Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/20/1985 - Minutes PC~r. -C City of Orange Orange, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 20, 1985 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Master at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Mason STAFF John Lane, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secre- PRESENT: tary; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Toba V. Wheeler, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE c IN RE MINUTES OF MAY 6, 1985 Moved by Commissioner Hart,. seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the minutes of the May 6, 1985, meeting be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Scott NOES: None ABSENT; Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1429 - HEDRICK & LIGHTHIPE Proposed addition of two residential units above a garage to an existing single-family residence in the RMM6 (RCD) Zone on the west side of Orange Street, approximately 100 feet north from Sycamore Avenue, NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report and said Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in its ,~ report. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Applicant Rodney Lighthipe, 9381 Hazel. Circle, Villa Park, said he accepts the conditions in the Staff Report and is available to answer questions. Qbjections were raised by various homeowners on Orange Street. Lila Rozek, 428 N, Orange, said she was opposed to a two-story dwelling because it would cause her to give up the privacy of her back yard; that she was already unhappy about apartments in the area, the parking congestion on the street and the use of front lawns for parking. Kevin Schralla, 444 N. Orange, said apartments are not Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Two campatib1e with the neighborhood., there is already extreme danger from the traff is flow from Chapman College and multiple complexes in the area will increase it, adding a two-story dwelling and a five-car garage on the same property with an already existing single-story dwelling will detract from the neighborhood., all home- owners on the block are concerned with improving their dwellings not detracting by the addition of multiple rental units, and the noise level from a second-story dwelling unit would be higher than they would like. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the property is already zoned for multiple housing and the question under consideration is not whether or not there should be multiple housing but whether or not there ,should be one-story or two-story multiple housing. Chairman Master added that that particular area is zoned for multiple housing with overlay, which means it can go second story with a conditional use permit. He pointed out that the five-car garage is to be put there in place of the existing garage and will provide parking for both the existing structure .and the proposed second-story apartments. Debbie Hamilton, 468 N. Orange, asked how many residents would be allowed to live in each apartment. Mr. Minshew responded that there is no practical level., that it is still based on family relationship and that the State Supreme Court has decreed that a family is more than people related by blood, marriage or adoption but could mean people who have similar interests., although he didn't think it could mean students who have no connection with each other other than the fact that they are students attending the same school. He said that although no practical limit was set., the housing code does state a number, albeit a rather large number. Mrs. Hamilton said there are aireaay tour girls in the si guess that the three bedrooms of the t each contain two people, which would m residing on the property, and she feel for the size of the lot; that even if per bedroom in the new units, it would which is also a lot of people consider on the street have only a couple or a children. She pointed out that seven and friends visiting, would generate a already is a lot of traffic there with especially when their boyfriends spent ig i e-tamriy House ana she wou is ~o proposed apartments would eke a total of ten persons that is an enormous amount ;here would be only one person make a total of seven persons, ing that the rest of the homes ;ouple with one or two small ;o ten persons, with family lot of traffic; that there only four girls in residence, the night. Mrs.. Ham ilton said that she knows Mr. Lighthipe doesn't represent Chapman College even though he attempts to create this impression when he is trying to buy the houses on the block. She said he is buying the two houses adjacent to her home and plans to build two- story, two-apartment units in those two. back yards a1 so. She said that not only is there a parking problem that will be greatly increased but also there is there is an open invitation to crime } Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Three with so many people coming and going and the tenants changing from time to time so the homeowners are not sure who is really living there. Mabel Cunningham., 432 N. Orange, Pam Schralla, 444 N. Orange, and Richard Rozek, 428 N. Orange, reiterated the objections already made by the other homeowners already quoted. Mr. Lighthipe said he appreciates the concerns of the neighborhood and as a responsible resident of the Orange/Villa Park area, he feels he has an obligation to meet the building requirements of the City and County ordinances. He said in order to ameliorate and possibly eliminate a17 possible noise emanating from the second story, the building was designed with minimum window space on the north side., which faces the majority of the block, with only two small windows in the kitchens. Also, required window space is provided by the use of sliding glass doors on the west and south elevations that not only enhance the building but meet the requirements of the bu lding code. He said the five enclosed parking spaces are in accordance with the zoning requirements and this will improve the parking situation on the street. He said after he was made aware of the parking on the lawn in front of the existing residence he has spoken to the current residents twice and will continue to work with those tenants to get them not to park on the lawn and block the sidewalks. Commissioner Greek requested the height of the roof and was told it will be 24' at its peak. In addition, Mr. Lighthipe said that regarding the architectural treatment and appearance of the building in accordance with the Design Review Board requirements and the upgrading of the neighborhood, the existing neighborhood is a fine appropriate single-family neighborhood on the west side of Orange Street from the residence that he owns north to the corner, but the two buildings south of his property are single-family residences that have been converted to multiple-family use and on the property immediately adjacent to 420 N. Orange there are actually three residential buildings with no adequate parking for any of them. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. ~ Commissioner Greek said he would like to see a plot plan submitted with the application, as well as a floor plan, so he can see what is going where. Commissioner Hart said he is inclined to agree with the neighbors that that area is so badly impacted that there will be even more parking problems, and he .would have a hard .time supporting another two units on that property. Commissioner Greek said his main concern is that this entire block is sandwiched in between a C-1 Zone which allows a 30' height limitation and the gymnasium which is unlimited height for public institutional, consequently, even though he realizes the problems of the homeowners now living there, he feels it is wrong to slow down the development of the area just because this particular property is the first one J Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Four in the neighborhood. He said he believes there ultimately will be C-1, 30' high development on the entire west boundary; therefore, he is not opposed to the second story of this proposed building. He said he would like to see the maximum amount of parking that can possibly be put.on the property and would like to see where that parking will be specifically, so he can make sure there is in- adequate amount., Chairman Master commented that the Planning Commission is seeing and hearing more and more of the impact of the RCD overlay on the parking situation, not so much as the result of any individual applicant but rather because property designed many years ago did not take into consideration future traffic increase. He said he felt some consideration was due the current homeowners and if they were interested they could pursue applying fora zone change. He said a lot had happened since the area was zoned with the RCD overlay many years ago and that there may be reasonable consideration for some other zoning today, although a zoning change could well end up being less. restrictive rather than more restrictive; it might even be of a more commercial nature that would allow structures of 30' or higher. Commissioner Greek said he feels the entire area ultimately will be built to the 30' height allowable in the C-1 zone so he feels the development of this property should not be hindered now. Commissioner Hart said he visualizes that ultimately, as the owners of the homes sell them, the entire area will become apartments, although it does not appear that they are ready for that at this time. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1429 because the height limitation to the west is already 30' and it appears the ultimate development of this area will be to more two-story buildings. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Hart ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Chairman Master informed the homeowners who objected that if they wish they can appeal the decision to the office of Planning or directly to the City Councilman who represents them. He said he would hold it incumbent upon the owners of this property to enforce the parking situation; he said there~~may be a review of the parking by the Police Department and perhaps it is getting to the point where an overall review of the neighborhood parking situation is needed,~with a reporting function on it. Mr. Lane said this matter will go to the City Council only if it is appealed. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Five IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT 12428, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1430 - SAN CLEMENTE DEVELOPMENT Proposed 13-unit industrial condominium subdivision on 5.35 acres in the M-2 zone on the east side of Main Street, approximately 472 feet south from Barkley Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 985 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with the Staff Report, and said Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in its report. Commissioner Greek asked to see a copy of the Fire Depart- ment report.. Mr. Lane said there was no written report from the Fire Department and it is conceivable one was not made because the Fire Department felt it was not necessary since there are no conditions in the Staff Report that indicate any concerns on the part of the Fire Department. Chairman Master opened the public hearing. Keith Cook, 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, representing San Clemente Development, said the project was submitted for environmental review and the fire issues were addressed on two separate occasions. He said the site plan was realigned and hammerhead turnaround pockets were incorporated at 750' intervals all the way into the project on both the north and south sides. He said this was reviewed by a gentleman from the Fire Department,. the hammerhead issue was discussed specifically as to dimensions and amount of clearances for the trucks to turn around, and the final site plan was approved on the second submittal to the Environmental Review Board. He said the recommendation for the location of the fire hydrant was also discussed., as was the City fire code requirements for buildings of industrial use greater than 6.,000 but smaller than 12,000 square feet to. have an off~site monitored heat and smoke detection system and buildings larger than 12,000 square feet to have a wet fire sprinkler system. Chairman Master declared the public hearing closed. ® Commissioner Greek said he is concerned that essentially this is a tract with a 25'-.wide street and a 900'-long hammerhead turnaround, and if that is acceptable then why has he been told that a resident- ial or industria~l~ street has to be 60' wide with a 40' cul-de-sac. He said it appears to him that the standards have changed drastically if this design is acceptable because trucks would certainly have great difficulty in maneuvering around the area at the east end of the project. He~said he doesn't-feel this design is adequate and ® believes the Fire Department would have thrown it out; he said he would like to ask Staff specifically if this design was acceptable to Engingeering, to Traffic, to the Fire Department and to the Police Department, because he feels that with this design the standards are being completely ignored. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Six Commissioner Scott said that in looking at the site today he was concerned about the location of the driveway relative to the train tracks and asked if Traffic had looked at it sand considered the possibility of permitting exiting in the northerly direction only. Commissioner Hart said the Planning Commission had discussed a similar situation years ago wherein someone might be blocked on the railroad track in trying to get into the development and he thinks at that time a right-turn restriction was placed upon the plan. He said he would be surprised that a narrow driveway with so much traffic on it would be approved, Commissioner Greek said that since Stang Hydronics owns-.both parcels it might be possible to arrange some sort of emergency exit but as it is, this is a super sub-standard development from his standpoint. Chairman Master pointed out to Mr. Cook that there are points to be clarified by both the Fire Department and the Planning Department before the Planning Commission could consider this project. He asked Mr. Lane what type of continuation, if the app'7icant would be agreeable, would be in order to get this information to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lane responded that the two weeks unti] the next Planning Commission meeting should be sufficient, Chairman Master asked Mr. Cook if he would consider a two-week continuance. Mr. Cook said he was surprised at what was happening sihce San Clemente Development had gone through the whole environmental review .process with all honesty and no intentions of doing anything outside the codes, restrictions or ordinances of the City of Orange and did go through a review process with the Fire Department. He said they have been in negotiations with Stang and at one time were considering purchasing the adjacent remaining property to accommodate a secondary means of ingress and egress for fire, but at that time the Fire Department said it wasn't necessary. He said they had intended to make arrangements to purchase or-lease the right-of-way for a drive- way to go out the north end and around the Stang property, but didn't pursue it because the Fire Department said it was not required. He said he was disappointed that the Planning Commission would want to continue the matter merely to get written documents for what had been done already, and if he had thought this would occur he would have brought his files which have copies of the Fire Department and Water Department comments and all the things that were resolved in the environmental review process. He said if his options are denial or continuance, he would take continuance. Commissioner Hart said he doesn't think the Fire Department is the issue, rather that the design of the project is the issue. He said he is inclined to agree with Mr. Cook that he has Fire Department approva`1 and if that were all that was bothering the Planning Commission then the project could be approved now, but what is really bothering the Planning Commission is the design of the project. Commissioner Greek agreed, saying that the design standards seem to have been totally ignored on this project, not only in relation to fire hazard and traffic but also regarding parking requirements. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Seven Mr. Cook said they complied with everything necessary for an industrial condominium project with a non-dedicated street and feels the project is very typical of developments in other areas. Mr. Johnson said that if this were going to be a dedicated street then there would certainly be a minimum-size cul-de-sac and mini- mum street widths, but that's not what's being proposed for this project. He said Staff's concern primarily revolves around the Fire Department`s ability to service the area. He said in the past the Faire Department has mandated the maximum 600' cul-de-sac with a turnaround at the end but in the last six months the Fire Department`s standards have changed and if it appears that the Fire Department feels it can service the area then Staff will accept that. He said another aspect of this project which may have affected the thinking of Staff is the fact that at one time this was a very long, slender piece of property with only 50 or 60 feet of frontage on Main Street and when Stang combined it with a portion of its property, Staff felt it was an improvement because it gave more frontage and a little more versatility in designing the project and getting a little better circulation and therefore the design wasn't quite as critical from the standpoint of turnaround and the overriding consideration was the ability of the Fire Department to service the area. Chairman Master again asked Mr. Cook if he would be amenable to a continuance. Mr, Cook responded that only if he was assured of defeat if the project was voted upon at this meeting would he a~~ept a continuances Chairman Master said he couldn't assure him of that. Mr. Cook said if the Planning Commission feels it's so necessary to review the issue then he will be agreeable to a continuance., but he feels the issues have been dealt with and all the questions were answered. He said this is about the fourth design they did for this property because the shape of the property makes it difficult to produce any type of a building structure which is in conformance with the surrounding zoning of industrial use, He said they had considered building a mini-storage facility but decided against it because there were already too many in the area. He said this is really the only type of development that will work on this piece of property.. He said they are concerned about the fire issues and were told by the Fire Department that they would have to purchase about $2.,500 worth of smoke ejectors and fire blankets and other pieces of fire equipment and dedicate them to the City, and they did that. Commissioner Hart said he would be willing to give this a test through the system by recommending approva`1 since Staff has approved it, Commissioner Greek said that just because Staff .has approved it doesn't make it a good plan; it is still a bad plan. He pointed out that there isn`t even a condition for the fire blankets and other fire equipment Mr. Cook said he had been asked to purchase. He asked about the lot switch that took place with Stang and was told it was done by parcel map and was recorded in August, 1984., that three parcels were recombined into two. Mr. Johnson said some parcel maps do not come before the Planning Commission, that they are acted on Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Eight by Staff if they satisfy the conditions that are called out in the subdivision codes. Mr. Cook asked if he accepts continuance and the application goes through the process again with the same results., what will happen. Chairman Master said the Planning Commission would try to get clarification from the Fire Department. Chairman Hart said the Planning Commission would be misleading Mr. Cook to let him think that confirmation from the Fire Department will get an approval from the Planning Commission, because the problem is not with the Fire Department but with the design of the project and the sub- standard street. Commissioner Greek said he would ask the Fire Department why it is reducing its standards so greatly. He said that whether this design is a condominium or a dedicated street, it should approach the City's design standards and to call it a condo- minium just to avoid having a proper street is missing the point. He said the street standards are good, they are designed to carry traffic, to carry water and for parkingi and when these things are eliminated a bad development is created. He said he feels this is a bad development whether it is a condominium or a one-ownership property; not only is the design of the project bad and the size of the street too small and the lack of parking bad, but a1 so the access is not adequate, Chairman Master asked again if Mr. Cook would accept continuance. Mr, Cook said his only problem with continuance is that he thinks going back through the normal process it will take much longer than a two-week continuance to come back to the Planning Commission if they have to start with environmental review all over again. Mr. Lane said if the matter is continued it will be on the agenda for the June 3 meeting. He said if the applicant does not agree with continuance, then because of the statutory period regarding tentative maps, he would suggest that an action be taken to deny, Mr, Cook said his only problem is he has an escrow with Mr, Stang scheduled to close on June 17 and he would like to know his position before that date. Chairman Master asked if the matter would be heard by the City .Council by then if it were acted on this evening. Mr, Lane said it would be five weeks before it would be on the City Council agenda.. Mr. Cook said that typically an approval from the Planning Commission is not a problem with the City Council.. Chairman Master asked if the escrow is dependent upon a final approval and Mr, Cook responded not necessarily, the two are interdependent. Commissioner Hart told Mr, Cook he has the right to appeal and go to the City Council and the City Council has been known to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Cook responded that in view of the fact that he's played by the rules he would just as soon take his chances with the Council on this if that be his option. Mr. Lane said that since this is a significant issue in the eyes of the Planning Commission he feels that Staff is obligated to go back ., Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Nine to the Staff Review Committee and bring this up because this is probably not the last time this type of issue will surface. He said he wanted this known primarily because if the applicant agrees to take potluck and that potluck is a denial and the matter goes to the City Council, then the representative of the Planning Department at the City Council meeting will be faced with a dissertation on the subject of whether or not this proposed development is sub- standard in view of the Planning Commission's concern and Staff's reevaluation. He said he plans to take this back to the Staff Review Committee one way or the other so Mr. Yamasaki has some basis for discussion at the City Council meeting because he feels the same questions will come up there. In response to a question from Mr. Cook as to clarification of the process, Mr. Lane explained that if the Planning Commission continues the application, it will go back to Staff and be presented at the. meeting of June 3, but if it is voted upon and denied, then cit will go to the City Council, and the issues that are being discussed here will go back to Staff and the Director of the Planning Department, when he represents the Department at the City Council meeting, wil l have the benefit of the further hard look by Staff based on the Planning Commission's penetrating review., and he may have to answer some very difficult questions by the City Council because they read the minutes of this hearing. Chairman Master said he thinks it would be to Mr. Cook's favor thdt this be looked into and if it isn't done specifically at the direction of the Planning Commission now it will probably have to be done later anyway.at the direction of the City Council, Mr. Cook asked if con- tinuation would assure a speedier process, Chairman Master said he couldn't assure speedier approval but it would come to a head faster, Mr. Cook said he was still confused as to his options, Commissioner Hart reiterated the fact that Mr. Cook should not be misled, that the Fire Department is not the issue and the design is the issue, and it would not be fair to him to believe that if he gets something in writing from the Fire Department or if it confirms something he already has in writing, he might get approval, because it is the design that is faulty. Mr. Lane pointed out to Mr. Cook that some of the Planning Commissioners feel pretty strongly that it is a poor design and that it is the purpose of the Planning Commission to send messages to Staff in terms of what policy might be. Mr. Cook said he guessed he would go with the continuance. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission continue this item at the request of the applicant to the meeting of June 3, 1985. AYES; Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Scott NOES; None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Ten IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Proposed 5% reduction in number of parking spaces in a commercial center located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue approximately 165 feet west from Anchor Avenue. Mr. Lane made the presentation in accordance with a Planning Department memo. He said the size of the proposed building would call for 40 off-street parking spaces and the applicant shows 38 spaces on the site plan. He said Staff recommends approval of the reduction of parking spaces but also recommends that the trash receptacle be moved to a different area than that shown on the plot plan even if it would mean losing another parking space. Commissioner Greek suggested relocating the driveway at the far easterly limit of the property. Mr. Lane said he didn'-t see that two driveways were necessary; one would suffice. He suggested that reconsideration be given to redesigning with this in mind. The applicant was not present. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission approve up to a maximum of 10% reduction in the required off-street parking spaces with the understanding, however, that it feels the trash enclosure should be relocated from its present location on the plot plan and that serious consideration should be given to reducing the number of driveways from two to one on the property. AYES:. Commissioners Master, Greek, Hart, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTLON CARRIED IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lane confirmed the field trip to Orange Park Acres: the Com- missioners will meet at 12:30 p.m. on May 23, at Orange Hills for lunch; after lunch they will tour Orange Park Acres. Mr. Lane said he received a memorandum from the City Manager to the effect that the $1,000 previously removed from the budget had been reinstated, Chairman Master discussed the possibility of all or some of the Commissioners attending either or both the League of Cities Con- vention in San Francisco, .'October 6 to 9, or the Planning Commission Institute in Monterey some time during the next fiscal year. Mr. Lane brought up the letter from Edward Neis, R.O.A.R. Chairman, regarding the Loma Environmental Impact Report, and said he needs some response about dates for both a Study Session and the public hearing. Chairman Master said the Study Session should probably Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Eleven occur after the Planning Commission has received the comments of the consultant. Mr. Johnson said the last day for input to the consultant is June 17. Mr. Lane said it is the responsibility of the consultant to make responses to the comments and he feels the Planning Commission would be more comfortable if it has the comments and responses before its Study Session since this is a very contro- versial issue. Mr. Johnson said R.O.A.R. wants to attend the Study Session to make its pitch to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing, and that the consultant will be there also. Mr. Lane said the purpose of the Study Session is for the Commissioners to gather information from Staff and the consultant, not for R.O.A.R. to speak. Mr. Johnson said this should be told to Mr. Neis because he knows R.O.A.R. expects to be involved in the Study Session just as they were involved in the &tudy Session when the first Environmental Impact Report was presented. Mr. Lane said he doesn't agree with what went on the first time. Mr. Johnson said he remembers .that at the first hearing R.O.A.R. submitted a long list of concerns in written form and then gave a verbal enumeration of those things plus additional concerns so they were able to have their say and feed into the record additional information that was not within the 45-day period. He said he is sure that's what they have in mind to do again. Mr. Lane said they have the right to do that but technically that relates to the public hearing on the project not to the Environmental Impact Report. He said he wants to clarify the fact that the project is not the Environmenta"1 Impact Report, the project is the construction alignment of Loma and the Environmental Impact Report is merely supplemental information to making the decision on where Loma will be built. He said there is a misconception that the project is the EIR and the public hearing is on the EIR when, in~fact, the public hearing is not on the EIR but on the precise highway alignment for Loma, Mr. Johnson said he thinks the intent of this EIR is both an alig n ment EIR and a construction EIR and as soon as the project EIR is approved they will immediately move to construction because this is meant to be both an alignment EIR and a construction EIR. Mr.. Lane said he is not debating that, but he is saying there should be an exhibit at the hearing that shows the alignment and basically the preliminary construction details in terms of cut fill, earthwork, etc., and if it's in the EIR that's fine., but it is supplementary information, that the EIR is just supplementary information to the question, "Where shall Loma be built?" He said attention should not be focused on the EIR as being the project because it is not the project and there has a1 ways been a misconception about this by the Planning Commission, the City Council and everybody in the City of Orange. He said there has to be a project before an EIR is done, but they are not one and the same thing. ~, w Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 1985 Page Twelve Study Session and public hearing dates were discussed. It was decided that the Planning Commission should have the comments and responses from the consultant by July 3, the Study Session will be held on July 8, and a special public hearing for this item only will be held on July 22. Chairman Master asked Mr. Lane to notify Mr. Neis of these dates and also point out in the letter that the Planning Commission Study Session is not a forum for public input. Chairman Master recommended that the Planning Commission members attend the public hearing on the Eastern Corridor that will be held by the County of Orange. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to a work session on May 23, 1985, at 12:30 p.m., and to reconvene to a regular session on Monday, June 3, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. -._J