Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-1999 PC MinutesCaSSie- C- J.- "JDC>. Cr-:J. - S MINlJTES Planning Commission City of Orange May 3, 1999 Monday - 7: 00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary John Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. a. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of April 5, 1999.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve the Minutes of April 5,1999.AYES:NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Romero None Commissioners Pruett, Smith MOTION CARRIED 1. b. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of April 19, 1999.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of April 19,1999.AYES:NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Romero MOTION CARRIED 2. Modification to Conditional Use Permit 2265-98 - Selman Chevrolet; Request to Delete Condition #1.A consideration of street improvement and property dedication requirements for a previously-approved proposal to construct a building addition and replace a modular building at an auto sales facility. The applicant requests that these requirements be modified or deleted. The site is located at 1800 East Chapman Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Delete Condition #1 trom approved C.U.P. 2265-98.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1999 IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING 3. APPEAL NO. 458 (RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2275-99) - DON AND KAJA DONIKOWSKI, APPELLANT The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the proposed expansion of a small family daycare home (6 or fewer children) to a large family daycare (between 6 to 14 children), The site is located at 7916 East Horseshoe Trail. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Ms. Binning outlined her findings regarding State law requirements in consideration of a large family daycare permit, which are incorporated in a memorandum dated April 22, 1999, If a City has enacted an ordinance regulating certain specific areas, which are provided for under State law - spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, noise control and State Fire Marshal standards - then a hearing can be held to consider whether or not the permit application meets the requirements that are in the City's ordinance. The City of Orange has an ordinance and outlines three (3) requirements that it requires large family daycare homes to meet One is that no other licensed, permitted home may be within 300 feet The City' s noise ordinance must be complied with, outside play only being allowed between 8:00 a,m. and 8:00 p.m. On-site garages and parking must meet the zone requirements. State law refers to permits and the City uses a conditional use permit process for this type of hearing, However, the normal findings would not be used,The public hearing was opened,Applicant. Don Donikowski, 7916 East Horseshoe Trail, said they meet all of the requirements and still want to expand their daycare business.Two ( 2) people spoke in opposition Bill Maloof, 7814 Lakeview Trail Harold Aspgren, 7920 Horseshoe Trail They still opposed the expanded daycare facility in their neighborhood. There will be a loss of taxes for the City as a result of lower property values, This business will put a liability on the homeowner's association and will increase traffic in the area. It does not belong in a planned unit development with private streets,Applicant' s response Mr. Donikowski said every third house in their development has children. He invited the Commissioners to make a site visit at any time, He hopes to relocate their daycare business to a commercial site in the future, but does not have a time frame, They do not advertise and there are no signs at the property. The State requires one (1) adult to care for six (6) children or less; two (2) adults are required to care for more than six (6).The public hearing was closed,Commissioner Carlton said the Commission's hands are tied by State law requirements, However, she did feel this was a wrong use for the neighborhood,Commissioner Smith didn't like the tone of discussion and was concerned with the neighbors' attitude towards children. There has to be a safe and appropriate place for children. She supports the small daycare use, but cannot support the expanded use because of the narrow streets and private community.2 Planning Commission Minutes May 3.1999 Commissioner Romero agreed this large family daycare center is not appropriate for the planned community due to the zero setback and narrow streets. But, the Commission does not have the ability to vote otherwise. Chairman Bosch stated the State has superseded the City in this matter. He concurs with the need to provide for the children, but he also believed there should be a methodology where the rights and values of adjacent property owners should be respected and protected. The other concern he had was the process in the ordinance for providing a hearing through a conditional use permit Yet the City has been superseded in being able to make findings. He is concerned about the appearance of a conditional use permit being granted and running with the property when it is not the case, nor the need, under State law. Ms, Binning clarified that State law does not require a hearing; it is optional. The State gives the City three 3) ways to approach this issue, only one of which would authorize the City to have a hearing, The actual terminology used in the State law is just simply a permit This needs to be treated as a C,U.P" but omit the findings, This permit would not run with the land. but this is strictly personal to the applicant Chairman Bosch said under State law, Mr, Donikowski is allowed to expand the daycare use, It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve Appeal No. 458 regarding Conditional Use Permit 2275-99 with the three (3) requirements. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED:Commissioners Carlton. Romero, Smith Commissioner Bosch Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch requested sfatt to research and review the current ordinance to make it known to the citizens of Orange if the City desires to establish State approved review criteria for large family daycare facilities, Guidelines for this type of use needs to be addressed and conditions spelled out He voted no in protest against the unfairness of the way that the law has been set up. This is a business with an employee at a residence. The City's rules and regulations have been thrown out by State law.Commissioner Pruett abstained from discussion because he was not present for the first hearing. When looking at the issue of daycare for children in a private development, there should be something the City can do to ensure that there is property liability coverage and other issues related to the facilities.IN RE:NEW HEARINGS 4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2282-99 - LA PLATA ENTERPRISES A request to allow construction of a two-story, 20-unit senior citizen apartment building. The site is located at 170 North Prospect Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,There was no opposition to this item and the full presentation of the staff report was waived,Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a letter dated April 30, 1999 from Plaza Development,owners of the adjacent Fern Garden Senior Housing Community.The public hearing Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1999 Wavne Arnold. 2030 Main Street. #660. Irvine, is the attorney representing the applicant He introduced the developers and architect who were in the audience, They feel there is a great need for senior housing and wish to develop this 20-unit senior apartment complex, The owners have entered into a contract to purchase the property subject to the approval of the conditional use permit Single-family residential use or commercial use for this property is not the best use, There is no on-street parking and the lot is very narrow, The Design Review Board reviewed the project and determined they could not support the project as proposed, Because of the timing of the contract, revisions based on DRB's recommendations were not made, However, the applicant has made some changes in the plans and revised their elevation,They addressed the DRB's concern about re-designing the building as a 3- story building around a central corridor, but it is not practical for the lot The intent is to occupy the building with senior citizens; however,the applicant wants some flexibility in case they are not able to fill the units with that market Commissioner Carlton was concemed that there was no community room. the location of the laundry room was a problem and there was a lack of guest parking, She also stated there needs to be an on-site manager,Mr. Arnold explained there would be an on-site manager.Sam Bevacqua. 819 South Arden Street. Anaheim, is the architect for the project He addressed the issue of the laundry and community rooms. This area was set up for a gathering/activity area in addition to the patio at the rear of the building. Guest parking is not required; however, staff suggested that they create a guest parking space, as well as a handicapped parking space.Commissioner Smith stated the laundry room is not an appropriate community room for senior citizens.She was not comfortable in allowing them the flexibility of renting to non-seniors. They have applied for a senior housing complex and the code requirements are relaxed,Mr. Amold stated they are not seeking any special concessions under the code. The main driving force is parking, They cannot provide enough parking on this site for a sufficient number of units if these were family apartments,Commissioner Pruett asked about emergency buzzers and intercom systems. He asked what they are going to be hooked up to and will they be monitored on a 24-hour basis,Arturo Mier. 170 North Prospect, is one of the developers for the project. He said this complex will be for active senior citizens, He understands that the buzzers and intercom do not need to be monitored through a central station. But, they can be installed so that there would be access to the manager's apartment in case of an emergency.Commissioner Romero is concerned about the privacy issue with the adjacent property, He wanted to know how that would be resolved.Mr. Arnold stated there was heavy landscaping on both sides of the property and he believed there would be adequate privacy between the properties,Mr, Bevacqua said they are providing a 10 foot side yard setback and the area is heavily planted by the adjoining apartments. It would be hard to see anyone over there from the way the buildings are configured, He suggested planting additional trees and foliage to help screen the two properties rather than raising the wall.Chairman Bosch asked if the plans have beenreviewed by the Fire Department. There is a 6,4 foot setback to the property line, rather than 10 feet. He's concerned about fire safety protection of the openings in the parking structure, which are there for Planning Commission Minutes May 3.1999 essentially half of the exiting capability of the structure goes past the 6.4 foot setbacks and he asked if this meets the Uniform Building Code requirements. He is also concerned about the lack of privacy for the seniors, Mr. Bevacqua replied the Fire Department has reviewed their plans twice, The building will have fire sprinklers, He shared his design philosophy with the Commission in terms of privacy and community gathering spaces, TIle walkways are designed to be used as a semi-meeting place, The rear yard is considered to be open space, He really wanted the one side yard to be more open to the existing senior complex next door. He talked about their plans to provide 22 parking spaces and the trash enclosure,Storage areas are not proposed in this plan,Chairman Bosch had difficulty in reviewing a plan where there is going to be a lot of changes,Two (2) people spoke reqardinq this proiect Vince Faragamo, 6715 Horseshoe Road,Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive. Orange Park Acres.They believed the highest and best use of this site is a senior citizens apartment complex as proposed,This is a major improvement for the area and it will be beneficial to the community, The Design Review Board denied the project and the denial should be addressed,Applicant's response Mr. Arnold said the DRB's concerns are going to be addressed; however, the changes have not been added to the plans, The terms of the contract between the sellers and buyers provide that the conditional use permit must be granted in order for the sale to go forward. He thought this was a worthy project and the developers have shown a willingness to work with the City to make changes to meet concerns,The public hearing was closed,Commissioner Smith had a few concerns. She heard the applicant say they would be willing to provide a community room, She was not certain how the Commission could move forward without seeing revised plans, She felt strongly that if the project were going to come in under the code for senior citizens, that it should be a project for senior citizens. It should not be available for non-seniors, It is not fair for the of her developers who have built senior projects who had to comply with the code and had to, under the law,rent to seniors,Commissioner Pruett also had many concerns about the project There are no balconies or patio areas for people to use for private outside space. The way the project is designed, it would cause someone to be confined to their room, or to the area that is in the back of the building, He doesn't see that there is a real quality of life with that type of a design. He's also concerned about the density of the project Commissioner Carlton agreed with every1hing that has been said, She has seen projects that have a central hallway, with balconies, The laundry rooms are located on each floor in the center of the building,in a separate room, It's unfortunate that there is a deadline for this transacfion to be completed, The project should be well designed to accommodate the seniors, She would like to see the project continued in order for another plan to be brought forward,Chairman Bosch believed the location is satisfactory for senior housing, They must look at the current code relative to the property next door in terms of the density, The density doesn't worry him, if the density is offset by amenities. One amenity is the senior housing. Landscaping and screening can be added, There is space to work with on-site parking, The community room is an amenity that can be talked about, but it is not required by code, He wanted to know if this project had enough qualities to it with the changes that need to be made to the design, that would allow the conditional use permit to Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1999 and approved with appropriate conditions, It appears from DRB's Minutes that they didn't like the balcony design. Commissioner Carlton encouraged the applicant to submit a plan that is different from the one they originally submitted. She doesn't like the configuration of the building and some issues need to be addressed, A senior project at this site would be very beneficial because of the location. The Commission stated their concerns: The project must be 100% for senior citizens, guest parking and handicapped parking, ex1ra storage in the parking area. community room, relocation of the laundry room, patio area needs a patio cover and other amenities to be more friendly. side walkways and balconies, an internal passageway, trash location, density of the project, elevator needs to meet ADA requirements for handicapped accessibility yet not destroy the livability of the northeast unit. open to looking at exterior corridors if there is a substantial level of increased amenity in the design, enhanced landscaping, south wall screening. and there is concern relating to the way the balconies and circulation works to the living environment to the southwest unit on the first floor. and adjust location of ramp without diminishing the code formula for an open parking garage ventilation, The Commission asked the applicant if they were willing to continue the project to address their concerns, Mr, Arnold stated the applicant favored a 45-day continuance in order to address the issues raised by the Commission, They will work towards getting an ex1ension to their escrow in order to make the necessary changes to the plan.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Comrnission Carlton, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2282-99 to the meeting of June 21, 1999 with the conditions. as discussed by the Commission, to be integrated into the plan, and waive the resubmittal of said plan to the Design Review Board, AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 9:30 p, m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p,m. 5, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2286-99 - CENTEX HOMES A request to allow the construction of single family residences with a front yard that would vary from 10 to 20 feet. The site is located in the Serrano Heights Specific Plan. Development Area 1; Tract 15696, including 84 lots. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Smith chaired the hearing,There was no opposition to this item and the public hearing was opened,Frank Elfend. Elfend & Associates. 18101 Von Karman, Irvine. represented the property owner. He submitted a letter to the Commission on April 29, 1999, outlining some of the enhancements of the plan being considered. Centex Homes proposes to build larger lots. they have a larger FA R. average, and Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1999 there will be larger homes with higher prices, There are less units than what was permitted in the Specific Plan as well. They have created a one-story look-alike to lower the mass and density from adjacent developments,Public comments were made:Bob Bennvhoff. 10642 Morada Drive, Oranqe Park Acres, liked the proposed project and stated they finally get four (4) acres for a park,Cheryl Hamlin. 2139 North Grandview Road. stated her back yard backs up to the proposed development She and her husband have three (3) concerns, Part of their rear yard has been removed to allow the builders to build in closer; however, it is now two (2) months past an original completion date they were given at the time they signed a paper allowing the builders to do this, There has been very poor communication between the homeowners and developer, Phone calls are not being returned and their answers are not being answered, They wanted some assurance before construction starts, that their rear yard will be addressed. The closest home in the new development will be 40 to 45 feet down slope from them, She asked what assurance do they have that this will be followed and not changed, Once the construction starts, she wanted to know what provisions or precautions would be taken to cut down on the amount of dirt and dust as they live in a very high wind area. A soils and compaction report is needed because they can't move forward with their landscaping,Brad Kyle. 2167 North Grandview Road, stated he was not given extra footage of their rear yard. They are lacking 15 feet from what was originally sold to them by Standard Pacific and represented to them as a cut lot. His concern is that the lot will no longer be able to be depicted in a resale value as a cut lot He wanted to know how that will affect his resale value of the property. He also wanted some reassurance about the soil compaction because he is ready to put in a pool.Vice-Chair Smith sympathized with Mr. Kyle's concerns, but did not think it was related to this project for reduced front lot sizes,Ms. Binning stafed the applicant is Centex Homes. She hasn't heard that the applicant for the conditional use permit has been involved in any way in this dispute over grading and dirt. There may be a possible dispute between private property owners, but the City would not be involved, Applicant's response:Mr. E~end received a call from Mr. Hamlin last week and the project manager went out to their home, Much larger rear yards for the existing homeowners will be the result of this grading, There have been time delays. but they want to be specific on the geological reports, He assured the Commission and neighbors the project will be completed in a timely fashion. A dust control management plan is in place and will be used while building these homes. Mr, E~end is in agreement with the conditions of approval, noting that condition 3 is revised to reflect 30% rather than 39%,The public hearing was closed,Commissioner Pruett thought the testimony received on the part of the two parties who own the adjacent properties is a separate issue,It was noted the project is categorically exempt from Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1999 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2286-99 with conditions 1 through 8 listed in the staff report, revising condition 3 to state 30%, with the findings that the project is granted upon sound land use principles and in response to the requirements of the community. The set back requirements will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems as it relates to the set backs, It has been considered in relationship to the community and the neighborhood plans in the area. The conditional use permit is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant AYES: NOES: ABSENT:Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Vice-Chair Smith personally encouraged the residents to deal with the people to whom they made their agreements.Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting,6, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2287-99 - TGIFriday' s RESTAURANT A request to allow the expansion of an existing restaurant that sells alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, The site is located at 3339 Entertainment Avenue,NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303,There was no opposition to this project; therefore, the full presentation of the staff report was waived.And, the public hearing was opened,Deborah Kerr. 4655 Cass Street. Suite 200. San Dieqo, is the consultant representing TGIFriday's, They have reviewed the conditions of approval and concur with them, They are wanting to expand the patio area, upgrade the accessibility of the interior of the restaurant and upgrade the restrooms. The exterior remodel of the building was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Their Alcohol Management Program has been approved by the Police Department.The public hearing was closed,It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review,MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve Conditional Use Permit 2287-99, with conditions 1 through 15. revising condition 1 to include the addition of the gate at the rear exit ramp in the patio area, 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. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which the site is located, It is considered in relationship to its effect on the community and is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of the applicant AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1999 IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bosch. seconded by Commissioner Smith. to adjourn to a study session on Monday, May 10.1999 at 5:30 p,m, in Conference Room C to discuss Old Towne review processes. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton. Pruett, Smith, Romero None MOTION CARRIED sld 9