Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-1998 PC MinutesC3: YoO . (1. ;) ,-~MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 5, 1998 Monday - 7: 00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager and Commission Secretary,Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED 2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5-97 - DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY Review of a Parking Study which analyzed the parking situation in Downtown Orange. The Study recommendations include a proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code to establish an "in-lieu"parking fee and the concept of a "pay for parking" program within portions of the Downtown.Negative Declaration 1539-79 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the November 3, 1997 hearing.)NOTE: Staff requested a 30-day continuance to February 2, 1998, to allow time for continued research. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to continue Ordinance Amendment 5-97 - Downtown Parking Study - to the meeting of February 2, 1998.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON FOR 1998 Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to elect Randy Bosch as Chairperson for 1998. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to elect Tita Smith as Vice Chairperson for 1998. AYES: NOES: IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1997 CONSENT CALENDAR Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of December 15, 1997 as written. AYES: NOES: TT Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2192-97 - TWIN DRAGON (TRIPLE DELIGHT, INC.) A proposal to sell beer and wine in conjunction with a new restaurant located within the Century Promenade complex. The site is addressed 1631 West Katella Avenue, Building "A", Suite "D". NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item was continued from the December 15, 1997 hearing.) There was no opposition to this item and the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. The applicant waived his opportunity to address the Commission; therefore, the public hearing was closed. A detailed drawing showing the dining room area and number of guests was provided by the applicant and there will be no outdoor eating area. It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2192-97 - Twin Dragon - with conditions 1-15, modifying condition 6 to require that alcoholic beverage services cease one hour prior to closing time, noting a change in the hours of operation changing it from 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. to the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 Midnight seven days a week. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2195-97 - RALPH ZEHNER A proposal to demolish an existing garage (located within the Old Towne Historic District) and construct 1 duplex and 1 triplex with garage parking for 15 vehicles. The site is located at 630 East Culver Avenue. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1540-97 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.This item was continued from the December 1, 1997 hearing.)Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received correspondence dated December 31, 1997 from the Assistant City Attorney, Ted Reynolds, addressed to Deborah Rosenthal, Counsel for the Tuckers, and the Commission also received correspondence dated January 4, 1998 from the Tuckers addressed to the City Attorney and Director of Development Services, which become part of the record.John Godlewski, Senior Planner, stated a number of concerns were raised at the previous hearing specifically in regards to the site plan, the size and location of the storage shed, the need and space requirements of the proposed office/recreation room, excess garages and lack of visitor parking, a request to reduce the overall size of the structure, to consider the neighboring views or the views of the project onto the neighbors' property, eliminating the gates on the driveway, and fencing of the side yard,and to provide more of a look that matches the historic materials used for similar uses in Old Towne, as well as an improved landscape plan. The applicant has returned with a substantially revised set of drawings that are spread across the boards behind the Commission. He explained the specific site plans. Of substantial note is the triplex across the rear of the property. It was flipped in the mirror image of what was previously there, which reduced the size of the driveway and the need for the paving across the back, between the duplex and triplex, saving a lot of concrete and adding more landscaped area. The shed is now on the other side of the property and it has been reduced in size by 10 feet.Some of the other features of the plan show a scaled cross section of what the development would look like with the existing house on the left and the triplex on the right. The center portion of the roof of the duplex has been cut out. The recreation room and office have been eliminated from the plan, as well as thE? porch area. The tan colored drawings next to the cross section is a view of the orange being the eXisting structure and the dark being what the proposed structure would look like behind the existing 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 structure that is on the property. The top drawing is what was originally proposed on December 1, 1997 and the lower drawing shows what the current proposal would be. Some of the details that are shown on the elevations that have been re-drawn indicate that the masonite siding is of a shiplap design. The applicant was looking for a siding and not a shiplap and brought in samples of the masonite sidi~g. It actually has the appearance of overlapping siding. Although the applicant still inten~s to. put In an architectural aluminum window, he is not proposing aluminum sliding doors. He is proposing sliding wood doors.The public hearing was re-opened.Applicant. Ralph Zehner. 630 East Culver, said most of the homes in his neighborhood are rentals.There are 10 2-story structure homes. He made substantial changes to his plans by eliminating the rent~1 office, the stairs and patio to the rental office, moved the 3-car garage three feet to the west to obtain more open space and reduced the bulk and mass by 902 square feet. They separated the two units on the second floor by breaking up the visual impact, further changing the roof line. They changed the roll up doors to masonite, changed the metal sliding doors to wood sliding doors, changed the metal clad doors to wood, although there are some security concerns. They are providing 13 parking spaces and 2 guest parking spaces. Out front where he parks his vehicles, if the Commission desires they can designate those two spaces for guest parking. They flipped the back building over and created a more usable open space. They cut off 10 feet of the shed. They split the difference with the DRB and Planning Commission regarding the driveway concerns. The DRB said the driveway was too wide, and the Planning Commission indicated it was too narrow. The required open space is 2100 square feet and they have increased the open space by 1345 square feet. They increased the common open space from 1587 to 2573 square feet. They've increased the private patio from 420 to 520 square feet. They reduced the FAR to 54%, which is 16% under the allowable FAR. The landscape plans are professionally drawn,providing a 6 foot fence on all three sides of the property. He requested to keep the existing gates to keep the dog in the yard.Commissioner Smith asked if there were any other fencing proposed on the property?Mr. Zehner explained there were fences for a patio, directly off the front unit.Commissioner Smith asked where Mr. Zehner would park his vehicles if he converted the spaces to guest parking.Mr. Zehner will park his vehicles in the garage.Commissioner Smith was interested in seeing the brochure for the proposed windows. She felt very strong about wood windows and wanted to know why he didn't want to put in wood windows. She also asked about the wood sliding door.Mr. Zehner explained the wood sliding doors to the Commission. He proposed to install white aluminum windows which will be trimmed to match the existing house. A person will not be able to tell these are not wood windows from the street. Wood windows are two-thirds more expensive. The windows at the back are going to be a glass overlay application.Commissioner Carlton questioned if the gate were going to be electric.Mr. Zehner replied it would be an electric gate that would slide toward the house. The other proposed gate would also be electric and it would be a swing gate.Commissioner Smith was concerned about children on the property and the possibility of 15 cars being parked in the driveway. It seemed to her there needed to be more gates and fences. How can they make the property safer.Mr. Zehner said at some point there needs to be common sense; he didn't know how to make the property safer. He was open to discussing the possibility of additional fences and gates.Commissioner Pruett asked how many of the properties on Mr. Zehner' s street were multiple units.Mr. Zehner replied the majority of them. His lot is 300 feet deep -- three times the size of a Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Commissioner Pruett clarified that rentals are one thing and to talk about the density on the prop.erty, the bulk and mass, is another. The lot that has the largest number of units is Lot 8 and it has three Units. Chairman Bosch spoke to the on-site guest parking that is centrally located on the property. His concern is that it is not visible and people will not know where the guest parking is. And, one of them acce~ ses the foot of the stairway from the east door of the guest parking area. It is more logical from a functional viewpoint for that to be a resident's garage.Mr. Zehner explained they felt the location was central to the project. He was open to other considerations for pedestrian safety.Public comments Herb Runnells. 816 East Culver. spoke in favor of the project and thought Mr. Zehner's plans were real nice.Ken Brimlow. 652 East Culver, has looked at Mr. Zehner's plans and was in favor of this project.Eileen Hertfelder. 720 East Culver, thought Mr. Zehner has worked hard to make his project fit in with the zoning and she felt he should be able to build these units on his property.Mike Keller. 632 East Culver, spoke in favor of the project.Tom Matuzak. 340 South Grand, spoke in opposition to the project. His concerns are with the mass of a replacement property. A garage is being demolished and something 25 times bigger is being built. A precedent will be set if the project were approved. The DRB was very clear with their comments.Defending the Old Towne Design Standards, the DRB spoke clearly that the project be denied. It has a lot to do with the building material and the bulk and mass.Commissioner Smith asked what kind of development would be acceptable on this property.Mr. Matuzak replied a house like the one Mr. Zehner has, two-thirds the way back from the street.Joan Crawford. 394 South Orange, spoke in opposition to the project. She not only spoke on this project, but for the future projects in the same area. The bulk and mass, and the cumulative effect, not only historically but on the neighborhood, would be greatly compromised with this type of project. Mr.Zehner should be commended for the proposed changes and he appears to be making a significant effort to make the project look right. The zone change was not done appropriately and it did not meet CEQA standards. There are options and solutions to this that need to be considered before a decision can be made. The zoning needs to go back to R-1 and that is something the City should be taking into consideration. She didn't believe the change to R-2 zoning was thoroughly examined. There should be a one story overlay for the lots in this area to help control the bulk and mass. Maybe the City needs to revisit the Design Standards. Just because of the zoning, it does not necessarily mean that it meets the Design Standards. They were implemented to have a lot of flexibility and that the DRB could help make decisions on an individual basis, but maybe certain things should be considered, particularly the FAR because 54% even now is massive to what is already present in Old Towne. Perhaps the R-2 zone is not inappropriate for this area if there were other restrictions to control the bulk and mass. Mr. Zehner has added five 2-bedrooms. If they were five 1-bedrooms or a combination of 1-bedrooms and studio, the bulk and mass would not be unacceptable. Also, the same way with the number of garages.Dean Hiser. 545 South Grand, spoke in opposition to the project because it is too big. What is the potential cumulative effect of this if it were approved. It begins a fundamental change in the nature of the neighborhood and it pushes hard towards a change in the character of Old Towne. It's a change from a single family residence on a lot to an apartment complex. The street has 10 long lots. If the project is approved, the City is essentially saying it is okay on each of those lots to change from a single house or two units to six or seven units. There is the potential for 60 or 70 units on the street instead of the 10 or so that are there now. He was distressed by the appearance that it is okay to push the absolute limits of a flawed zoning ordinance, and not adhere to the Design Standards that have been Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Barbara DeNiro was disturbed by this hearing. These people changed Old Towne with one person's application and they are trying to tell Mr. Zehner (with his large property) they want to change the rules again. Applicant's response Mr. Zehner showed a picture of his present house taken in 1901. The house next door to him was built in 1921. There are no curbs or gutters and they had horses and buggies. Neighborhoods ~nd peopl~ change. He has tried to do everything he can within the Design Standards. In 1994 the City Council re-zoned this property from R-1 to R-2.The pUblic hearing was closed.Commissioner Pruett said this was an unusual shaped lot in that it is 300 feet deep and 66 feet wide. The applicant is trying to construct several buildings on the back part of the property, with ingress and egress on one side that is 14 feet. Are there issues related to ingress and egress as it relates to public safety vehicles. If it is not an issue, is there an issue for this size of property to require fire sprinklers on the buildings.Mr. Godlewski replied it was a concern on 300 foot deep lots, but the project has been reviewed by the Staff Review Committee, which includes staff from the Fire and Police Departments. They have included conditions that would require those buildings to be sprinklered. That would be part of the plan check process.Commissioner Smith did not understand how in this 300 foot long lot with six units that there is not some sort of requirement for the safety of that driveway. If this were an apartment complex there would be detailed plans and requirements for public safety. She was told at the last hearing this was a private driveway. She was not comfortable with that answer and needed more information. Feasibly, 15 cars could be accessing that driveway.Mr. Godlewski said there was parking proposed for 15 cars at this location. There are no specific regulations for fencing to keep children from the parking areas. The only fencing requirements are dealing with swimming pools. In reviewing large apartment complexes, the City does not have a requirement that there be areas fenced and physically separated from parking areas. This is part of the site plan review and if it seems reasonable or if there is an inherent danger, then staff makes those suggestions at that time. However, there are no code requirements to address fencing. It is actually the responsibility of the property owner to determine what the needs of his residents are and what the cross section of residents are to make them happy so that he retains tenants. Staff does not necessarily deem the project to be safe; it means staff has not seen any inherent dangers and to this point, have not made any recommendations for fencing.Mr. Hohnbaum added there is one standard staff uses for driveways as far as backing distance. That is a 25 foot minimum requirement, which this plan meets.Commissioner Carlton said they previously talked of a fire hydrant half way down the driveway. She asked if the fire sprinklers took the place of the fire hydrant.Mr. Godlewski said the last time they discussed the sprinkling of the buildings was that the Fire Department's position, and the applicant would prefer to put a fire hydrant in rather than fire sprinklers.The Fire Department prefers the sprinklers. The intent is that the fire trucks will not have to drive onto the property. If they had to, the trucks would have to back down the driveway. Mr. Godlewski was not sure where the nearest fire hydrant was to this property.Commissioner Pruett expressed concern at the last meeting about the size of the project and hoped the applicant would address the issue of bulk and mass and down size the project significantly more than 600 square feet, which is approximately less than 1/2 of one percent of the total project. He was concerned about the property and the neighborhood as a result of this project. If the project was down sized, was there any discussion as to what point would sprinklers not be required by the Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Mr. Godlewski explained sprinklers are not a function of how many units are on a property, but the distance from the public street. Anything over 150 feet would require residential sprinklers, unless an adequate turn around is provided so that a fire truck could enter the property, turn around on the property, and maneuver. The sprinklers buy time for the Fire Department to lay their hose and draw back the distance beyond 150 feet, from the public street to the building. Commissioner Smith thought the applicant has done a superb job of thinking out and planning his project. But she was not happy with the size of it at all; it's way too big for the neighborhood. She agreed the options in the zone change were not thoroughly examined. She still does not think th~t the property was zoned by the City Council R-2 in order to support this type of density. She thought It was their thinking to put two units on the property. There are two other properties on the street that are e~ en larger than this lot. If the same principle is applied on those properties, the area will turn Into apartments. There are the legalities, the property rights, aesthetics and retention of the historic district -- many things need to be discussed. She hoped the applicant would at least drop one unit from the proposal. The decrease of 600 square feet - she thought it was only a decrease of 330 square feet on the property - which is 10x30, as big as a kitchen. The project is too big. She appreciated what the applicant has done to bring the height down, but it's still too big and too massive for the neighborhood.There would have to be some trade offs in design. Design features and elements will get an applicant some density with her personally. There is some re-working of the design, but no compromise on the wood windows or wood siding. She is also very concerned about the aspect of 15 cars in the driveway with only one ingress/egress to the street. She didn't blame the applicant for any of the problems. It's something that the zone change created and the zone change was not detailed out thoroughly to address what could happen on these big lots in terms of traffic, circulation, building orientation, design elements,etc. She is extremely concerned about the precedent this particular project would set if it were approved. She personally would not want her name on it and think that every other lot on the street would be developed in the exact same way. That's not what her vision of a neighborhood in Orange is about. It would have to be more visually pleasing, fit better with the houses across the street, which have no potential for this kind of development, it would have to be safer in terms of traffic and circulation and to get to the last detail, which to many is the least significant, but it was significant to her. It's the actual fabric of the houses -- the materials that are used should be superb. It should be wood siding and wood windows. It should be well landscaped. She liked the landscape plan and the open space, but was not comfortable with the greenery on one side and cement on the other side. It's a good effort, but it's not balanced. She is irritated with the City for not following through with this. It seemed like a good thing to do at the time to change the zoning. However, there was no follow through. Some of the letters they have received states there has been no follow through and she agrees. A band aid was applied to that particular political situation at the time and never followed through. The applicant suffers because of that now. She didn't care how many rental units are in this neighborhood. That is not a factor in her mind.She is looking for the design of the neighborhood and the safety. It didn't matter to her whether it was owner-occupied or rentals. It was important for both that it should be well built, pretty nice, and safe.She is also concerned about the fact the negative declaration says the infrastructure is fine for this section.Maybe for this particular project it is, but she can't believe this will be built out without some major problems for the sewage, traffic and power in this particular neighborhood. Within five years, if all of these lots were built out this way, there is a definite possibility that it will be very costly to the City. To summarize, she didn't know what to do. It is not a good fit for the rest of the neighborhood. On the other hand, it is a nice design on its own, isolated from the rest of the neighborhood. She didn't like the large buildings, the triplex and the duplex. She would be happier with single standing buildings because they would fit in better with the neighborhood. There is one unit too many for this project. She appreciated the applicant's sensitivity to some of the suggestions the Commission made at the previous hearing, but it is still too big, too massive and not safe enough.Commissioner Pruett said the applicant is requestin~ a conditional use permit to construct a structure in excess of 1 1/2 stories in Old Towne. He is not In a position where he can support the project as prepared. It's because of a variety of issues. One was expressed earlier. He thought there were some safety issues with ingress and egress, not from just the public safety vehicles, but just from the standpoint of the tenants and visitors. He didn't know if the applicant is a victim here of circumstance.The issue is one of the applicant not looking at this project and developing a proposal that fits the Old Towne Design Standards, as well as the community in which it is situated. It's an unusual piece of property and requires some unusual and creative approaches in terms of dealing with the bulk and mass and circulation, as well as all the other issues related to it. That is something that is in the control of the applicant to address. He requested a continuance to allow the applicant to go back and look at the project, down size it from the standpoint to where it fit the property and the neighborhood. He didn't 6 T- r Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 think it does, nor does it fit the Design Standards. He would not be in a position to approve the project as presented. Commissioner Carlton thought this was a tough situation because the street is very unique. .On on~ hand, the zoning is in place. If the Commission is going to deny the project, they need to state In det~11 why. She didn't have enough reference as to the actual document that is being referred to. The lot IS big. In her mind, there is another street that should have never been zoned the way it was. It's totally inconsistent and it is on the border of Old Towne. She needed to have this spelled out clearer exactly why it is not meeting the Old Towne Design Standards, other than what has been stated. The alum,inum windows don't bother her. She would like to see the project reduced in size, but she didn't know If the applicant was willing to do that. She didn't know how many of the elements in the applicant's plan were inconsistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. Commissioner Romero commended Mr.' Zehner for his efforts, but he was trying to imagine a five unit complex behind a little house. There are three points of view -- the applicant's, a financial point of view,and an aesthetic point of view. From a property right point of view, it's the applicant's right and it has importance and a lot of weight. Then again, there is the problem of working with the community, CEQA,the historic district and with all the guidelines that are to be followed. This would be a great income producing property. The Commission must look at this project as planners in planning the community.He also reluctantly agreed with a lack of desire to approve the project as presented.Commissioner Pruett said the issue of property rights has been brought up and he stated his position in opposing the conditional use permit is not in any way taking away the property rights. The property owner has the opportunity to develop that property without a conditional use permit with a 1 1/2 story project. The historic preservation design standards for Old Towne must be adhered to and he read from the residential quadrant design standards for new construction. "The design of the new residence shall be complimentary to the other residences in the block. Specifically, infill construction shall be consistent with the following characteristics of the contributing buildings on the street: Massing, scale, shape,proportion, open space, rhythm and pattern, and landscape features. The design of infill construction and those portions of residential quadrants that are zoned for commercial and industrial uses shall comply with other standards." The bulk and mass of the project presents some real problems of meeting the Design Standards and therefore, to approve the conditional use permit is really working against the Design Standards. All of these issues must be taken into consideration and if they're not, it will be hard to get past the Planning Commission.Chairman Bosch agreed there were several underlying issues that did not want to go away and shouldn't go away, but that is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission. One is the gestation, birth and life of the re-zone for the area. He wasn't in favor of the re-zone, but the City Council did approve it for this piece of land. He encouraged anyone who thought it was an inappropriate zoning to petition the City Council and re-invent the exercise they desire. He didn't know if the outcome would be different or not.This project before the Commission must be judged based on the rules that are in place. The various correspondence with regard to CEQA and applicability and whether or not the requirements are met --it's fairly clear to him other than where the threshold for cumulative impact is, which is something that is laying out there and is ill defined or undefined -- that, in other regards, the proper actions were taken to demonstrate what needed to be done to mitigate the development set forth under the R-2 zoning on this area of land. The City had substantial benefit of experience of the other R-2 developments in Old Towne to understand what the potential impacts might be. He didn't see them as substantial if the design on this property is one that meets the other requirements of the ordinance. The zone does not stand by itself. He thought Commissioner Pruett was right when he indicated the specific right for the development of the property, equivalent to that on other properties under the zoning ordinance,adopted by the City Council after extraordinary input and years of debate, and after seeing a precedent set over substantial areas of Old Towne, was to arrive at 1 1/2 stories as a threshold where a person could avoid coming in on everything for a CUP to avoid a lot of the bureaucracy. If a person wants to go for more, they can, but a CUP is required. That's where privilege comes in and the privilege is granted based upon meeting the requirements of the Design Standards under a conditional use permit, which include a contextuality with the neighborhood, which include that applicable City services being in place,overlaid with the Old Towne Design Standards. Mr. Zehner has the right to develop his property within the development standards, if he meets the Old Towne Design Standards and if he designs to 1 1/2 stories. The initial proposal was overwhelming not in the number of units, but in the bulk and mass of the site, and then down to some details which refer to consistency with the Old Towne Design Standards.Mr. Zehner has made a big dent in the bulk and mass issue, by eliminating areas which also were really 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 gray and worry areas as he acknowledged with regard to the potential long-term impa~ts on the neighborhood, particularly with regard to the rental office/recreation room with the excess parking. ",!"hat' s gone. The split to break up the front building and reduce the ridge line is a very substantial move In the right direction. The overall height. because of the roof pitches and the single roof is still a great concern for the Chairman, as well as the overall bulk. That's part of the problem. He was intrigued by the . two bedrooms vs. one bedroom discussion for portions of the project. He felt there were a lot of things happening in the right direction on this project. He believed the movement in the materials is movi~g in the right direction. He believed there are wood sidings that meet the individual clapboard or shiplap styles to be compatible with the front house that are made from masonite or other composite ~ ood products. He applauded the move to the wood and multi-pane windows where appropriate to avoid the appearance of large picture windows that are not in keeping with the design of the front residence. He still had a problem with the aluminum window section that has been given to the Commission. It's still a modern piece, no matter if it is trimmed in wood. He didn't have a problem with the aluminum or steel material or composite -- his concern is with the profile of the shapes that contain the glazing. There are now windows available that make profiles in vinyl clad wood. They make profiles in aluminum or other composite materials that are substantially in conformance with the profiles found in the wood sash windows in Old Towne. Part of that relates back again to Mr. Zehner's move towards the wood sliding glass doors for screen purposes. He would encourage the submittal of a modern profile using a modern material but with an appearance that is respectful of the historic design of the old house. The applicant made the offer to retain portions of the existing driveway approach as additional guest parking. He didn't desire to see that. The guest parking needs to be maintained on the site without guests having to back into the street. He believed a key portion of the Old Towne Design Standards in their reference with regard to the historical district is the maintenance of the historical streetscape which is one driveway per property and that this should be maintained with one driveway, even if it is shifted to the west side.And, the east side of the property, were this to be approved in some form, have the driveway removed and be landscaped. And, that there not be a second vehicular access to the site, but only retained on the west side. He is concerned about the safety of the pedestrians and would like to see a pedestrian way to serve as an address without wandering up the driveway. The answer isn't necessarily a separate sidewalk, but he would like to see it addressed in some way. The proposed electrical gate to block off the view to the back and help reduce uncontrolled access becomes a problem and might cause a greater danger to the pedestrians. He would rather not have a gate at the driveway at all. He trusts the Fire Department with regard to selecting the correct requirements and meeting the building and fire codes relative to fire sprinklers and hydrants. Based on the Old Towne Design Standards and the findings of the conditional use permit, if there was a way to get five units on this property at 1 1/2 stories and have a design that is essentially compatible, that would be wonderful to look at. There is no way to do that, or else the applicant would have come forward with that proposal. He was not against some portion of the project being two stories, if there is a proper relationship to the building in front. Mr. Zehner started to do that by eliminating the recreation office in helping to break back the front unit away so it doesn't create a wall of building immediately in back of the vehicular court to the front house. But, it doesn't quite make it. The rear buildings are so tall and in of themselves. The mass of the two story portion of the project is so great that it hurts the project. The Chairman did not know of a way to get there with this number of units. He wasn't ready to give up on the project overall. But that is subject to what the applicant wants to do. The key is the mass of living spaces in terms of the number of bedrooms and the mass of the building that is still two stories. It's still too much at this time. He asked the other Commissioners if they were willing to ask Mr. Zehner if he desired to work with them to get further towards meeting their concerns.Commissioner Pruett mentioned at the last hearing that all of these lots on Culver will be multiple unit lots because of the zoning. However, there is much more work to do on this proposal as it stands now.Commissioner Smith didn't want to simply deny the project with no opportunity for development. The applicant came in with a well thought out plan in the first place, but it is in the wrong neighborhood. If they could continue to work towards a good project, she would be more than happy to do that. The way it is proposed now, it sets a precedent.Mr. Zehner appreciated the Commission's thoughts. He still wished the other two Commissioners would come out and look at the property. He would be willing to put in wood windows if the project were approved at this hearing. He is not going to eliminate any units because it's not feasible for him. He asked the Commission to make their decision at this hearing. When the property was re-zoned there was a negative declaration that was approved. He was trying to preserve the front house and that's part of the problem. He felt he addressed the Commission's concerns from the last meeting in good faith. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 could request a bonus density, but he's trying not to do that. He felt he was being penalized because of what his neighbors have, or have not, done. The Commission explained to Mr. Zehner he has met all of the ordinance requirements except the subjective one and that is relative to the basic issue of the design standards and the bulk and mass. There was still too much of the 2-story structure. The Commission was not suggesting Mr. Zehner develop a 1 1/2 story development. They were willing to work with him in looking at how he could put a 2 story development on his property but without the bulk and mass as currently proposed. If Mr. Zehner did not want to work with the Commission, he had the option of developing his property at 1 1/2 stories without the conditional use permit.After a lengthy discussion with the applicant, the Commission was of the opinion the proposed project was not in compliance with the Old Towne Design Standards.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to deny Mitigated Negative Declaration 1540-97 on the basis the project does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards, Page 27,which addresses new construction, A. 1. a) "The design of a new residence shall be complimentary to other residences on the blocks. Specifically, infill construction should be consistent with the following characteristics of contributing buildings on the street: 1) Massing, scale, shape and proportion; 2) Open space, rhythm and pattern; 3) Landscape features (found to be acceptable)." The other section is on Page 27, A. 2. Additions and Alterations to Historic Structures, second paragraph. " New additions,exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy the historic features that characterize the property. New work shall be compatible with the old in terms of the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its surroundings." There was a prior Negative Declaration 1425-93 prepared for Zone Change 1159-93 which has three mitigation measures listed in the Staff Report dated January 5, 1998, on Page 3 and they have not been complied with.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Conditional Use Permit 2195-97 - Ralph Zehner, finding that the project did not consider the relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans for the area in which it is located, which are the Old Towne Guidelines.That, if granted, this project would be providing a benefit to the individual welfare of the applicant rather than the general welfare of the public.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch supported the motion and was sad about it because he had hoped to find some common ground with the applicant to reach a compromise.Mr. Jones explained the appeal rights to the applicant.RECESS - The Chair recessed the meeting at 9: 15 p.m.RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2200-97 - MANILA PENINSULA A proposal to allow the on-premise sale and service of alcohol with meals within an existing restaurant located within the Ramada Inn complex, addressed 105 North State College Boulevard.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from 'he provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Chairman Bosch noted the Commission has received a letter dated January 5, 1998 from Robert King relative to the project and it is entered for the record. Mr. Jones presented the full staff report as there was opposition to this item. The subject property !s developed with an approximately 140,000 square foot hotel and restaurant complex. There are SIX buildings involved in the complex. The restaurant and a meeting room occupy one of the six buildings at the northeast corner of the site. There has been a motel and restaurant at this location since the center was constructed in 1971. The applicant, Manila Peninsula, has operated a restaurant at this locat!on s~~ce June of last year. There is a site plan and existing floor plan attached to the staff report which Identifies how the restaurant, banquet room and ballroom areas would be used. A single story facility will be used for a meeting room, which is located at the northeast end of the building and it is not part of the restaurant complex. It is a separate part of the Ramada Inn. The restaurant covers approximately 5,690 square feet and includes the ballroom and banquet room, dining room and restaurant facilities. The applicant states the restaurant's proposed hours of operation would be from 11 :00 a.m. to Midnight, Sunday through Thursday, and 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages would be limited to the hours between 11 :00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, which is one hour before closing time, and 11 :00 a.m. and 1 :00 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays, one hour before closing time. The Planning Commission is to determine whether the proposal will adversely affect the welfare of the surrounding community or will result in an undue concentration of premises for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the area in which the restaurant is located. The Commission is required to make specific findings with regard to the hours of operation, proximity to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds and other similar uses, and proximity to other establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages. The State Alcoholic Beverage Control itself requires the applicant identify all such facilities within 600 feet of the site. City staff found no such uses developed within 600 feet of the restaurant site. There is a mobile home park located to the north of the project. The existing restaurant primarily serves Philippine food and patrons who enjoy ballroom dancing. The Staff Review Committee reviewed this application and no objections or concerns were noted. The Police Department has reviewed the application and submitted their standard project conditions to ensure this use does not become a problem to the area. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and the Commission's action is final. There are 14 conditions of approval with this application. The public hearing was opened. Paul Roberts. 40 Via Madera. Rancho Santa Margarita, is a bar and restaurant consultant and represented the applicant. They have been open since last summer and they have a very upscale decor and serve Philippine food. They have met with the Orange Police Department and mutually agreed to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Carlton was confused as to why alcoholic beverages were not allowed to be served or permitted in the ballroom. She wanted to know if there were separate tables and chairs set up in the ballroom. Mr. Roberts said when the facility was built many years ago, it was a bar and a restaurant. The applicant's intent was to use the room for ballroom dancing. The Police Department did not want to have a separate bar in the restaurant. It was generally agreed that the service of alcohol along with food was not a problem, but if this were going to turn into a nightclub and bar, the Police had concerns about that. The applicant is not looking to be in the bar or nightclub business. They want to use the ballroom for dancing only on certain nights and they will demolish the existing bar. On the other nights when the ballroom is not being used for dancing, they will put tables and chairs in there and use that room as part of the restaurant. Commissioner Pruett asked if Karaoke and the piano will be in the ballroom. The plan is not definitive enough in terms of what the project is. How is the ballroom going to be laid out. There needs to be more detail. He was concerned about the opening between the dining room and dance floor area. That ought to be closed off unless there was an entry for service only. And, ingress and egress to the ballroom was through the lobby to control the alcohol coming into the ballroom. He asked where the seating will be, where the piano will be located, where is the Karaoke going to take place. Would the applicant be interested in providing a more detailed drawing of how the rooms will be laid out. A lot of information was not included in the drawing. 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Mr. Roberts said their intent was to have Karaoke and the piano as part of the dining experience. It is not their intent to provide alcohol in the ballroom. They will remove the bar. On nights when there is ~o dancing, they will put tables and chairs in the room to use as an expanded area of the restaurant. If his explanation is not clear enough, they will provide the Commission with a detailed drawing. Commissioner Smith was concerned about condition 5 and thought it needed to be modified. o.n evenings dancing is not provided, the ballroom will be set up as part of the restaurant and alcoholic beverages will be served in that room. Chairman Bosch asked if the occupancy loads have been reviewed by Building and Fire relative to the construction of the building, exit requirements, etc. Mr. Roberts is assuming the space has met those requirements in the past and it will meet current requirements. Chairman Bosch addressed the parking spaces of 343 which are adequate. But his last recollection on the property when the hotel/motel was expanded there was a 15% parking reduction given with the expansion in recognition of a taking of the land by Caltrans on the site. Will ballroom dancing and dining change the parking requirement. There is a substantial modification to a portion of the site that uses parking spaces for truck parking use. This might negatively impact their parking as well. Mr. Roberts didn't know how that affects the overall parking on the site, but he suspected it didn't dramatically affect the restaurant. There seems to be sufficient parking for their customers in the front. Michael Chao. 3991 MacArthur Boulevard, is the attorney for the applicant. His points were more for clarification. In condition 6 the restriction of the hours on the service and sale of alcohol had been accepted by his client; however, one aspect of that was not taken into consideration and it was evident on New Year's Eve. New Year's Eve falls on different days each year. This year, based on the condition as written, sales and service would have to stop at 11 :00 p.m., thus taking away the Midnight toast. He has discussed an exemption for New Year's Eve with Sgt. Weinstein for service until 1 :00 a.m. and there was no objection. Commissioner Smith had a very keen observation about the last sentence in condition 5 relative to alcohol service not being available at all in the ballroom. It would be appropriate for that condition to be modified. The intent was when the room is used for dancing, there shall be no alcohol in that room; however, if there is a need for a banquet or restaurant use, they should be able to set that room up with tables and serve alcoholic beverages with the meal. His clients have expressed their desire to be good neighbors and work with the City. Chairman Bosch asked if it were clear to the attorney relative to condition 6 that sales and services of alcohol shall cease one hour before closing. (Yes.) Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 5 and the issue of alcohol not being served in the ballroom, he thought there was the concern of the piano playing and Karaoke. In his view, those are activities where alcohol consumption and service would not be included as well. He didn't understand what the scheduled activities would be for the week. Mr. Chao agreed and suggested by continuing the hearing to the next meeting, his clients could provide a detailed description of where certain activities would take place and the types of use they envision to make it clear to the City. They are willing to work with the City and Police Department to have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. Commissioner Carlton wanted to make sure the conditions are not re-written to preclude a piano being in a room where a banquet or large gathering can take place. She thought the intent is to have no alcohol is strictly when it is a ballroom dancing activity.Bob King. 295 North Rampart #D, spoke in opposition to this project because he didn't understand what was going on. This project is being presented in an isolated situation and it is not in an isolated situation.It is part of the Ramada Inn complex and the complex is a truck stop. There are at least three big trucks parked in front of the Ramada Inn this evening, where the restaurant patrons park. Their concern is not that alcoholic beverages are going to be served in the restaurant. He envisions this project to turn into a night club and it invites many problems. There has been increased crime since the truck stop has been there. There are 203 mobile homes in the area, in addition to the professional business offices adjacent Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 to the site. A night club does not belong in a neighborhood. Taken in context o! a Ra.mada In.n complex, this project is not categorically exempt from CEOA. There have been no traffic studies on t~IS project. Chapman and State College are being re-aligned. A truck stop and night club are not conducive to what the City of Orange stands for. The cumulative effects of this project are way too much. The Ramada Inn complex has not been a good neighbor. The landscaping is derogatory. to the neighborhood. They tried to put in extra driveways without the proper permits. It is their position that the truck stop is illegally operating as a truck stop.Dan VanDorpe. 295 North Rampart #A, spoke in opposition to this item. He moved to this area 10 years ago and at that time the properties on all sides were developed. Within the last few years, the Ramada Inn has gone down hill. Two years ago they removed the landscaping and buffer and began parkin~ trucks there. The restaurant use is not for people in the hotel. That parking should be considered in addition to the hotel parking. There were 19 trucks parked in the back, which use to be the tennis courts. There were trucks also parked around the perimeter which uses up the automobile spaces.Crime has increased in the area; his car has been broken into twice.Diana Falk. 300 North Rampart #74. lives in the mobile home park. She talked about the many trucks making so much noise, coming in and leaving at different hours of the night. There is no pavement where the trucks park and she gets most of the dust and dirt. She didn't object to the alcohol, but she remembers several years ago there was a bar at this same location. It was very crowded and people could not dance. She was concemed with the noise, crime element and the trucks.Applicant's response Mr. Roberts was a bit surprised by the negative comments. He thought they had addressed all these issues as completely as they could, but it seems like there is still confusion. He reiterated they were talking about Manila Peninsula, a sub-tenant of Ramada Inn. They have nothing to do with Ramada Inn;other than lease the restaurant space. They cater to the Philippine community and felt this was a good location. From their standpoint, the trucks have not been a problem. There is plenty of parking for their customers; there are over 50 spaces in front of the restaurant, even after taking into account what Caltrans is going to take away. They got a plan from Caltrans that shows the current number of spaces, which was most recently approved, after it is redesigned. He keeps hearing no one objects to the alcohol, but they object to any hint that this might be a night club. They made it very clear that it is not to be a night club now or ever. He referred to condition 1 relative to the use being a restaurant.Chairman Bosch explained the Commission has to look at the overall property because the conditional use permit goes with the land; not with the applicant. The City has an obligation to assure that the previous approvals are followed and that reasonable conditions are applied that keep outside forces from damaging the applicant.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch had questions relative to the underlying approval of the CUP in place for the overall complex and conditions relative to parking and findings for the parking reduction. What is happening out there in terms of the apparent change in the type of use.Mr. Jones explained there may not have been an original CUP since it was constructed back in 1971. It appears from what staff can gather that a restaurant and dance floor area was originally constructed as part of the restaurant and it has been in use at various times over the years. Now, there is an existing dance floor, a restaurant operation, which is a permitted use, and if they want to move into the dance floor area and run it all as a restaurant, they could do that. He didn't know what the parking requirements were at the time it was built, but will be impacted by the widening. They may be impacted, but they are not generated by this application. There is no additional parking demand that is generated by this request because they currently have dancing and restaurant privileges. The request is limited to a request for alcoholic beverages. It sounds like there are a lot of pre-existing problems outside of the control of the applicant. Mr. Jones will follow up with Code Enforcement staff to make sure they take a look at this site to see if the Ramada Inn operation is operatin~ outside of their le~al rights. CEOA does make provision for certain exemptions for certain types of projects and an ABC license is one of those. That does not mean there aren't land use issues and considerations that the Commission needs to take into account and those findings are outlined in the Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Chairman Bosch would encourage the applicant's proposal to continue the item in order for them. to provide the proper clarifications, plans, wording, etc. relative to their proposed operation. The!,!.. dunng that time, staff needs to come back to the Commission with a report on what is the condition and compliance of the existing CUP for the Ramada Inn. The Planning Commission, four to six years aQo, approved a CUP which increased the number of rooms and a 15% parking reduction. It appears to hl!TI there is a nuisance at this location. Whether or not this use is a truck stop and if that is defined or not In the code, and whether or not it is appropriate for the use, the property is really torn up and has major impacts on the neighboring land uses that weren't part of the intent or understanding. The Commission would like to know if the City can do anything about it. Commissioner Pruett outlined for the applicant what his thoughts were in terms of what they need to come back with. He wants a more detailed drawing of the restaurant. The issue of the Fire Code and some of the occupancy requirements and kind of detail that will help even the Fire Department look at that in order for staff to comment on. It is very important that it be laid out what the operating plans are for the restaurant and ballroom and the activities that are there and where and when those activities take place. He would like to know the schedule of activities to better understand their use. It was important to show what the ingress and egress is as it relates to the ballroom. That may dictate the number of people and occupancy use. Commissioner Smith would like to see the configuration on the 1-5 widening and how it will affect the parking spaces. The Commission would also like to find out about the truck parking and how many spaces they take up.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2200-97 - Manila Peninsula Restaurant - to the meeting of February 2, 1998, with the applicant's concurrence, to provide additional information on their operations and plans and also for staff to report back to the Commission with regard to their findings upon review of the existing land use and its conformance, or lack thereof, to the existing entitlements on the property. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2201-97 - TACO MESA A proposal to allow the on-premise sale of beer and wine in a bona fide restaurant located at 3533 East Chapman 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; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened.Apolicant. Ivan Calderon. 3533 East Chapman, concurs with the conditions of approval. He wanted clarification on condition 5 which expresses the sale of beer and wine starting at 11 :00 a.m. and ceasing one hour prior to closing time, which is not a problem. However, they wish to expand their hours of operation in the summer months and to close at 11 :00 p.m. during the week and 12:00 Midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.Sgt. Weinstein, Orange Police Department, said the Police Department investigated this operation and did not find any problems. Therefore, they do not object to the modification of hours. .The public hearing was closed.It was noted this project was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1998 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2201-97 - Taco Mesa - with conditions 1-15, modifying condition 5 to reflect that sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall cease one hour before the restaurant closes. 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 any deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plan for which it is located. In granting the conditional use permit, it is subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare and not the individual welfare of the applicant. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED sld 14 T'