Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-1999 PC MinuteslSS/0 Qc-~~-L)(l,(}..,:2. 3 MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange February 17, 1999 Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett Commissioners Romero, Smith C:) e- i G Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary jP:,; :'~( 1 J J" r. I~} -,CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 1, 1999.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of February 1, 1999. AYES:NOES:ABSENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2261-98 - DANBERG DEVELOPMENT (CHAPMAN STORAGE)A request to allow the construction of a 123,000 square foot self-storage facility. The site is located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Wayfield Street.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1584-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the December 7, 1998, December 21, 1998, January 4, 1999 and January 18, 1999 hearings.)There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened.Applicant, Dan Hunter, President of Danberq Development, 31831 Camino Capistrano #150, San Juan Capistrano, agreed with the staff report and asked for reconsideration of condition 3. They prefer not to return to the Design Review Board as they have been there a couple of times and have addressed all of their issues.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch, Commissioner Carlton and Commissioner Pruett each met with the representative of the applicant and the project architect to discuss the project prior to the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1999 Chairman Bosch has been concerned about this property for a long time. It's a very difficult site because access is so limited by proximity to the 55 Freeway and Wayfield Avenue. It appears that the plans for the freeway widening make this project even more buried by sound walls to the freeway. He had hoped there might be a way to make this more of a viable and visible commercial site for retail, but there isn't a way. There has been no opportunity to combine the parcel with surrounding property because of ownerships and street right-of-way. The project has been modified in response to the principle concerns of the DRB,it reflects a need in the area and responds well to a buried site. He supports the project and finds it to be a good one.Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with the project either. Traffic will be limited because of the right turn only onto Chapman. The site is not viable for other types of uses. The applicant's request to modify condition 3 regarding review of their building elevations and landscape plans is not a problem.Staff can review the final plans.Commissioner Carlton referred to the letter the Commission received from the owner of the shopping center directly to the west. She did not know if this project would obscure the visibility of the shopping center for people coming off the freeway.The Commission discussed the visibility issues and did not think the project would create a problem.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Negative Declaration 1584-98, including the initial study and comments received during the public review process, finding that there is not substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources; and approve Conditional Use Permit 2261-98 with conditions 1-15, as noted in the staff report, but delete condition 3, finding that the plans submitted for Planning Commission action fulfill the intent of the recommendation of the Design Review Board. And, find that this permit is granted based upon sound principles of land use. It is in response to services required by the community. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for its area. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for its area. And, it has been granted subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant.AYES:NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED 3. VARIANCE 2059-99 - TOM AMBUEHL A request to allow: (1) the garage roof height to exceed 10 feet within 5 feet of the side or rear property lines, (2) a 10% reduction in setback distance between accessory structures, and (3) a reduction of required parking dimension of 1 '-4" garage width and 4" garage depth. The site is located at 172 North Shaffer.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1587-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the January 4, 1999 hearing.)There was no opposition to this item. The Commission noted they had received copies of the Design Review Board's Minutes of December 2, 1998. The public hearing was opened.Adam Hustead, Hustead Construction, P.O. Box 595, Rim Forest, is the contractor on the job and represented the applicant. They have made some changes in the design of the garage and have taken Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1999 Commissioner Carlton wanted to know how the owner would maintain the west side of the garage with only 1 1/2 feet of space. Mr. Hustead responded maintenance would be done carefully because it is very tight. Commissioner Pruett questioned the water run off on the south side of the structure. He thought it might be appropriate to install rain gutters along that side of the garage. Mr. Hustead is not opposed to installing a rain gutter. Chairman Bosch spoke about the small space between the two garages and wanted to know if they thought about maintenance for that area. Mr. Hustead said there was asphalt between the two garages. Public comments: Joan Crawford, 394 South Oranqe Street, questioned the setback distance in the negative declaration vs. the staff report. If this project is approved, there are mitigating factors and she wanted to know who would follow-up on this.Chairman Bosch said the original application asked for a reduction to 4'-9", but it has been modified to 5'-4". Building code requirements must be met relative to fire walls.Mr. Jones responded that Dan Ryan will follow-up on the project to make sure the structure is built in accordance with the approvals. The mitigation measure is that the applicant complies with the Old Towne Design Standards.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Carlton thought the installation of the rain gutter is also needed on the south side.The Commission discussed the installation of the gutter because there is no fascia. The gutter would need to have straps that are nailed back under the shingles, and rest against the ends of the rafters.Chairman Bosch said without the variance there is a hardship of putting a replacement garage in non-conformance with the Design Standards or not being able to build one The strict application of the ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. By not approving the variance, the City would lose the Design Standards and then would have an over building on the site, and lose the historical context of the buildings and that would be a denial of the privilege of conforming to the historic standard within the District.Commissioner Carlton read in the December 2, 1998 Minutes of the Design Review Board Meeting where they talk about the project proposing the use of wood materials. But, the conditions say materials, colors and finishes to be compatible with the existing bungalow, and its development consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. She thought they needed to be more specific.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1587-98, finding that it has been considered, including the initial study and comments received during the public review process, and finds there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources, given the conditions proposed as part of Variance 2059-99 and Administrative Adjustment 98-17, with conditions 1- 6, as outlined in the staff report, adding condition 7 to require the installation of a rain gutter on the south side of the new garage with the down spout at the east end to the driveway, to offset the Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1999 setbacks and eliminate potential damage to adjacent properties and structures; and to amend condition 3 to include that the project shall use wood windows and doors, including wood lap siding with mitered corners; roofing material, trim and colors to match the existing primary residence, not the later secondary residence in the rear yard, as indicated in the Design Review Board Minutes of December 2, 1998. Finding that with the approval of the variance and application of the conditions of approval, the project would conform to the requirements of the Old Towne Design Standards. Special circumstances do apply to the property due to its location within the National Registered Historic District and the application of the Old Towne Design Standards would not be possible under the strict application of the zoning ordinance, and therefore, the property would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and same zone without the variance. The variance is granted based on conditions to assure that the adjustment will not be a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with limitations on other properties. The granting of the administrative adjustment request is made because the reduction in standards will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working on the propertyandinthevicinity. And, the approval does not compromise the intent of the zoning ordinance, based upon the application of conditions and conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED 4. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPEAL NO. 454 (RE: VARIANCE 2058-98); DRB APPEAL NO. 1-99 RE: DRB 3391) - FORD OF ORANGE The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's denial of: (1) a free-standing sign 59 feetinheightand249squarefeetinsize, and (2) on-site directional signs that range from 13 square feetto20squarefeetinsize. The site is located at 1350 East Katella Avenue.This item was continued from the February 1, 1999 hearing.)Staff provided the Commission with a copy of Ford Motor Company's standards regarding their elevations and sign monument. The Commission also received a faxed memorandum from Councilman Alvarez with regard to the appeal.The public hearing was opened.Applicant, Brian Hesketh, 230 South Main Street, is the General Manager, Vice- President and Partner of Ford of Orange. He explained why they were requesting the variance for their dealership. The directional signage is a safety issue. By having signage that is large enough for people to see, would add to the safety of the people trying to enter their lot. They do not believe that a 13 squarefootsignislargeenough, and they are requesting a 21 square foot sign. There is a total of three ( 3) entrance signs. And,he prefers to keep the signs as close to the street as he can get them. The DRB didnotliketheirpole,lawn mounted sign and they asked that a base be built. Coming east bound on Katella, the street curves and people cannot see their business. They feel they are at a disadvantage if the heightofthesignstaysat35feet. The Nissan dealership next door to them has a sign that is higher than40feet. Orange Empire has a 45 foot high sign. Selman Chevrolet is at 60 feet. Villa Ford is in excess of 40 feet. The height of their sign helps them sell cars. The top of their building is 37 feet tall. Their request for a59foothighpolesignisbaseduponthepoleheightof50feet. The additional footage is the actual sign. Their building is on eight (8) acres; it is a massive building and the height of the signage is in scale with the building.The public Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1999 Commissioner Pruett stated a variance needs to have legal findings. The directional signage is not the issue, but the free-standing sign is a concern when looking at current code requirements. He also believes the size of the project doesn't necessarily dictate the size of the sign.Chairman Bosch noted the signage of other business establishments have been in place since before the current ordinance was adopted. He wanted to know what the hardship is in this particular case. He would rather have the signage meet the ordinance, but he notes a majority of the similar uses in similar zones in the City relative to car dealerships that have higher signs. He is uncomfortable in granting approval of a sign that is almost 60 feet tall.Commissioner Pruett suggested allowing Ford of Orange maintain their current height of 40 feet that they enjoy at their current location. This might be a reasonable alternative whereas it is not setting a precedent of special privilege.Commissioner Carlton did not believe 40 feet was high enough. They need some latitude and she felt a 50 foot sign would not be a problem for the new location. She also thought the process needed to be changed to include review of sign age at the same time as the land use.Chairman Bosch stated the ordinance allows a 15 foot high sign. And, the Zoning Administrator granted a variance to 35 feet. He was more comfortable with a 40 foot sign because it would be supportable under the findings. He was concerned about setting a precedent. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve Appeal No. 454 RE: Variance 2058-98) and approve the free-standing height of 40 feet with the square footage of the sign not to exceed the existing square footage of the Main Street location. And, approve the directional signs, at the maximum size of 160 square feet allowed by code (or the size of the existing directional signs) with a 15 foot setback on Katella Avenue for the two signs; and a 11 foot setback on Main Street for the one sign. And, approve the Design Review Board Appeal 1-99 (RE: ORB 3391) which indicates the color and texture of the base of the directional signs to match the building, and delete ORB's requirement to add a base to the free-standing sign to match the existing base of the directional signs. Finding that because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the relocation of this facility from the Main Street location to its new location is driven by the City's redevelopment and widening of Main Street and that the applicant should be able to maintain the signage they had at their previous location, which does not grant any special privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or provide a special grant to the applicant. It is made subject to the conditions that will ensure that the authorized adjustments shall not grant a special privilege and it is not inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the zone.AYES: NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett Commissioner Carlton Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones advised the applicant of his right to appeal the Commission's action to the City Council.IN RE:NEWHEARING 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2272-98 - EL CONEJO, INC. (TACO CO.)A request to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine in an existing restaurant. The site is located at 1009 North Tustin.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.There was no opposition to this item. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1999 Applicant, Melissa Hernandez, 1009 North Tustin, requested a conditional use permit to allow the on- site sale of beer and wine at The Taco Company restaurant. They do not have plans to serve alcoholic beverages outside the building.The public hearing was closed.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 2272-98, with conditions 1-15 as 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. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located,and it has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which the site is located. It is made subject to the conditions necessary topreservethegeneralwelfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to a study session on Monday, February 22, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss Old Towne review processes and use of substitute materials. The meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p. m. AYES:NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett None Commissioners Romero, Smith MOTION