Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-1999 PC MinutesC- ,;L5'OO, G ;2,:: MINlJTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: April 19, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p,m,Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith Commissioners Bosch, Romero Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary John Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,George Liang. Senior Civil Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary c, Y"!..' ir) }J;~) -ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2280-99 - AL RICCI A request to allow the addition of a two-story unit on property zoned R-2-6 within the Orange Old Towne District The site is located at 439 South Grand Street.NOTE:Mitigated Negative Declaration 1596-99 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project Applicant has withdrawn application.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton. seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to accept the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 2280- 99, AYES:NOES: ABSENT:IN RE:Commissioners Carlton. Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED 2, Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of April 5, 1999, CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue the Minutes of April 5.1999 to the next regularly scheduled meeting, AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett. Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 Vice Chair Smith requested to pull Item 7 forward to be heard before Item 3, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to pull Item 7 from the Agenda to be heard at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 7. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FINDING FOR FY 1999-2000 THRU FY 2005-06 Review of the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 thru Fiscal Year 2005-06 to determine conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State Law,Vice Chair Smith and Commissioner Pruett were not present at the study session when the Commission reviewed the Capital Improvement Program, but they received and reviewed the materials on their own.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council that the Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with the General Plan,AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Smith acknowiedged this plan takes a tremendous amount of work and she appreciated the staff's efforts, She stated there may be four projects, which are listed in the staff report, that may be pulled out at a later time that may need additional findings, IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2258-99 AND MINOR SITE PLAN 71- 99 - ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH A request to allow the conversion of a single-family residence into an infant daycare center as an expansion of St Paul's Lutheran Church. The site is located at 1128 East Heim Avenue, the southeast corner parcel at Hayford Street NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.There was no opposition to this item and the public hearing was opened.Warren Williams is a Civil Enqineer with Development Resource Consultants. 1820 East First Street #550.Santa Ana, and is also a member of St Paul's Lutheran Church, He stated a need has shown itself for infant care up to the young two program, The Church has acquired the single family residence at the corner of Heim and Hayford, which is directly to the west of the Church, This is an ideal location for the infant care center and they are requesting a conditional use permit to convert the house to this type of use. They propose to integrate the two facilities and playgrounds. There will be no direct access off of Heim or Hayford to the infant care facility. The driveway will be removed at the residence and fencing will be put up around both street frontages. They do not anticipate an increase of traffic because the center will be used by parents and staff already using the pre-school. They propose Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 infants, 12 1-year olds and 12 2-year olds for a total of 33 children. And, this will not be an all-day care center, There will never be 33 children there at once, It is also proposed to change the architecture of the house to blend in with the existing church, but there will not be any elevation changes, The front yard is not intended to be used for a play area. They are working with an architect to tie the pre-school and infant care center together. He explained the parking situation, The infant care center is only open during the week, Parents are discouraged from parking on the street when dropping off and picking up their children, He did not know of any neighborhood meetings, nor has he talked to the surrounding neighbors about their plans, However, he has not heard of any opposition, He thinks the neighbors are happy to see the improvements to this lot The public hearing was closed,Vice Chair Smith asked staff about landscaping and architectural plans,Mr. Godlewski explained the property is in a residential zone and it is not in any of the special review districts, Therefore, it is not subject to review of the elevations or architecture of the structure, The Planning Commission is reviewing a site plan and use.The Commission agreed this is a good use and there has been no opposition, The Church meets all of the requirements and agrees to the conditions of approval.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2258-99, with conditions 1-9 listed in the staff report, finding that the expansion is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community, The pre-school expansion will not cause deterioration of bordering residential land uses or create special problems for the area in which the project site is located, It has been considered in relation to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located, including the City's General Plan. No specific or other special plans have been prepared or adopted for the area, This conditional use permit should be granted subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of this particular applicant. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton. Pruett. Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Minor Site Plan Review 71-99 with findings 1 through 6 contained in the staff report, AYES:NOES:A8SENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED 4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2281-99 - LAMPPOST PiZZA A request to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine in a new restaurant. The site is located at 1829 East Chapman Avenue,NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 Mr, Jones provided a memorandum to the Commission from the Police Department who does not object to a conditional use permit for Lamppost Pizza, There was no opposition; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was not presented, The public hearing was opened, Applicant. Jov Fitschen-Flvnn. 1829 East Chapman Avenue, said she and her husband presently own a Lamppost Pizza in Fountain Valley and are very excited to open a new Lamppost Pizza in Orange, The Lamppost Pizza chain strives to be a community-based. family-oriented restaurant. They are involved with youth and adult sports groups, churches, schools and civic groups, They have a good relationship with the Police in Fountain Valley and actively participate in a "safe drinking program" to educate the students about drinking. To date, they have not had any alcohol-related incidents at their store in Fountain Valley,Their alcohol sales is 10% of their gross sales, It is very minimal; however. it enhances their pizza business, The alcohol license only allows them to sell beer and wine on the premises, She has read the conditions of approval, including condition 3 - arcade games - and concurs with them,The public hearing was closed,It was noted this project is categorically exempt from CEQA review,MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett. seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2281-99, with conditions 1-15 listed in the staff report, finding that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community, The sale of alcoholic beverages is a necessary use to the serving of food, The conditional use permit will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located, It is positioned in a center that will benefit from this type of business. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located, In granting the conditional use permit, it is made subject to the conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particuiar applicant.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett. Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Smith stated the Police Department's memorandum references five ( 5) conditions, and they have been incorporated into the staff report.5. MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 88-99 - U.S, STORAGE CENTER A request to allow the development of a new 80,000 sq, ft self-storage facility. The site is located on the west side of Main Street and north of Trenton Avenue,NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.There was no opposition to this item and a staff presentation was waived,Mr. Jones stated a teller was received and given to the Commission from Thomas McLane. Assistant Manger of KMEP Orange Terminal. He identified that there may be some minimum distance requirements that the facility may need to adhere to based on Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 Mr. Godlewski said this letter is in reference to the adjacent land owner who is in the business of storing large quanfities of flammable liquids and their concern is with the setback requiremenfs from their facility to the proposed use, They are calling out that there are some fire codes that need to be adhered to, and these will be addressed by the City's Fire Department and the applicant of the mini storage, as well as Kinder Morgan, The pUblic hearing was opened. Applicant. Jamie AIi. West port Properties. Inc.. 2727 Newport Boulevard #210. Newport Beach, proposes a self-storage facility on an irregularly shaped parcel of land, The property is currently vacant and they feel this would be a good use for the site, Some pipeline easements cut through the property, as well as access ways for emergency vehicles, They have not read the letter in question; however. they have met other setback requirements of the Fire Department They will investigate the Uniform Fire Code and work with the Fire Department to make sure they are meeting all requirements. They have read the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. He referred to condition 9 and asked for modification, As it is worded,it would prohibit circulation of air through the units, Also, the condition mentions non- removal fasteners.They would like to work with staff to come up with a solution because they don't have another approved fastener in the industry for the partition walls. To control rodents. they employ services of a pest control company on a regular basis.The public hearing was closed.Vice Chair Smith asked staff to comment on condition 9,Mr. Godlewski said staff's concern was one of safety of the individual storage units, They are not opposed to alternative methods to allow ventilation as long as it meets the fire and building/safety codes, In terms of the non-removal fasteners, it is staff's concern to not have the walls removed or allow access to adjacent units, Removing walls is not the intent of the storage facility, Two separate units would be rented rather than taking out walls.Commissioner Pruett clarified that the Commission is making a determination on a major site plan review process, And, a decision shall be based on site planning, traffic circulation. and building design, rather than land use issues. The issue raised by Kinder Morgan is outside of what the Commission is considering. It is a fire and building code issue that will be addressed when a building permit is pulled, He wants the applicant to realize that the Commission's action is not addressing the issue that is raised in the letter,The Commission discussed the proposed development for the Katella Corridor and wondered if this particular parcel had been included in the Corridor. Staff responded this property was not included in fhe Katella Corridor, Only the properties that fronted onto Katella Avenue would be included,The Commission felt this was an appropriate use for the site. Ingress and egress is going to be restricted.And, the applicant recognizes the unresolved issue,It was noted the project is categorically exempt from Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Major Site Plan Review 88-99, with conditions 1 through 15, modifying condition 9 to state: "All interior walls of the storage unit and facility shall be designed and constructed to provide security between storage units and constructed so that no part can be dismantled or removed," The project will not cause any deterioration of neighboring land uses, The project conforms to City of Orange development standards, applicable design guidelines and specific plan requirements. It will not cause any significant negative environmental impact. On and off site circulation is adequate to support the project City services are available and adequate to serve the project. The project is compatible with community aesthetics. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 6. APPEAL NO, 460 - RANDY G, CUDWORTH, APPELLANT - RE: MINOR SITE PLAN 89-99 - LUND UN CONSTRUCTION SERViCES The appellant is appealing the Staff Review Committee's approval of a request to convert an existing residence in to general office use. The property is zoned C-2 (General Business District), The site is located at 232 West Lincoln Avenue, Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, reported the initial proposal was a Minor Site Plan Review application to convert an existing residence to a commercial use, The staff processed the application to review for adequate parking for the proposed use. The applicant is aware that they need to upgrade the building to provide accessibility throughout the structure including an access ramp and to widen doors. There also needs to be a division wall constructed between the commercial use and any adjacent residentiai functions, The application. according to the City's guidelines for grading plan requirements and design criteria was exempt from requirements to prepare a hydrology report or grading plan because it is a small lot and a small development One of the adjacent property owners is concerned that paving the back portion of the lot would increase storm water run oft. The property now is sloped so that all drainage flows to the rear of the site and onto the appellant's property, The staff report notes that the drainage flows across a series of properties, east to Glassell Street, and from there. south on GlasselL The appellant has asked that no increased flow be permitted, That either the terrain of the site be changed or modified so that drainage flows out to Lincoln Avenue, or that a new drainage point be created to the west of the site to drain into the adjacent mobile home park's drainage canal. which is a private drainage system. Or. that a pump be installed to pump water back up onto Lincoln, Staff doesn't regard any of these solutions as feasible. The City does not own rights to require that drainage be increased into the mobile home park property, Pumps are also impractical because they require a lot of maintenance and they are inclined to fail. To change the terrain of the property would require a great amount of import to increase the elevation of the property by about six 6) feet at the rear property line so that it would slope out to Lincoln Avenue, Staff did a quick estimate and found that during a 25-year storm, the storm water run off might be increased by as much as ,8 cubic feet per second onto the appellant's property, The original applicant, Mr. Luna, already has drainage rights established by common law, and the City does not want to interfere with the existing course of drainage in the vicinity,Staff took action at their meeting on March 17, 1999 to approve this request subject to the conditions,which are listed in the staff report, Staff is also recommending three (3) more that are routine for any item that is heard by the Planning Commission, Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 Vice Chair Smith wanted to know what the status of this type of land issue is, The area is in the Olive Hills region, How is the drainage handled in other situations, Mr. Cudworth's objection is that the pavement will cause additional run off, Mr, Donovan said the south side of Lincoln slopes to the back of all the lots, Drainage is a common problem in the area, It is dealt with in a passive manner where the City asks developers to resolve those problems as development proceeds along the street In this particular case, there are local problems, The mobile home park is collecting some drainage from Lincoln Avenue, Each area needs to be studied, The Engineering staff breaks down the area according to the topography and where the water drains. There used to be an orange orchard in the back yard, The trees were removed over time and now there is an open yard without any improvements. The home was owned by an elderly woman and the property was recently sold to Mr. Luna. The public hearing was opened, Appellant. Randv Cu<lworth. 6230 Brvce, said his parents live to the east of the property in question at 218 West Lincoln Avenue, The orange grove was removed in the early 60's and the few remaining trees were torn out a couple of weeks ago. He did not object to the house being converted to commercial use; it's just the drainage at the back of the property, It is going to flow onto his parents' property and will continue flowing east. Trash and debris clogs the drains and becomes a nuisance, All of the water on Lincoln flows into a catch basin between the mobile home park and this property, and flows into a private culvert, flowing south onto Dunton, There is no place to put the water and now is the time to make improvements, He has spoken with City staff about this problem and he was told they base their decision on riparian rights which is the same as common rights. Riparian rights has nothing to do with commercial property as far as drainage, He has asked for the section of code that pertains to riparian rights. but he has not received this information, He didn't think it was the property owner's responsibility to accept water on any new development of adjacent property owners, Two (2) people spoke in support of the appeal Dan Jacobson, owns the mobile home park on Lincoln Avenue, Dean Wifz is the assistant manager of the mobile home park, The park was built from an orange grove in 1958, At that time it was in the County of Orange, They put in their own drainage ditch on the east side and they've had problems with it for many years. They asked the City to help with the drainage ditch, but they haven't received any help. The water needs to be controlled in some way, When the mobile home park was built, the fences were put in six (6) inches inside the property line, The new concrete drainage ditch has been put in right up against the fence and it extends six (6) inches onto their property, both in the back and front. There are two block wall fences without expansion joints, There will be a problem with expansion and contraction, The concrete needs to be cut back to the property line, They also anticipate complaints about dust Two (2) people spoke aqainst the appeal Esiquio Luna, owns the property at 232 West Lincoln. Jose Castro is the engineer for the proposed project The applicant followed all of the City's requirements to improve the property, The water has been draining to the east for over 60 years, He will saw cut the concrete and give the mobile home park the six (6) inches, He apologized because he thought the fence was the property line, Mr, Cudworth asked staff to give him the section of code which addresses riparian water rights, The public hearing was closed, Vice Chair Smith clarified this property is exempt from a grading permit. 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 Mr. Liang said it is common for a natural drainage system to flow to the rear of the properties, Because the street system is built this way, it is hard to drain, It is equally difficult to regrade all the properties along the street and direct the water drainage in an opposite direction, The frontage of the parcels is much higher than the backside, Each resident needs to clear their drains of trash and debris on a regular basis, He is not aware of City water flowing onto the properties, Mr. Donovan said there was a culvert in Lincoln Avenue that collects storm water in the gutter from both directions and drains into the private channel that the mobile home park constructed on its own, Engineering staff says the land north of the mobile home park was draining south onto the site and the situation was accommodated as development occurred in the vicinity, He also heard that there may be storm water draining onto the applicant's site, but staff feels with the construction of a new curb and gutter, the apron will be lifted slightly to maintain a more level edge to Lincoln Avenue, There may be less water draining onto the applicant's development. Vice Chair Smith asked for a response on the riparian rights. Ms, Binning stated riparian rights is a very specific term of art, It is her understanding that riparian rights normally refers to rights to take water. She thought this is more in line with a drainage easement. Everyone seems to agree that for years and years water drains to the back and water drains to the east. This is an issue among property owners and the City would not have to explain easement rights among private property owners. Damage from water from one property to the other is in the nature of a trespass and that is between the property owners, Commissioner Pruett said the appellant wants to restrict, reduce or limit the water flow from the adjacent property. However, you can't interfere with the water flow rights that are granted from the standpoint of moving water across property because it is established, There is no trespass as long as that easement has been established. The appellant's request for an appeal really doesn't have grounds, And, the Commission is discussing issues that are not related to the Minor Site Plan Review, Vice Chair Smith didn't see it that way. When property owners have circumsfances on their property which impact their neighbors. the City looks at it In this case, the appellant is concerned about water. She understands this has been a traditional problem, but wanted to make sure all concerns were addressed since the appellant asked for clarification on riparian rights, She knows there is a flooding problem on Lincoln Avenue and it concerns her that it is not being attended to. She heard Mr, Luna say that he was willing to correct the situation with the cement up to the neighbor's wall. Commissioner Pruett agreed the fence, cement and drainage is a property line issue and it's something the Building Division needs to look at. He sees the issue as one of a drainage easement. It's an agreement between the property owners and needs to be resolved among them. The City should not be involved in this issue. Commissioner Carlton agreed; it's incumbent upon the property owners to make sure their drains are cleared, The appellant may want to contact the property owners and try to work out an agreement to ensure that the water will flow down to the Glassell Street drain, Vice Chair Smith disagrees in the fact that the City controls the building standards on the property, which affect the flow of the water. The City has some responsibility by the code in directing the flow of water. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett. seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to deny Appeal 460 and support the Staff Review Committee's approval of Minor Site Plan Review 89-99, with conditions 1 through 5, and adding conditions 6, 7 and 8, AYES: NOES: ABSENT:CommisSioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 1999 Vice Chair Smith agreed with the motion because it is not the responsibility of Mr. Luna, who has received approval for his project, to control the solution for the entire block. Vice Chair Smith also proposed to the neighbors that if the water drainage across the properties continues to be a problem. to bring this problem to the City and consult with the City Engineers to look at the drainage situation. Commissioner Pruett suggested that the neighbors work together to try and resolve the problems as a group, The design of the drainage with the silt basin is one step the property owner is taking to try and keep the drainage open, It is also going to be the responsibility of that property owner to make sure the silt basin is cleaned out periodically, IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn at 9:00 p,m, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED sld 9