms to the Old Towne Design Standards; however, he believes Mr. Zehner's explanation is an attempt to comply with the Old Towne Design Standards from only his point of view. In Commissioner Romero's view, the project does not conform to the surrounding properties recognized as part of Old Towne. The design of the new residences must be complimentary to the other residences on the block, and needs to be consistent with the characteristics of contributing buildings on the street as to massing, scale, shape, proportions, open space, rhythm, pattern, and landscape features. He referred to Mr, Zehner's submittal this evening on Chapter 2 A. 1. (a) and (b), it states development shall retain the historical relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space. Commissioner Romero believes the relationship of these features on the south side of Culver is not being maintained. The project is still not complying with the requirement to be consistent in size, scale and context with surrounding development. Commissioner Pruett said at the last meeting he indicated that he was concerned about the bulk and mass of the one building, and maybe the garage could be lowered to address the bulk and mass. He is still not satisfied with the roof line (dormer above the garage) that is proposed. There might be an opportunity to soften that up to where it is a little easier to deal with. He has reviewed Negative Declaration 1425- 93.That zone change was adopted and it included the three mitigating measures in 1993, One of the measures the Commission is being asked to look at is that the Design Review Board review all building construction, or modifications to buildings, including demolition permits, to encourage further development of the neighborhood that is compatible with current historical architectural content, bulk and mass of existing buildings. He is concerned relative to the intent of the mitigating measures. He goes back to the environmental analysis that basically indicates that the re-zoning of the 29 parcels from R 1-6 to R2 would result in a doubling of the potential units from 61 to 126. The previous zoning classification allowed approximately two units on each parcel. He asked how many units can be built on a R1-6 lot.Mr, Godlewski responded R1-610ts would allow one single family home and currently, a person can apply for up to a 640 square foot maximum accessory second dwelling unit,Commissioner Pruett wanted to know when the zoning was approved, and the mitigating measures considered four units per lot, if the City looked at the bulk and mass of the buildings in context with the neighborhood. He asked what the intent was when looking at the mitigating measures.Mr. Jones said staff looked at the existing single family zone and looked at the existing 29 parcels, and to look at the maximum number of units that could be created if all of the parcels Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 That is how staff arrived at the number of 61. He explained the same reasoning that staff used to come up with the 126 units. If the R2-6 zone were applied to the existing parcels, and add the maximum development, you would get 126 units.Commissioner Carlton added she could not come to the conclusion that the findings required have been met. She believes an EIR should have been required for the zone change. She did not think the mitigated negative declaration satisfies the CEQA requirements, She said in the last meeting that if the one unit over the garage were eliminated and it was re-designed, she would approve the project. She liked the bungalows/duplexes, She liked the changes that have been made. She would like to see the shed shortened a few more feet, but that is minor in the overall picture. Unless there were only four additional units on the property, she would not be able to give any kind of approval.Chairman Bosch believes Mr, Zehner has made extraordinary progress, The required open space is met.It does not include the driveway or parking spaces. The integrity of the front home, in terms of having usable open space, is enhanced from its current condition by removing the driveway along the side of it,and providing a protected landscaped area, A garage that is going to fall clown soon is being replaced with a new structure, The spacing of the houses is less heavy in terms of bulk and mass than the streetscape on either side of Culver. But, they also have to be concerned with the historic relationship of open space in rear yards. It is still a major impact upon the historic relationship of the front dwellings along Culver Avenue, because the garage building with the apartment is, in fact, imposing upon the historic relationship of rear yard open space to the remainder of the streetscape on the block. That's the one he has problems with, Intricate detailing of the buildings can be accomplished and reviewed by staff based upon the strict application of the Development Standards that are part of the ordinance. He is comfortable, after seeing the potential result with the shed type dormer on the second floor of those rear duplexes, and he believes the detailing can work. It boils down to that building in the middle, There are too many examples being brought forward of multiple garages or bulk buildings that are prior to the adoption of the Development Standards as an ordinance in the City. Those developments drove the Council's adoption of the Development Standards. He will continue to state that there are alternative materials that replicate the profile, the surface texture, the colors when appropriately applied - the design details for windows and doors that can be utilized - they're not limited to just wood. Chairman Bosch's problem is with building number one. It throws the project out of proportion with the Design Standards. It is just too much in terms of it's closeness and physical relationship to the front dwelling, and the overall height and imposition that it causes upon the historic relationship of the open space of the streetscape and contributing structures on the south side of Culver. He didn't care about the number of units on the property per the zoning ordinance, if they could be handled without causing other problems. But after an extraordinary amount of labor to try to identify ways to get those number of units, parking and open space, it appears it simply can't be done without stacking it. And that stacking drives the bulk and mass of the unit beyond an acceptable standard. To make the project acceptable, that building needs to be eliminated. If pulled off, the reduction of the garage would occur, the removal of the stairway, the ability to reduce the number of garages to help protect the open space in relationship to the primary residence could be sufficient for him to make findings that would show conformance to the Design Standards, and therefore, meet the intent of the mitigated negative declaration. Commissioner Pruett read a section of the 1993 Culver Avenue zone change documentation: "With this zone change from R1 to R2, the Council directed the single family character of Culver Avenue be retained. Under the R2 zone, the large lots are allowed five to ten units, which creates a number of possible compatibility issues." Then, the issue of the number of units - the increase of 126 at build out,there is a matrix that shows what that is in terms of the numbers. It is interesting that the R2-6 for the lot is six units. And, the R2-8 is four units, He assumed that was the intent of the Council in moving forward with the zone change.Commissioner Smith agreed with the Chairman, Building number one is what stops the project for her.Although, personally, she did not like to see that many units put on the site. She agrees it is a large lot and it is zoned for that. The sixth unit is one too many for her by the way that it powers this very large building. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 Commissioner Carlton asked if the Commission needed to vote one way or the other on the site plan, or could they approve it with a condition that the applicant come back to the Design Review Board, eliminating the fifth unit, and redesigning the garages. Mr. Reynolds said there was an application before the Commission and they needed to vote on it. If there is another course of action being considered, the applicant will need to decide whether or not he wanted to do that. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, and seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Minor Site Plan Review 58-98, based on the fact the findings required are not adequate to support the project. The Commission finds that the project will cause a deterioration of the neighboring land uses and it is not compatible with the neighborhood. It does not conform to the General Plan, Historic Preservation Element and Old Towne Design Standards and it does cause a significant negative environmental impact. There is adequate circulation for both on and off-site. The services are presently available to serve the project, but there is evidence that won't be prevalent for very long. The project is not compatible with the community aesthetics. The project will not comply with the Design Standards set forth in the Old Towne Design Standards relating to site design, building design, and materials. The design of the proposed project does not compliment the other residences on the block and is not consistent with the following characteristics of contributing buildings on the street: massing, scale, shape and proportions, open space, rhythm and pattern, and landscape features, and do not conform to the standards and design criteria for the project. The project will not be compatible with the use and design of the existing buildings within Old Towne.The motion was replaced by a substitute motion.Commissioner Pruett offered a substitute motion to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration, rather than the Minor Site Plan Review.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Mitigated Negative Declaration 1540-97, and part of that is the Mitigated Negative Declaration 1425-93 that dealt with the issue of the three mitigation measures that were adopted in 1993.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith noted for the record she thought there were several pieces of the Negative Declaration of 1993 that were not properly considered and certainly the glaring omission of any response to Items 17 and 18, which were left blank on the page. She wanted to make sure the findings are located in more than one area. The project is not in compliance with the Historic Preservation Element because the findings are not adequate to meet that aspect of the General Plan in terms of neighborhood compatibility.Chairman Bosch's key concern are the three significant findings relative to the impacts of building number one. It relates to the additional bulk, mass, footage, garages and parking for the last unit and pushes the entire envelope relative to the necessary mitigation measures, based upon conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards and the Historic Element of the General Plan.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Minor Site Plan Review 58-98 based on the findings that are articulated both in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Commission's discussion.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 Mr. Jones informed the applicant of his appeal rights. IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 6