Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange January 3, 1990 Orange, California Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1766-89 - YORBA PARK MEDICAL GROUP: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a four story building, 52 feet in height (or 57 feet as measured to the top of the parapet), at a distance of approximately 55 feet from the R-1 zone. Subject property is a 3.65 acre parcel located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of the 55 Freeway and south of Santiago Creek, at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Yorba Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1297-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the June 19, 1989, September 18, 1989 Regular Planning Commission Meetings, the November 13, 1989 Study Session Meeting and the November 20, 1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.) Mr. Godlewski stated the. reason for the application is to consider the four story medical office building in relation to the residentially zoned property to the northwest. In the last few months quite a bit of discussion has evolved around the site plan, the parking layout and the actual location of the building. The Commission is looking at the revised site plan dated 12/15/89. The plan indicates a circulation pattern and development plan that can accommodate a future arterial road along the eastern property line should it be determined that it is necessary. If the road were to be put in, it could be done so with minimum disruption to the site, which was one of the major concerns of the development. The Traffic Engineer, in reviewing the plan, has expressed concern that the on-site circulation has a conflict where the incoming traffic off of Chapman meets a point at the driveway throat Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 2 narrows that the out going traffic is actually looking down the incoming traffic. This could be a minor revision to the plan that could be accommodated at some future date to relieve the situation. The applicant has indicated that with all the numerous revisions, that there is a conflict between the location of the proposed building footprint and one of the existing single story buildings on the site. It was not their intent to have to demolish that building until after the construction of the new building is complete. There are a couple of conditions in the staff report that would allow the Commission to consider the application and with only a minor alteration to the site plan. It could accommodate the existing building on site until the completion of the proposed medical office building Conditions #3 and #24). Condition 3 requires that the applicant bring back the site plan to the Director of Community Development with a construction phasing plan to show how he is going to build the building and keep the existing buildings on site and still maintain enough parking to serve the active buildings until they are demolished. If it is the Commission's desire, staff could modify that condition to include that the site plan and the concerns addressed in the site plan be brought back to the Commission at that time for review to consider whether it is in substantial conformance. Also, a question that has come up in previous meetings was a question on the title report concerning a road easement that goes through the property. A copy of the title report was given to the Commissioners that shows the disposition of a portion of that road belongs to the A.B. Chapman heirs and is not something the City can claim as a road easement. There seems to be a few minor corrections to be considered in the plan, which could be considered by adding conditions. The Engineering Department is concerned about lot consolidation to clear up the lot lines and make sure that the building is not being built over any property lines. The revised site plan, with building and parking dimensions to be more exactly located on the site. The alignment of the incoming traffic with exiting traffic could also be resolved at that time. Commissioner Greek wondered if by having the public hearing it would solve anything. One of the problems is trying to get a plan. Once the plan is approved, that is the plan that must be built. The Commission keeps seeing so many changes. He is concerned when there is a disclaimer note that says the property boundary is not right. He had hoped the plans were in better shape than they are. It's unfair to ask the applicant to explain plans that should not be Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 3 accepted. He needs dimensions to make a decision and needs to understand what it is going to look like. None of their questions, including handicap parking, have been answered. Commissioner Master said if they opened the hearing, they would have to condition the application and it would have to come back for concurrence. Why not continue the hearing until a complete set of plans are received? Commissioner Hart was concerned about the lack of dimensions. The building itself is not dimensioned except in one spot. None of the parking stalls are dimensioned. Why should they consider a plan that is incomplete? Commissioner Scott agrees. It seems their requests for clarification on the plan has been received on deaf ears. Until a complete set of plans are received, the hearing should not be opened. Chairman Bosch concurred they would have to condition the plans for them to come back for plan approval. They have asked for a variety of input on the site plan and the elevations, and it hasn't been forthcoming. He can't fault the owner because his consultants have been at the meetings and have heard the Commissioners concerns. But yet they still don't have the basic information required by the property owner. Commissioner Hart did not have a problem with the four story building, but wants to be comfortable with the building that sits on the site. Chairman Bosch asked Dr. Harper to come forward. He wanted him to understand there would not be an action at this meeting. It appears the concerns with regard to the size and heigh t of the building are answerable, but the problem is the technical document presented to them doesn't meet the basic conditions that the Commission normally sees and finds necessary for approval. He asked if it were possible through his consultants get them to meet with staff to determine exactly what information was missing and the amount of time it would take. Dr. Harper, 2501 East Chapman, heard the Commission say a number of things were not specified. He understands Commissioner Greek met with the survey engineer and title company. He thought that was in order to clarify the questions he had about the property boundaries. Commissioner Greek called Dr. Harper's engineer, but he never returned the call. A meeting was not held. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 4 Dr. Harper didn't know what was deficient and didn't knowhowtoanswertheCommissioners' questions. The footprintofthebuildingwasabigchangefromwhattheCommission wanted. The reason it had to be changed is because it encroached upon the present building. That called for a minor change in the footprint of the building without anychangeintheoveralldimensionsorsquarefootage. He deferred to his planners and architect to see how long it would take to revise their plans. Douglas Rigby, 3023 80th Avenue, S.E., Mercer Island,Washington, has worked with the staff and PlanningDepartmentquitecarefullyandtriedtoaccommodatethe requests they made. They attempted to do everything the Commission has asked and obviously have not accomplishedthat. Some of the complaints addressed previously were also addressed here such as handicap parking not beingidentified. But, it is, in fact, very clearly identified. The parking is measured to scale on the drawings -- not every parking space is scaled or dimensioned, but they have attempted to show where the aisle widths are, where the parking spaces met the 20 foot length vs. the 16 foot length. If they are at fault for not communicating with staff, he thought the staff was equally at fault for not letting them know there's other things to address. He acknowledged he was at fault that the building is encroaching some feet into the existing building. But that would be a minimal change in dimensioning of the building in the east west direction. That could be rectified with a quick stroke of the pencil and have no affect to the site plan itself. Parking configurations would not be changed nor the landscaping or entrance to the building. They are willing to supply that as a condition that they re-issue the drawing most immediately. Chairman Bosch asked him if he was considering removing 30 f eet from one end of the building and re-applying that area to be insignificant and not affect the design? He had difficulty with that. He also had difficulty with the concept that the staff doesn't understand what accurate plans are because they do. The standard of care for zoningsubmittalsinthisareaisnotdifferentthanitisinmost other places. He's concerned that the applicant continues to not look at the whole issue. Dr. Harper is correct in the general sense that the C.U.P. attached to the height over that allowed without a C.U.P. is the basic issue. But what that is, is a trigger mechanism to allow the City to review all the impacts of a particular proposal over a certain size and for particular types of use on the community on the site in particular. It's a symptom of the underlying problems that might occur that have to be mitigated through the design. It's necessary to determine Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 5 whether the ratio of compact parking spaces to standard parking spaces is within the ratio found acceptable in the City or what mitigating measures there might be for that. Handicap spaces are indicated on the plan, although they seem to vary a bit in size. Is that the correct ratio to meet the local code for handicap parking spaces? Are all the islands in the turning radius correct? What are the widths of the parking spaces? Trash truck access and fire truck access fire lanes are necessary to be determined as well. Mr. Rigby needs to again meet with staff and listen closely to what they have to say. They may even provide examples to help him. Mr. Rigby thought the issue was the 30 feet. (No. ) He thought the Commission described most of the problem areas seen have also been described in each one of the conditions placed before them, along with the new condition, the re-configuration of the footprint. As far as the Fire Department connection and each of those other issues, they are already described as conditions in the staff report. They are more than happy to comply with those. They have met with the Fire Department and have with conformed with their requirements. Chairman Bosch was not going to get into a debate. He hopes the consultant will consider doing his homework and come back with a complete application. Mr. Rigby said he would do that. It should take approximately one month. He wanted the staff to know they have tried to conform with everything that has been stated. Each time they have met with staff, they felt they had me t the requirements that they led them to believe were necessary. Commissioner Greek said one of the problems with submitting a document such as theirs, when the plan gets approved, you can't just move a building around or move parking spaces. It has to be very specific. You must start with a boundary. When a plan is submitted with a disclaimer that says the property lines are different from the survey as a result of a transaction which requires an adjustment to the south property line subsequently affecting the east and west as well, the Commission looks at it and wonders if the parking will work. Then they try to figure out the dimensions and no where are there dimensions to tie anything down. They have no idea how wide the parking spaces are or how many there are. He asked staff to give him a copy of an approved plan for a typical site for him to use. The Commission is trying to give him a process that will allow the building to be bu ilt. The height and mass of the bu ilding seems to be acceptable to the Commission, but the major block is the plan itself. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 6 Chairman Bosch asked Dr. Harper if he would stipulate to the one month continuance. (Dr. Harper concurred.) Staff and Commission discussed a possible hearing date and it was decided to hold a special meeting on February 14, 1990. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1766-89 to a special meeting, Wednesday, February 14, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to allow the applicant to complete his plans. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1803-89 - WILLIAM KOBETSKY: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an accessory second unit behind an existing single family residence. Subject property is 11,550 square feet in size, and located on the east side of Kathleen Lane, 150 feet south of Chapman Avenue, addressed 129 South Kathleen Lane. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Chris Carnes, Planning Staff, presented the staff report. The application is for an accessory second unit. This is the second one the Commission has reviewed; Commission approved one late last year, but it has not been before the Council yet. The ordinance requires that accessory units be heard by the City Council after the Planning Commission makes their decision. This request is in a zoned single family R-1-7 and is designated low density residential in the General Plan. The project conforms to the standards and development setbacks required by ordinance. The City's Environmental Review Board, in reviewing the project, had two concerns: One is that the proposed accessory unit be addressed to improve safety services and that for site line visibilities and wall area that existing walls be removed. Staff's review of the project found that it's structure is larger than anticipated for an accessory unit. It does contain the maximum size of 640 square feet. This particular structure also contains two large oversized garages. In this particular case, unique to the property, the applicant owns the business next door to the site. The existing residence has some outdoor storage from the business. Conditions were added to restrict this only to Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 7 residential use. Twelve conditions of approval are recommended should the Commission approve the C.U.P. The public hearing was opened. Applicant William Kobetsky, 129 South Kathleen, said they were conforming to all conditions and rules to build the unit the right way. The large garages are because he has a boat and a big truck, which is parked in his front yard now. His neighbor won't be able to see the house and it's going to bring the property up in value. His only problem is his neighbor wants him to open up his gate. Now, it's 10 feet wide and the gate is for security. It keeps people out of his back yard. He could even put up a wrought iron gate see through) if acceptable. Commissioner Master asked if the applicant has read all the conditions, including the ingress from Kathleen? Mr. Kobetsky has read the conditions and does not have a problem with them. Those speaking in favor Robert Kobetsky, father of William, 10402 Boca Canyon, Santa Ana, spoke about the stipulations to the gate and he has concerns. The reason his son is building this unit is to house his mother and father (William's grandparents), who are elderly people in their 80's. The security gate staff is asking them to remove and leave open for access is questioned. This is at a dead end alley way, which is considered a hammer head alley way and the only people that use it are the people from the liquor store or donut shop. That would give them access out of the property and down the alley, bu t as far as people driving through the alley, and people coming in and out of the property, is not going to be a problem. There would be no traffic; it's a dead end. For them to take that f ence out, concerns him because of the safety factor. He wants to make sure there is containment of the back yard because of small children and elderly adults. If there is concern about visibility, a chain link fence or wrought iron gate could be considered. Commissioner Scott was opposed to the 20 foot opening with no gate. He wouldn't want someone walking into his back yard from the alley either. Commissioner Greek asked who owns the house? Mr. Kobetsky said his son, William, owns the house. The unit is being built for Robert Kobetsky's parents. William and his family reside in the front house. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 8 Commissioner Greek asked about the business? Mr. Kobetsky sai~ is part of the their property. of the house by rather than an protection. the business is a corporation, and his son corporation. They have a 10 year lease on Their intent is not to run the business out any means. They wanted a containment area, open area basically for looks and also for Chairman Bosch asked what the intent of all the windows in the garage was. There is concern about converting portions of units to three units, which are illegal. Because of all the windows and a full bath downstairs, what are you planning to d o? Mr. Kobetsky explained the bath downstairs is because his dad gets up early in the mornings; his mother is a late sleeper. They wanted a bath downstairs. Originally, they had just a half bath. They will comply to whatever requirements are stipulated. They were going to use the garage as a workshop (hobby shop). His dad still wants to work with his hands in the garage and he wanted lots of 1 igh t. Those speaking in opposition Brian Wetledge, 141 South Kathleen, immediately next door to Bill. He has only seen this plan as of 1 hour ago. In talking to the neighbors there were two opinions: a second residential or a business. No one knew and it was not specified on the notice. It looks more tastefully done than what was constructed at 153 South Kathleen where they built a big box in the back yard. It went up and came back down after two years because they couldn't complete it. He doesn't want to see the neighborhood go to second units, but at the same time, this is a lot more tasteful that what has been attempted. He would like to see restrictions as to no pool chemicals being stored (bulk storage) except that which is carried on a daily basis. (It's already a condition.) Rahntfi-al William Kobetsky said he has old equipment in his back yard and it's junk. He will not be storing equipment from the pool business; all trash will go to the dump. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Wolff noted there was a typographical error in Condition 6 -- requires payment of transportation improvement program fees. And the fee as written in the condition reads $585. The actual fee is $385. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 9 Chairman Bosh noted it was recommended that Condition 3 include a reference for the deed restriction that states the actual maximum square footage of the unit. He suggested that be added as a sub item 3 to Condition 3. To wit, the 640 square foot maximum size allowed for secondary units is included in the design and no expansion of the unit is allowed. Commissioner Hart referred to Condition 4 -- no portion of the site will be used for commercial purposes. Commissioner Scott personally thought the property should be gated because of the area. Discussion ensued over the width of the gate -- 20 feet vs. 10 feet. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 1803-89. Condition 6 be revised to reflect the transportation improvement program fee of $385 instead of $585. Amend Condition 8 to read: The existing 10 foot opening in the existing block wall be widened to 16 feet (drop "shall not be gated"), and add to Condition 3, sub item 3, the 640 square foot maximum size allowed for secondary units is included in the design and no expansion of the unit is allowed. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM JOINT OSE OF PARKING - ROBERT KING AND ASSOCIATES: A request to permit the joint use of parking facilities by a proposed school (Dale Carnegie franchise) which is primarily an evening use and the primary day time uses which occur within an office condominium development. The request is for Suite 295D North Rampart Street, located on the south side of Rampart Street, approximately 750 feet east of State College Boulevard. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, represented Robert King and Associates. The staff report has analyzed the request completely. The application is to allow the use of parking in the evening hours which would normally be considered assigned to the other units. The other units in the office condominium are primarily unoccupied during the evening hours with some minor exceptions. Occasionally some tenants Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 10 do work overtime into the evening hours. This has been reviewed in detail with the property owners association. They had a meeting in which everyone agreed to the use. The association has signed an agreement with Robert King and Associates to allow the use during the evening hours. During the day they would only have normal office operations and would only be using office required parking. He read another letter into the record that Mr. King requested from the association. They do have a couple of problems with the recommendations. He has discussed them with staff and the City Attorney this afternoon. The first two conditions are acceptable as written. The third one states there is not to be any on-site registration for any seminars or classes and all classes are to be pre-registered. He agrees with staff's intent of there not being a mass of people showing up during normal business hours to take up parking spaces to register for a seminar. The normal practice is for people to show up at 6:30 p.m. and are there due to correspondence with the Dale Carnegie courses and they register that evening before the seminar. They ask that condition be re-worded: "On site group registration be limited to 6:30 p.m. or later and only incidental registration be done during normal business hours." Condition 4 has a twofold problem: He believes the application should be assigned to the property and the buildings, rather than individuals such as Dale Carnegie. In addition, Dale Carnegie's franchise agreement with Robert King and Associates does not allow the use of the word Dale Carnegie in anything except their own promotional material. They ask that it be re-worded to state: "This approval shall apply only to the use of the property as proposed and once that use ceases for more than six months, this approval shall become void." There is some opportunity for Mr. King to drop the Dale Carnegie franchise and continue to operate in precisely the same manner under his own name. That would meet the intent of the request and approval. Commissioner Hart asked what would happen if a disgruntled owner were to cause problems or make it difficult and then comes to the City and condemns the City for giving a permit to this applicant? Mr. Mickelson discussed a similar situation with Mr. Herrick earlier. They agreed that the last condition could include some form of notification to all tenants and future tenants that this agreement is in force and approved by the association. They would be in violation of the CC&R's and agreement; it would be easier for the association to take legal action rather than the City. Commissioner Greek commented this is what happened to their old office with a highly successful real estate school. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 11 They had nothing but problems and moved out. He would rather not have the City involved in something like this. He could understand the joint use parking being utilized as a presentation for the development of a large area, but when you bring a different use into that area and then start with joint use parking, he thought it should be left as an internal thing between the owner and association. He guaranteed a 90~ chance there would be problems. Why involve the City in those problems. The association should police themselves and have their own agreements. For a single owner, it would make sense. But when dealing with a bunch of different property owners, it's different. The City is allowing one business to have a reduction in parking. Commissioner Hart would not have a problem with the joint use if it was certain there would be control and it wouldn't come back to the City later on. He wished there was a way to condition it so if there were problems, the use was voided. Mr. Mickelson said the owner knows he's at some risk, but if there are problems, he believes the permit could be revoked. The agreement between Mr. King and the association is still subject to the CC&R's. Commissioner Greek asked how the City could get out of the middle of the agreement? Ms. Wolff didn't believe the City could because the parking ordinance specifically notes that if there's not adequate parking for the sum total of uses on a site, an applicant can apply to the City for an approval to use parking that is provided for primarily day time uses for night time uses. Possibly a condition could be added that the approval is contingent upon the continued verification of the association and make it reciprocal in that way. If it were revoked by the association, then the City approval would no longer be valid. Bob King, San Juan Capistrano, has been in the same location since July 1, 1971 in Anaheim. They've never had a problem that has been brought up here. The building is a private enterprise building governed by the CC&R's; all property owners must abide by them. They had a board meeting and gave their assurances in writing to the members. Commissioner Greek explained the City's problem with this request. If it were an individual owner of the entire site, there would not be a problem. The solution will be an added condition. As soon as the association complains about your operation, your joint use of parking will be dead. That way, the City will not be involved. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 12 Chairman Bosch concurred and thought that was the key. That's the extra layer of safety that takes the City out of it. Most proposals do not have the association. Mr. King felt he was being hurt. There's a lot of money involved. The only reason they can buy this building is because they operate their business out of it. Commissioner Greek stressed the agreement is between Mr. Ring and the other property owners -- not the City. Mr. King said they have very strict requirements in their franchise agreement with Dale Carnegie Associates. He doesn't think it's the correct terminology to say they are asking for additional parking spaces. He's down here to make sure they're not violating any laws of the City of Orange . Chairman Bosch said the applicant stated he never has had a problem and doesn't expect to have a problem, and intends to be a good citizen. So he didn't see how the applicant could object to a reasonable stipulation of an added condition. Ms. Wolff's wording: "This approval is contingent upon the continued agreement between applicant and the condominium association authorizing the joint use of parking within the shared parking facility. Withdrawal of approval by the association shall nullify this approval." Mr. Herrick expressed one concern as to the language. It would be difficult for the City to be in a position of trying to determine whether or not the association has proven some sort of case that establishes a righ t to terminate an agreement. That puts the City rather than in a role of policing, puts the City in the role of being a judge in a court of law in determining whether or not the association has exercised it's rights. The wording by Ms. Wolff in the beginning is more easily used by the City than requiring it be proof of termination of the agreement. The Commission concurred the City would not have to determine anything. The owners would go to court and the court would decide whether or not the agreement needs to be terminated. Ms. Wolff consulted with the City Attorney and they agreed alternative wording could be used as a condition: "This approval is contingent upon the continued agreement between the applicant and the condominium association authorizing joint use of parking within the shared parking facility. A valid termination of the agreement by the association, as determined by a court of law, shall nullify this approval." Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1990 - Page 13 Mr. Mickelson concurred with that wording and asked if the Commission agreed with modifications to Conditions 3 and 4. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve the joint use of parking subject to the five conditions, changing Condition 3 and Condition 4. (Condition 3 shall read: That on-site group registration be limited to 6:30 p.m. or later, hours stipulated as per Condition 1, and on weekends and only incidental registration be done during normal business hours. Condition 4 shall read: That this approval shall apply only to the use of the property as proposed and once that use ceases for more than six months, this approval shall become void.) And add Condition 6 as outlined by staff: This approval is contingent upon the continued agreement between the applicant and the condominium association authorizing joint use of parking within the shared parking facility. A valid termination of the agreement by the association, as determined by a court of law, shall nullify this approval. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW BUSINESS Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission nominate Commissioner Hart as Chairman. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission nominate Commissioner Master as Vice-Chairman. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott commended Chairman Bosch for his leadership this past year; it was a fantastic job and he felt everyone benefitted from it. Chairman Bosch enjoyed the experience and appreciated what he could bring to it. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning meeting of January 15, session with City Council Weimer Room to discuss the Master, seconded by Commissioner Commission adjourn to their regular 1990; then to adjourn to a joint January 17, 1990, 4:00 p.m. in the high rise study. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. sl d