Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-1999 PC MinutesCbss/c C!... ~ ~ -ex;, G-. :). 3 MINLJTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: March 1, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith Commissioners Carlton, Romero Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary j CONSENT CALENDAR lr'''''-, ... T J ;-:... 1< j . lJ 1. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 17, 1999.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Minutes of February 17, 1999. AYES:NOES:ABSTAINED: ABSENT: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett None Commissioner Smith Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-98, ZONE CHANGE 1196-98, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15680 &MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 76-99 - GREYSTONE HOMES A request to change the land use and zoning designations of 5.7 acres of property and allow a development of 78 residential condominium units in a gated community with a private recreation center.The site is located at the southeast corner of Heim Avenue and Canal Street, and is presently zoned for commercial development.NOTE: Negative 8eclaration 1560-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. An addendum was also prepared to address project revisions since November 16, 1998. This item was continued from the November 16, 1998 and February 1, 1999 hearings.) Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, reported that changes to the project have been subtle. The Commission had concerns about the fact the proposal was only drawing access from Canal Street. There was a remaining concern about the location of the EI Modena earthquake fault, and specifically with the project's architecture. and there was discussion that the pedestrian circulation system on the site needed some attention. There were also some questions about the fencing. Staff is recommending that access remain only limited to Canal Street. They had some functional concerns about a secondary access point on what will become a future four-lane roadway on Heim. Another concern is that there is a temptation that Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 or guests may park on some of the existing streets across the way, where there is already a shortage of parking. And, on-street parking is in high demand. Staff has reviewed the information from the State' s Office of Geology and Mines and looked at a map that showed the El Modena fault perhaps crossing the southern edge of this property, but more likely on the Mall of Orange property, where it terminates at Canal Street. Staff does not believe the map is clear enough in that mapped fault locations have differed by a quarter mile in other locations. The applicant has modified the parking area so that there is a minor cuI de sac giving people a clue that they have reached the end of the parking area and should turn around rather than drive down the intersecting driveways. There has been more information provided for the fencing.The applicant has indicated they would try a mixture of concrete block walls and wrought iron fencing. The wrought iron fencing would be providing a view where there is a public walk way, but the block walls would be reserved for where there are private areas that needed more seclusion from the publicright-of-way.There is a net loss of two spaces for guest parking; however, the applicant still exceeds the City's requirement by 17. And, the applicant still provides well beyond the open space requirement.The pUblic hearing was opened.Applicant, DouQlas Woodward, 26 Executive Park #100, Irvine, represented Greystone Homes. He recapped their proposed project of 78 attached homes on 5.7 acres of property. A short slide show was presented. A site plan was given to the Commission showing the loop street design. This type of design causes the project to lose open space and puts parking where it should not be. The garages would also be lined up together in a row. They propose to put in a cui de sac at the end of the street. They still believe the entrance on Canal is best. It will act as a buffer between the new community and Mr. Rios'home. He talked about the proposed fencing material, the Eucalyptus trees, pedestrian access, and the earthquake fault.Public comments:2 people spoke in favor of the proiect Anton Marinkovich, 1785 Kimbark Lane.Karen Peters, 2525 North Bourbon Street #M2.They believe in this project. The housing stock leans towards first time home buyers and the price is reasonable. The new homes will increase property values of the surroundingneighborhoods. The spine street circulation is the right design; a loop street will not work on the site. They support the Canal Street entry.10 people were opposed to the proiect Robert Olson, 5660 East Calle Canada, Anaheim.Gary Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street.Diane Nowak, 2541 North Bortz Street.Pastor Ron Martin, 1895 North Shattuck.Robert Blethrow, 723 East Elizabeth Drive.Rondii McCorkle, 710 East Elizabeth Drive.Mara Brandman, 7319 Equitation Way, Orange Park Acres.Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer.Cristina Sundstrom, 3004 Marywood Lane.Mary Woodhouse, 2530 North Bortz Street.They were opposed to the project because they did not believe this was the best use for the land. There will be increased traffic and parking problems. The medium density housing is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Emergency access was questioned. The traffic impacts have not been adequately addressed. Some residents felt commercial development would not impact the lot in a negative manner. Crime will increase in the area because of a gatedcommunity. The existing church/school was encouraged to expand and develop the site. The developer was asked to Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 potential development of land out in the Sully Miller area and Orange Park Acres. There is not much open space and the project does not blend in with the surrounding area. Orange Unified School District is over crowded and the project will impact the schools. The City will be liable for any movement caused by the earthquake fault. Aoolicant's resoonse Mr. Woodward answered all questions that were raised. Greystone Homes will be paying developer fees, based on the size of the homes that are built. Those fees are designed to assist the school in either building more classrooms or schools. The OUSD is not opposing the proposed project. There are a total of 189 parking spaces and he broke down the required number of parking spaces and guest parking. They have met the City's parking requirements. There are emergency access gates with a knox box on each gate. All emergency vehicles carry keys to open these gates, or there is an access code to get in. He believes the low-medium density zoning designation is a proper transition for the property. The aesthetics are pleasant and blend in with the area. With this project, they are providing people a choice of buying an older home or a new condominium.Joe Faust, Austin Faust Associates, 2020 North Tustin, Santa Ana, prepared the traffic study for this project. The study includes the volume of traffic that the project will generate. There will not be a significant impact of traffic on Heim or Canal. If this site were to be developed for retail use, there could be as much as four to six times more traffic.Bob Mickelson, P.O. Box 932, described the Standard Pacific project at the top of the ridge at Via Escola and Cannon. There are six almost identical dead-end private streets and they function quite well. Beazer Homes has two in the Rock Creek project. He didn't believe 150 feet was excessive to look down and see that there is no turn around, and there is no guest parking.Commissioner Pruett would like to see interlocking pavers in a circular pattern to identify the cui de sac.Mr. Woodward was most agreeable to that.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith said there was a statement from the City Traffic Engineer in the staff report as to the suggestion of a secondary exit required on Heim in that staff does not support such a requirement and advises against it.Mr. Hohnbaum stated they would like to discourage all parking along Heim. Even though the site adjacent to the development will be restricted for such parking, there is nothing that restricts people from parking on the other side or up into the neighborhoods. Heim will be posted with "No Parking" signs.Commissioner Pruett agreed with staff's recommendation on the Heim Avenue issue. A Heim entrance would create problems and cause a safety issue. He thought the pedestrian movement through the site has been greatly improved. It provides more security on the north side. He wanted to see traffic circulation in a loop approach, but in looking at the site plan, he could see they would lose quite a bit of open space. The cui de sac approach is a good one, especially given the concept of putting the pavers in. The project meets all requirements. He questioned if they were still considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration. He did not believe the site would ever be developed for commercial use and felt the zone change is appropriate.Commissioner Smith is please with Greystone Homes' revisions to their proposal. The number of units has been drastically reduced. She liked the improved circulation plan. Every item the Commission asked the developer to address, has been addressed and improved. She thinks this proposal is a good use for this piece of property. It is a less intense use than the commercial use that it is zoned for, which would draw much more traffic. The open space has been expanded and it is centrally located. She likes Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 extra parking and how the developer worked with Mr. Rios, who retains his property. She believes this is a sensitive plan, which is more than adequate for the site. Chairman Bosch shared appreciation for the work the developer has done to improve the community plan, and the attempt to provide a pedestrian walkway tied to the usable open space. He's disappointed, but accepts the professional opinion of the City Traffic Engineer with regard to accessibility off of Heim. He disagreed that condominiums or gated communities cause crime. He shared the concern that there may be other uses for the land that would be better. However, there is a specific application before the Commission. He appreciates the developer working with the Rios family in retaining their residence. But, he had concern with the layout of the site. He still believes there are too many units on the property. Mr. Donovan responded to the question regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There were three mitigation measures attached to the initial Negative Declaration, all affecting the development of the Rios parcel. One was that there be a perimeter wall developed along the side and rear lot lines. Secondly, that there would be some measure of dust control to protect that parcel during the construction phase. And, the third one applied to the second story windows on the initial architectural proposal. However, that is no longer necessary because the recreation center is abutting that parcel. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 1560-98, in that the project will not have any potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 2-98 as it is consistent with the General Plan. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch voted in favor of the General Plan Amendment because he believed that within the low-medium density residential range, there is a potential for a residential project on this site that could accommodate the concerns he expressed.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1196-98, from C-TR (Limited Business District) to R- 3 ( Multiple Family Residential).AYES: NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Smith Commissioner Bosch Commissioners Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 MOTION . Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 15680, finding that the map is consistent with the General Plan and the site is suitable for residential development. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or cause any other environmental problems in the area. The project will not cause any serious public health problems. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Smith Commissioner Bosch Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Major Site Plan Review 76-99, with conditions 1 through 34, and adding condition 35 to require the enhanced pavement in the cui de sac area at the east end of the project. The Commission finds that the project will not cause deterioration to the surrounding residential and commercial land uses, and conforms to the residential development standards and applicable special design guidelines for specific plan requirements. It will not cause any significant negative environmental impacts as proposed by Negative Declaration 1560-98. On- and off-site circulation is adequate to support the project, and services are available and adequate to serve the project. The project is compatible with the community aesthetics. AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Smith Commissioner Bosch Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones advised the audience that this is a recommendation to the City Council. It will be heard within the next 60 days and people will be notified of the hearing date.3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2267-98 - ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A request to allow construction of five residences to be rented as affordable housing. The site is located at 320 South Hewes Street and 4431 East Marmon Avenue.NOTE:Negative Declaration 1588-98 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the February 1, 1999 hearing.)Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. On February 1, 1999 this item was continued because of concerns raised with the proposed site plan, access to the garage units, and lack of usable open space. The Commission felt that the proposal could better serve the neighborhood if it were reduced from six units to five units. In response to the Commission's concerns and comments, the applicant revised the site plan. They have added a playground area near the intersection of Hewes and Marmon, which is fenced off. They increased the area within the court yard that allows easier access to the garage units. They've moved the easterly building a little to the south, and increased the building setback from the northerly property line. The westerly building is the same as it was on the original site plan, and the architectural style on the proposal is the same as it was originally. The revised proposal conforms to the City's General Plan requirements for an affordable housing project in that it has a minimum 25 percent density bonus. The applicant is not asking for any exceptions to the City' s zoning ordinance on development standards. The revised proposal does not change the Negative Declaration that was presented at the February 1 meeting.The public Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 Applicant. Eunice Bobert, Chief Executive Officer for the Oranqe Housinq Development Corporation, 217 East Chapman Avenue, said they revised their site plan and reduced the number of units to five. Additional usable open space was created to allow a tot lot/playground area. This also reduced the vehicle access to the garages. OHDC's Board of Directors recommended eliminating a 3-bedroom unit rather than a 2-bedroom unit. They also are considering a fence along the perimeter of the property in order to maximize the usable open space. One of the Board members attempted to meet with the neighbors who expressed concern at the previous meeting.Gary Collins, proiect architect, 414 West Stevens, Santa Ana, pointed out the changes they have made.Parking access has improved by opening up the parking court. They opened up one side of the property by removing one unit, and added a tot lot. The elevations will remain the same.Commissioner Pruett did not understand why they didn't remove the unit in the back corner of the property to help site circulation. He believed Unit E was the most problematic on the site.Mr. Collins responded they did not want circulation in that corner. What drives the issue is the density.3 people spoke in favor of the proiect Barry Cottle, 928 North Highland Street.Robert Torres, 4525 Agua Way.Janice Mickelson, P.O. Box 932.Orange Housing Development Corporation manages all of their projects very efficiently. OHDC is a long-term owner and they have strong, fair management policies. The concerns that were voiced previously have been addressed in the revised site plan. More housing is needed for the area. This is a good project and it will be an asset to the community. The speakers urged the approval of this project.3 people were opposed to the proiect Mary Adams, 4428 East Justice Circle.Roland Adams, 4428 East Justice Circle.Derrik Sciarra, 4417 Marmon Avenue.The speakers opposed the project because it is changing a neighborhood of single family homeowners to apartment renters. Pride of ownership is being changed and this is a disturbing trend. They did not want stucco boxes looking down into the existing neighborhood. Density is a very big concern. To build a new two-story apartment complex is not necessary. There will be increased noise and the view of the mountains will be taken away. The intersection of Marmon and Hewes is very narrow and access onto Marmon is not acceptable. Applicant's response Mr. Bobert explained their intent of offering affordable housing in Orange. The County' s median income for a household of four people is $68,300. They take pride of ownership in all of their properties and projects. They encouraged everyone to look at their existing units.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch was pleased with the reduction of the one unit. The previous proposal was over built with six units. All of the development standards for residential development in the zoning district are being met by this project. He's concerned about what impact upon the neighbors any development on the site will have. He requested that the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department look at the intersection of Marmon and Hewes to see if traffic controls are adequate, or if something needs to be done because of the acute angle of the intersection. The tot lot in the front has much less potential noise Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 neighbors adjacent to the site. The garages have much better circulation than they had before, even though it is a little tight in the back. The two stories could be built on the site regardless of whether it is single family or multi- family.Commissioner Smith was pleased to see one unit was dropped in order to enhance the quality of the remaining units. The tot lot is an absolute necessity. She had concerns about it being out on the busy corner, although on the site, it seems to be the most logical place for it. She would be in favor of fencing for safety reasons. She recommends the placement of mature trees on the site to mitigate the density of the project. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1588-98, 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 2267-98, with conditions 1 through 8, and modify condition 4 A. "Two units shall be rented to low- income households and three units shall be rented to moderate-income households." The Commission finds that the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. To wit, with regard to the zoning and general plan designation for the property in question meet the development standards for the property with the allowances for the affordable housing. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for its area by the nature of the design, reducing the number of driveways on the street, and maximizing removal of the main driveway from the intersection of Hewes Avenue, by containing the outdoor recreation space with fencing that is within the height requirements of the City, by providing on-site recreation space for children and residents of the property, and by providing setbacks in excess of those required for a substantial portion of the perimeter of the property while keeping the design within the height and overall setback, floor area ratio and density requirements for the property, subject to the allowances by State law under affordable housing. That it has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which it is located with regard to the zoning and general plan. And, it has been made subject to conditions that are necessary to be placed upon the property to preserve the general welfare,not the individual welfare of the applicant. The plan provides an affordable, quality living environment for very low income and low income households as defined within the 80% median level for the County of Orange. It fulfills a demand for affordable housing not provided by the existing stock, and conforms to the Housing Element. It has adequate service to the site for all public utilities without impacting the capacities to deliver services to existing development in the area. It will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volume, school enrollment, or recreational resources since it does provide on-site recreational resources. It will provide by an agreement with the School District necessary assistance with regard to school enrollment. It meets the zoning for the site and therefore, does not propose traffic volumes or school enrollment greater than that allowed or anticipated by the general plan of zoning for the area. The work necessary to provide density and additional incentives do achieve the affordability of the units and are necessary to do so without imposing undue financial hardship on the City or adversely affecting surrounding properties, or the public, health, safety and welfare. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 9:10 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2259-98 - RICHARD ANDERSON (BURGER KING) A request to allow construction and operation of a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru lane. The project includes the demolition of a residence. The site is located at 4402 East Chapman Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332.A staff report was not presented as there was no opposition.The public hearing was opened.Applicant, Rick Anderson, 128 South Glassell, is the architect for this project. They have worked with Design Review to come up with a pleasing elevation that blends in with the neighborhood. Signage will be provided to address the parking and traffic circulation.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith thought the vacant property has been an eyesore for many years. Although a fast food restaurant is not always considered to be the highest and best use, at least with the changing times,it is probably appropriate for Chapman Avenue where there are a number of other establishments of the same nature.Mr. Hohnbaum clarified condition 4. The condition provides for "exit" only turns. The condition may be construed that it could be used for exit and does not necessarily preclude entrance.Chairman Bosch stated that historically he has not been a fan of drive-up windows and drive thrus. They often cause congestion and pollution. However, they are required to be competitive in this market. His key concern is to look at the rules for drive up lanes and the windows to make sure they are not causing a detriment. The applicant has done a good job to get the best possible queuing distance and drive up space available. His only concern has been the possible mix of traffic of people parking and backing up since the access is off of Park Street. He recommends a condition for additional stripping and signage to make sure people understand that they are crossing into a one way drive to back out and return the other way.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2259-98 with conditions 1 through 15, modifying condition 4, "The driveway onto Chapman Avenue shall be used for exiting the site only; no entrance, with right turn only exiting onto Chapman Avenue." And add to condition 3, "The applicant proposes additional stripping and signage at the east central portion of the site to further delineate the separation of the two-way drive aisle from the single lane exit way, subject to the approval of Planning and Public Works." The Commission finds that it is an appropriate use for this piece of property based on sound principles of land use. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses. The project has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community. It is not granted for any individual's welfare, but rather to preserve the general welfare of the community.AYES:NOES:ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2273-99 - DENNIS MONTGOMERY A request to allow construction of an accessory second dwelling unit in a single-family residential zone.The site is located at 1143 East Taft Avenue.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303.Jim Donovan, Senior Planner, presented the full reading of the staff report as there was opposition to this item. An accessory second unit is defined by California Government Code and City regulations as a fully independent residential unit, limited in size to a range between 450 to 640 square feet. According to the City's regulations, they may be attached to a primary residence or detached as a separate building. But, in either case, the City was required to adopt regulations that would allow this type of use in a R-1 zone either as a permitted use, or through a conditional use permit process. The City opted for the conditional use permit and the regulations were changed to allow people to apply for this type of unit. The Montgomery's have applied to construct an unit that would be the maximum 640 square feet. It would include a separate bath and kitchen facility, and it is a detached structure that is limited to one story, separated from the main residence by a distance of 14 feet. It complies with all of the City's zoning standards for the R- 1 zone. The only additional parking required is one extra parking space. The applicants are proposing one unenclosed space in an existing circular driveway, which has two entrances on Taft Avenue. This lot is somewhat unusual in that it is on an arterial street and it is surrounded by residential tracts. This property used to be part of a larger, agricultural site and is perhaps the only one in the neighborhood that fronts onto Taft Avenue. It has dual frontage because it goes through to Palmdale Avenue, which serves the development behind it. This lot is somewhat larger than the others in the area. The Montgomery's intend to use the unit for housing their elderly parents. The only restriction is that the property owner must live on the site in either the larger primary house, or the smaller unit. The code does not allow consideration of a mobile home, tent, trailer or other temporary structures to be used for an accessory second unit. There is an existing modular structure on the property. It looks like a very small storage or office use and is situated in the back yard.The public hearing was opened.Gus Orozco, 3 Lake, Irvine, is the architect representing the Montgomery's. They are proposing to construct a 640 square foot granny unit with one bedroom, a bathroom, kitchen and living room. It is intended to blend in with the existing home. The trailer in the back yard is intended to be used as an office during construction.6 people spoke in opposition to this proiect Kenneth Wire, 1750 North Silverwood.Gary Garrett, 1766 North Maplewood.Bernard DiNardo, 1048 East Palmdale.Edwin Bick, 1763 North Maplewood.Judith Reekston, 1741 North Maplewood.Ed Hainley, 1036 East Palmdale.Pictures were shared with the Commission regarding the Montgomery property. The primary house sits in the middle of the lot and a lot split could not be made. Neighbors were upset with the visual appearance of the property. Six or seven cars are always parked on the driveway. An accessory building already exists.The new accessory unit will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There is concern that the property will be used for commercial or institutional purposes in the future. The trailer looks like it is being used as an office. Property values will be decreased if the accessory unit is approved. Some of the residents were not opposed to an accessory unit being attached to the primary structure and having a separate entrance. Frontage on Palmdale should be taken away so that a driveway cannot be put in, and a higher wall be installed abutting Palmdale to alleviate the noise and sight intrusion. They feared Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 will not remain as a "granny" unit. There needs to be a deed restriction that the unit cannot be rented to anybody under the age of 62 years. Applicant's response Mr. Orozco did not see the added unit as being a detriment to the community. He hears the neighbors' complaints being against the existing property. He suggested enhancing the landscaping to help mitigate the neighbors' concerns. The modular unit is being used as an office; however, it will be removed if the Commission sees it as a problem. Dennis MontQomery, 1143 East Taft Avenue, is a painting contractor and he has a surplus of paint cans on the property. They painted the modular unit to match the existing house. Italian Cypress trees are planted along the back wall and eventually they will grow and become a wall to help buffer his property from the neighbors. His garage is being used as a work shop and for storage. He is also a pastor and has the youth group over for socials and fellowships. He and his wife run their painting business and church office out of the home. The pedestrian gate and parking on Palmdale is not being utilized for his guests. People can park in the circular driveway. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith wanted staff to address the questions raised by the opposition relative to potential use of the property as commercial use, the property being rented as low income housing, possibility of an attached second unit in this zone, questions about the lot split process, and remarks about a deed restriction and not renting to anyone under the age of 62. Mr. Jones responded that State law requires that communities provide for accessory second units. The purpose of the legislation is to encourage housing which provides for senior citizens and student housing, the disabled, and other kinds of uses. The City of Orange considers accessory second units in single family neighborhoods through a conditional use permit. Included in the ordinance is a requirement for a deed restriction in which the property owner must live in one of the two units. There are also City regulations regarding the operation of a business out of a residential zone. Commercial businesses are not allowed in residential areas. A home occupation permit can be applied for in order to operate an office. Mr. Donovan stated the applicant's request does not change the zoning on the property. It will remain R- 1 and with that zoning there is a "land use menu" of permitted uses. None of them are commercial except for semi-agricultural uses. Churches are permitted through a conditional use permit process. The feasibility of splitting the lot is compounded by the fact that the house is large and spread almost all the way across the lot. The lot cannot be split without the house being torn down. If the second unit is attached to the primary residence, staff still considers it as a second dwelling unit. There is a provision in the State law which indicates that accessory second units are actually intended for persons who are 62 years of age or older. However, the City decided it was very difficult to police the age restriction and has left the requirement open ended without an age restriction.Ms. Binning said a 640 square foot unit is probably not going to rent for very much and a low income restriction would not make a difference. If the owner chooses to live in the accessory unit and rent out the primary residence, the City does not have any authority to place that restriction on an applicant.The Commission discussed parking requirements, the operation of a business being conducted from the residence, storage is not being managed and the trailer needs to be removed. This type of use is allowed by code; however, it needs to be conditioned to address the other issues on the property. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the temporary modular unit must be removed from the site. And prior to the issuance of a building permit, the storage of paints and construction materials and/or other supplies in excess of a minor quantity allowed by City ordinances, is not allowed. The applicant will also need to obtain a home occupation license for the site prior to a building permit being issued. The garage must be maintained, as required by code, for parking of two Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2273-99, with conditions 1 through 8, and adding condition 9 - "All storage of business materials and equipment in excess of that allowed for home occupations shall be removed from the site prior to issuance of a building permit." Add condition 10 - "The existing temporary modular unit shall be removed from the premises prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the accessory second dwelling unit." Add condition 11 - "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall consult with Planning and Business License to determine if home occupation permits are required,and conditions be met to either issue said permits or abate the non-conforming home occupations." Add condition 12 . "Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the 2-car garage shall be maintained for parking of vehicles as required by municipal code." The Commission finds the conditional use permit is granted upon sound principles of land use. It will not cause a deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans. And, it is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones informed the audience the Commission's motion is a recommendation to the City Council and it will be heard in approximately 30 to 60 days. Public notices will be mailed for that hearing date. Chairman Bosch encouraged the applicant to meet his neighbors and establish lines of communication. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2274-99 - MARKETPLACE PROPERTIES (RITE AID DRUG STORE) A request to allow the off-site sale of liquor and a drive-up window for the sale of pharmacy products. The site is located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Esplanade Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for a drive-through lane for the sale of pharmacy supplies, and to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages. They also request a Major Site Plan Review for construction of a commercial building exceeding 10,000 square feet in size. The current site has two small restaurants and a multi-tenant commercial center. These will be demolished and the site will be re-graded to create a level pad. The southwest corner of the site will require retaining walls with a height of 7 feet. The proposed drive-through lane is on the west side of the building. The proposal has a back up space of three cars that does not interfere with anyon-site circulation. The Staff Review Committee reviewed the proposal and found that it complies or exceeds the zoning ordinance development standards regarding on-site landscaping,building setbacks, and parking. The Design Review Board reviewed the project and has recommended approval subject to a final review of the plans by the DRB.The public hearing was opened.Applicant, Michael Rue, President of Marketplace Properties, 8339 East Hillsdale Drive, lives in Orange and is proud to be proposing this project. The new proposal will eliminate the existing blight on Chapman Avenue. They will be providing a drug store with liquor sales incidental to the primary use. There are three 3) pole signs on the property that will be eliminated and replaced with two (2) monument signs. Currently,there are six (6) driveways on the site located very close to Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 replaced with three (3) driveways. The site will be landscaped and all equipment will be concealed. A trash enclosure is proposed for the southwest corner of the property. The DRB had three concerns and they have revised their site plan to address their concerns. The Rite Aid awning size has been reduced. Building columns in the front element have been expanded so that the tower element is in scale with the building facade. Four of the six finger planters within the parking lot have been increased in size. They have read the conditions of approval and agree with them, with the exception of condition 6. This is a ground lease transaction whereby the property owner is leasing the property to Rite Aid. The condition proposes a consolidation of the three lots into a single lot. In lieu of that condition, they propose that a tying agreement be recorded against the property for the purpose of tying the lots together so they could not be separately sold or financed, so long as that building is on the property. In addition to that, they understand there needs to be a lot line adjustment to meet the City's requirements. The existing wall for the apartment complex is a combination of a retaining wall and it is the back of the carports. It varies in height from 8 feet to 15 feet. They plan to construct a retaining wall on the south property line varyingfrom4feetto7feet. On top of that, they would build a 6 foot high garden wall. Along the westerly property line, there will be a wall that ranges from 2 feet in height to 7 feet, and then there will be landscaping on the west side of the wall adjacent to the shops to soften the wall. The drugstore will average one large truck a week for deliveries. Light fixtures will be provided that will not impact the adjacent residents. Commissioner Pruett wondered why they didn't want a consolidation of the properties rather than a lot line adjustment. Mr. Rue explained the property owner wanted to reserve the three legal parcels that he has on the property. Those speakinq in opposition Sqt. Dave Jensen, Oranqe Police Department, voiced their opposition to alcohol licenses in this particular area based on an over-concentration of alcohol licenses and a high crime area. The area is very high in gang activity. The Police Department does not approve or deny business license permits dealing with alcohol licenses, but they do have the ability to oppose them.Chairman Bosch was confused because the staff report states the Police Department had reviewed the request and indicated no objections.Applicant's response Art Rodriquez, 709 East Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, stated Rite Aid has an excellent track record for off-site liquor sales. They have their own in-house training program. Liquor sales are less than 5% of the total sales of the store. The two existing licenses are being eliminated and will be replaced by a well-run operation.The public hearing was closed.Mr. Carnes said on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report there are references to the Police Department reviewing the application. The Crime Prevention Specialists attend the Staff Review Committee meetings, and in discussions with them, there have been no concerns raised regarding alcoholic sales.Commissioner Pruett said this new store will be a good change in the community, but he had concerns with the Police Department's statistics for crime and the high concentration of alcoholic sales.Commissioner Smith was confused by OPD's report as the staff report states the Police Department did not have problems with this application. She would like to continue this project until clarification is obtained and the Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 Mr. Rue attended the three Staff Review Committee meetings and is surprised with OPD's opposition. He asked for approval of the project and they will sit down with the Police Department to resolve the problems before submitting their application to ABC. It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve Conditional Use Permit 2274-99, with conditions 1 through 14 listed in the staff report, modifying condition 6 - "All three (3) existing parcels shall be re-configured in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act prior to the issuance of abuilding permit." Findings are based on Subsection "F" of O.M.C. 17.10.030. And, approve Major Site Plan Review 66-99, with the findings listed in the staff report, based on Subsection "H" of O. M.C.17.10.060. Both findings clearly conform subject to the approval and fulfillment of the conditions,including the approval of the ABC license, as required by State law. The Commission believes that subject to any other requirements of the ABC and upon further review of the Police Department relative to the specific method and procedures of alcoholic sales, and the fact that one existing license, and perhaps two, will be eliminated, this license will receive proper consideration and doesn't cause further deterioration of the land uses. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith recognized that the applicant had said they would take full responsibility in negotiating this matter with the Police Department so the burden of negotiation remains with the applicant.IN RE: MISCELLAN EOUS 7. APPEAL NO. 456 An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to allow a change in a non-conforming commercial use. The site is located at 135 South Cambridge.Mr. Jones noted the Commission was provided with not just the staff report, but some additional information from staff. A separate packet of information was received from Gary Meserve, dated February 25, 1999. And, a packet of information was received from Mr. Meserve that begins with a letter dated December 3, 1998. Mr. Carlson also submitted a packet of information for the Commission's review.The public hearing was opened.Appellant, Gary Meserve, 153 South CambridQe, read through his packet of letters which he submitted to the Commission. He did not believe non-conforming privileges should be granted because more than six months have lapsed. The change in use will add to the existing parking problem because on-site customer parking is not provided. There is no informal agreement for parking in the parking lots across the street. The business was up for sale for approximately four (4) months. He stated there were two businesses, with two business licenses, operating out of the same building.4 people spoke in favor of the appeal Richard Carlson, 160 North Prospect Avenue #11.Helen Bridges, 159 South Cambridge Street. Corrine Schreck, 446 North James. Carole Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 The speakers felt parking is the main issue, and it will decrease the value of their homes. Petitions were submitted regarding this property. The business has been operating illegally. The business address is 135 South Cambridge; not 133 South Cambridge. There are several accidents at the intersection of Chapman and Cambridge. Eighty-three (83) tickets were written on Cambridge Street during a two-month period a couple of years ago. They were concerned with the children's safety in using the bike lanes.They read in the Orange City News an article dated April 16, 1998 regarding P.J. Mead's closing for business.Those speakino in opposition Gary Mead. 133/135 South Cambridoe, stated they had a retirement celebration in April and he listed the property for sale. However, the property did not sell and they re-opened the business with limited hours and a varied time schedule on weekends shortly after the property was taken off the market. They have maintained a business license since 1991, and made application to re-open the store, along with the Unknown Art Gallery. The restrictions placed upon their business included no seating in the patio area or on the property and the coffee would be on a "to go" basis. Mr. Mead would need to check his records for exact dates of when the business was open.Ellie North, 135 North Cambridoe, is the sole proprietor of the Unknown Art Gallery. A lot of her business is done off the site. Mr. Mead will be hiring her daughter as his employee to run the coffee machine. Two cars can fit in the existing driveway. She doesn't have many customers who come to the studio. She is also a jewelry artist and holds classes on Tuesday and Thursday evenings through the Parks and Recreation Departments of Orange and Anaheim. She had an informal parking agreement with Mr.Lundquist during the evening hours.Appellant's response Mr. Meserve felt Mr. Mead was not truthful about a lot of things. The store has been closed for eight (8)months. They had three (3) garage sales in September. Three days out of a six-month period of time doesn't mean the store is open for business. The public hearing was closed.The Commission wanted to know the legal basis for any action they take.Mr. Jones stated the Commission is requested to look at the decision of the Community Development Director in which a determination was made that the prior existing non-conforming use, and the new proposed uses were of the same or of a more restricted classification. The Director made the determination that the business had not been inoperable for a six- month period, which made it still eligible for consideration. The Commission needs to decide to uphold the appeal, deny the appeal, or to deny but modify or add to the conditions which the Community Development Director had placed on the property.Chairman Bosch had some concerns and he needed clearer, more concise information relative to the legal definition and information available to the City and to the principles involved in this dispute. The Commission needs to see an updated, more clearer definition of exactly what business is intended at this time. It's the activity that is taking place on the land that is of issue to the Commission. A continuance was recommended to obtain the necessary facts.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Appeal No. 456 to the meeting of April 5, 1999. AYES: NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1999 IN RE:PUBLIC COMMENTS Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, was concerned that a City department was involved in a community issue that could impact a neighborhood. IN RE:ADJOURf..JMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 12:10 a.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Carlton, Romero MOTION CARRIED sld 15