Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/2/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange May 2, 1983 Orange, California Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz STAFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER MICKELSON: At this point in the meeting Chairman Hart presented Commissioner Mickelson with Resolution No. PC-28-83 commending him for two years of chairing the Commission - 1981 and 1982. I^~ RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve the minutes of April 18, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: ZONE CHANGE 999, VARIANCE 1717, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 83-1 -JAMES MARKUM: A request to adjust the lot line between two existing parcels; one zoned R-1-40 (Residential Single-Family with 40,000 square foot minimum lot size) District and the other zoned R-1-20 (Residential Single-Family with 20,000 square foot minimum lot size); adjust the zoning to the new lot line and create a lot with less than required frontage on land located on the east side of Calle Grande approximately 181 feet southeast of the centerline of Calle Baja (325 Calle Grande). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Mr. Murphy explained that a request for continuance of this item has come from the Board of Directors of the Orange Hill Homeowners Associa- tion, so that they may have an opportunity to review this matter in detail. Their letter indicated that they were not provided detailed information in this regard until April 28th and have not had enough time to call a meeting. They would like additional time to review the matter before the Commission takes formal action. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the request does not indicate time with regard to the continuance. However, in talking with representatives of the Association, he was apprised that they plan to have a meeting two weeks from tonight, which would be May 16th. Therefore, in order to accommodate that meeting, the Commission should continue the matter to the June 6th Planning Commission meeting, if they agree with the continuance request as submitted. There appeared to be no one in the audience who opposed an extension of time in this matter. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to continue Zone Change 999, Variance 1717, Lot Line Adjustment 83-1 to June 6, 1983. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission ~linutes May 2, 1983 Page Two IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 1000, CONDITIONAL USE PERh1IT 1278 - F. THOMAS RELTH A request to convert 3 single-family dwelling units to office use; two in the OP (Office-Professional) District and one in the RMM-6 (Residential h1aximum Multiple-Family) District and a request to rezone the latter parcel to the OP (Office-Professional) District on land located approximately 205 feet north of the center- line of Culver Avenue with frontages on the west side of Glassell Street and the east side of Olive Street (360. and 368 South Glassell Street and 365 South Olive Street). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 837 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report,) Jere f~lurphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains .42 acre of land located on the west side of Glassell Street and the east side of Olive Street, ap- proximately 205 feet north of the centerline of Culver Avenue (360, 368 South Glassell Street and 365 South Olive Street). The property has approximately 82.5 feet of frontage on S. Glassell and approximately 55 feet of frontage on South Olive. This property is developed with three single-family residences in the R-M-M-6 and 0-P zones. Mr. Murphy pointed out that South Glassell Street is a modified primary arterial street with a planned width of 86 feet and South Olive Street is a local street with a planned width of 60 feet. The applicant proposes the conversion of three single-family residences into office uses and a change of zoning for one parcel on Olive Street from R-M-M-6 (Residential Maximum Multiple-Family) to 0-P (Office-Professional) District. The conversion of the three residential structures are proposed to be accomplished as follows: Building #1 - a two-story residence containing 1435 sq. ft. (360 S. Glassell Street) Building #2 - a one-story residence containing 1238 sq. ft. (368 S. Glassell Street) Building #3 - a one-story residence containing 920 sq. ft. (365 S. Olive Street) Total square foot building area = 3593 Off-street parking consists of: Standard spaces 10 ( 67%) Compact spaces 4 ( 27%) Handicapped spaces 1 ( 6%) Total parking prcvided 15 spaces Total off-street parking required is 14.4 spaces (15). Parking will be distributed as follows: 6 standard and 1 handicapped par king spaces for 360 S. Glass el 1 ; 4 compact for 368 S. Gl assel l (these two units share a common drive) and 4 standard spaces for 365 S. Olive. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed several concerns: 1. The proposal's introduction of office-professional uses in the residential area on South Olive represents a significant policy change in regard to the use of properties off the spoke streets (i.e. Glassell and Chapman) in the Old Towne area. Approval of the proposal would affect the existing and planned land uses of the area, alter the present circulation pattern, affect the existing parking supplies, as well as alter the location distribution and density of population in the immediate area. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1983 Page 3 2. The two proposed conversions on Glassell are very much in conformance with the City's Old Towne concept and are self-sufficient by themselves, without the develop- m ent of the Olive Street property, except that the trash enclosure will require relocation to the Glassell Street properties. 3. Floor loading tests and electrical analysis will be needed for all structures converted to office use. Staff recommends .that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 837. Staff further recommends denial of Zone Change 1000 for four reasons: 1. The proposed zone change represents a significant policy change in regard to the use of properties off of the spoke streets in the Old Towne area. 2. The proposal would effect the existing and planned land uses in the area. 3. The proposal would alter the present circulation pattern and thereby adversely affect adjacent residential properties. 4. The proposal may have the long term effect of altering the location, distribution and density of population in the immediate area, due to the introduction of this and potentially other office-professional uses on Olive Street. Each such conversion of a residential use would result in a more people-intensive use on Olive Street. Staff recommends partial approval of Conditional Use Permit 1278 for the two Glassell Street pro perties and denial of the Olive Street property for conversion to office use for several reasons: A. Approval of Glassell Street parcels (360 and 368 South Glassell) 1. That applicable development standards of the office- prof essional district zone have been met. 2. That the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 3. That the proposal is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 4. That the proposal is specifically in conformance with the City's policies for development and laterations in the Old Towne area. B. Denial of Olive Street parcel (365 South Olive Street) 1. That the use represents a significant change of policy for properties off of the spoke streets in the Old Towne area. 2. That the proposal alters existing land uses and circulation patterns on Olive Street. Planning Commission h1inutes May 2, 1983 Page Four v Staff recommends partial approval of Conditional Use Permit 1278 subject to the special and standard conditions which are listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickel son wondered if the Staff's recommendatio n prevails whether the parking on the two combined lots would be adequate to serve those two buildings. Mr. Murphy ansvaered in the affirmative. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Mark Cadillac, representing Tom Relf, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that the conversion of the property on Olive Street is the conversion of a residence which they feel is an integral part of the Old Towne area. He felt that one of the things to consider is that if this property is sold and goes to a developer, it is very likely that it would be turned into an apartment building. It is currently in an increasingly dilapidated condition and, at the present time, there is not enough income generated from the building to warrant the restoration of it. P~1r. Cadillac went on to explain that with the program which Mr, Relf is proposing this building will be able to be maintained as an office and its present condition improved. He pointed out that the income from that use will make it possible to keep the residence in its present character, but in better condition. He said that they have proposed a number of considerations in the brief which they submitted to the Staff at their request. He then went into detail with regard to the various proposed considerations for the building and also explained that there would be limited visitation to the premises by people dealing with the office use therein and adequate parking would be provided in the rear. He pointed out that the hours of activity would be from 8 AM to 5 PM, saying that having lived on this street himself, there is very little street parking during the day and if this use generated street parking, it would be gone after 5 PM. Regarding the issue of traffic, there would be some additional traffic which would come through that property, however, they feel that the sar~~e amount of traffic would probably occur whether or not that project has a driveway or not, the reason being that a 1 eft turn onto G1 assel 1 from the front properties which face that area is very da ngerous and almost im- possible during any time when there is any amount of traffic on Glassell. He explained that the people who wanted to go north on that street would have to go right, or south, on Glassell and then take Culver, which is the next cross street, turn right and come to Olive, or left and go the other way, still creating traffic on that street. They do not feel, however, that there would be that much increased traffic, the amount of peopl e who woul d be visiting that facility being very small. Mr. Cadillac explained that they had a meeting with the Old Towne Steering Committee a couple of weeks ago and, during that meeting, they brought up an issue which they all feel is primary in this request. That is, the ability to save this dwelling as a dwelling. and keep it in character with Old Towne is something that they and the Steering Committee both feel strongly about. Some members of the board felt that anything that would help to do this would be of value to the Old Towne concept, although they could not specifically address the zoning issues. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1983 Page Five r Tom Relph, 2001 Overlook Road, Fullerton, owner of the property at 360 S. Glassell, Orange,. and the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He asked permission to read a letter written by William J. Cathart, a landscape architect residing at 1104 E. 4Jashington AVenue, Orange and owners of a business at 134 S. Glassell, Orange. This letter spoke to the uniqueness of the Old Towne concept and this fact should make it advisable for the city to accept uniqueness in building concepts. It pointed out that strict adherence to long standing statutes and ordinances will inhibit the city's purpose and environment. The writer saw the City of Orange as trying to create a new environ- mental image and that it is the purpose of the Planning Commission to help build an environmental fabric for the function and enjoyment of its citizens. The writer felt that a diversity and new methodology for dealing with the past should be developed. Old Towne should not merely be a museum of old buildings, but a living, breathing functional architecture. fie went on to say that the regulations brought with regard to specific professional uses would be compatible with the neighborhood and not a total restriction with respect to com- mercial application. Mr. Relph then said that he is in favor of the restoration of old buildings in Orange and it is his intention to support that whenever he can. Commissioner Vasquez questioned Mr. Cadillac's statements with regard to the difficulty of getting in and out of the property facing Glassell Street. Mr. Cadillac explained this in greater detail. Commissioner Hart then asked a question with regard to the zone change and how it would affect the property on Olive. He asked P1r. Murphy if the zone change were granted what assurances we would have that this house would be there forever and if the purpose of the zone change was to save the house. Mr. Murphy stated that he knew of no guarantees that the house would remain, There is no way, other than to perhaps attempt through the conditional use permit process to insure that the use is en couraged to remain as an old house at that location. Commissioner Hart asked if any attempt had been made to tie the zone change to the house and P1r. P~lurphy replied that they have attempted to word some agreements recorded on the property to address that sort of issue. However, it is a last resort in terms of attempting to regulate the use of property. It has been used in a couple of cases throughout the city. ~~1r. Minshew Baia that he had not had any experience directly with this kind of agreement, but thought that perhaps it could be done on the basis that the zone change be granted under the idea that so long as that structure is there and that it might be subject to re- view by the City Council. This has been done a few times, but he did not feel that it was a guarantee of any kind. Commissioner Mickelson commented that the Planning Commission had _ recommended a demolition ordinance to the City Council and that he thought they had reacted favorably to it. Therefore, the historic nature of the structure would require notice if it were going to be demolished. He asked for confirmation of his thoughts in this direction and Mr. Murphy affirmed this. However, Mr. Murphy wondered if this would fall into the category stated in the ordinance. He ~ thought that the Office-Professional category might help it into that area. He was not sure whether, outside of the 8-block area, this vaould be mandatory or something less than that attached to the demolition requirements. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1933 Page Six ~•1r. Relph again addressed the Commission, stating that, in light of the discussion just had between the Commission members, they feel this would be appropriate and they would be in favor of pursuing the issue of making this contingent on that line being there. He pointed out that one of the options open to them if the building were demolished would be to rebuild in kind so that it would be kept in the original form. Chairman Bart pointed out, however, that the applicant might not always be the owner of the property. Mr. Relph was willing for something legal in this regard to be attached to the property, P•tarilyn Doyle, 350 S. Olive, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She explained that she lives across the street from the structure in question and stated that her main concern is that if, at some point, the house were to change owners would the new owners have the right to demolish it. She asked for the definition of the R-P•1-P1-6 zone and was told that R-P~1-M-6 refers to residential multiple family, which is the highest density residential zoning in the city. Six basically stands for 6,.000 sq. ~' f t. minimum lot size. She explained that recent building in that area seems to be limited to triplex apartment buildings because of the parking limitations in the area. She could not see a larger apartment building being built in that area. She was assured that only as many units could be built as could be accommodated by the parking available. Her concerns were that this is a neighborhood of old houses and she did not ~•aish to see this changed and become commercialized. She is for saving the house and questioned what would happen if the ownership should change and if this could be worked out to the satisfaction of all. Pete Nelson, 357 S. Olive, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that there were a few little things that bother him about this application. He pointed out where his property lies in conjunction with the property in question and explained that he has solar heating panels on his roof and hopes that anyone connected with that property understands that any major changes on that property could change how the sun strikes his solar panels. ~, Regarding the apartment problem, he addressed the statement made earlier that there were no apartments on that block. This is :true on his side of the street. However, across the street, but in the same block, there are two groups of apartments. He pointed out that there is a terrible parking problem on this street and a lot of hostility in the neighborhood because of this fact. Mr. Nelson explained that these lots are small and he thought it was unfortunate that they are zoned for such high density. He certainly would not like to see more apartments, in view of the parking situation and thought that professional building was probably preferable in this instance. However, he had mixed emotions regarding the whole situation. He had only one request an d that was that there be qualified people working on any renovation, with the proper inspections, permits, etc. involved so that a proper job is done. He also pointed out that a small back porch hangs over onto his property from the property in question and he wanted the owners to know that when they walk on that porch they are walking on his property. Carroll Johnson, 100 S. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that this had been brought up at the Old Towne meeting and, at that time, he moved for approval because he felt that this was the lesser of several evils. He felt that the fact that the property has its own access and parking in the rear are pluses and he also felt that it would be an excellent commercial property. He stated several reasons why the proposed use would be a good one for the area, among them the flexibility of the zoning which is being requested, with more daytime residents and less night time residents, the parking problem would be better, and that incoming people would add more access and more industry into the downtown area. These reasons were why he is in favor of the application. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1983 Page Seven Joseph Richmond, 392 S. Olive, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that he had called the Planning office last week with his primary concern being that what happened on the corner lot on Culver and South Glassell not happen in their neighborhood. He felt that almost anything is preferable to what happened on that lot. He does feel that they area residential street and would like to see the zoning remain the same. However, his main concern is that the structure not be torn down. Chairman Hart pointed out to Mr. Richmond that even under the present zoning, there is no guarantee that the structure will not be torn down. Mr. Richmond understood this fact, but stated that this was still his main concern and probably that of most of his neighbors. Marilyn Dorn again addressed the Commission, asking what the pos- sibilities were of the zone being changed back to a lower residential zoning if enough people supported it. Chairman Hart explained tha t this was possible. Ms. Dorn felt that things have changed so much just in the past several years that if the zone were not changed there will be nothing but apartments in that area eventually. Tom Relph again addressed the Commission in rebuttal. He explained that he hoped there would be some way in which they could come to some sort of an agreement so that this structure will remain the way it is. He is willing to make the commitment that this be done. However, he wishes to use it as a professional building. He felt that this is a unique town and they have a unique situation and he would like to see this pursued. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file PJegative Declaration 837. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to deny Zone Change 1000, without prejudice, for the reasons as outlined by Staff; and also to deny that part of Conditional Use Permit 1278 pertaining to the lot on Olive Street. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTIOPJ CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Conditional Use Permit 1278 only for the parcels on Glassell Street - 360 and 368, subject to the conditions as listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED In support of his motion, Commissioner Mickelson stated that the issue of preserving the old structures in this area could not be , solved on a one lot basis. He felt that they should be looking at some sort of zoni ng other than RM6 on the entire bloc k, both sides of the street. He felt that it would be somewhat premature to zone this office on the one lot in order to save that building. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1983 Page Eight v Commissioner Vasquez supported Commissioner Mickelson viewpoints adding that he was also quite concerned about the parking problems in the area, together with the difficulty of ingress and egress to the property off of Glass ell Street, which would force more traffic onto Olive. CONDITIOPJAL USE PERMIT 1274 - HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPAPJY: A request to construct an 8,956 square foot office building in the industrial zone on property located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Taft Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 833 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) By consensus of the Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Kenneth E. Craft, the architect for the application, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained to the Commission that, while this property is in an M zone and they are proposing to build an office building, they feel this would be an enhancement of that area. He pointed out that they are currently surrounded by the 7-Up plant, and the corner on which they are proposing to build is now fenced in with a very high fence. He pointed out .drawings in front of the Commission which showed that the building will be set back from the corner, creating better visibility around the corner as far as driving is concerned. Also, because of its corner location and because of the style of architecture, they feel that the building will enhance the corner being somewha t of a window location. Mr. Craft stated that they feel that they are in compliance with most of the city standards and, judging by the Staff Report, he did not think they had violated any. They are in compliance with the parking standards and they feel that they are putting a use in that are which is a little more restrictive than the M-zone, that in itself being somewhat of an upgrade. For all of these reasons, he hoped that the project would be approved. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file fegative Declaration 833. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSEPJT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner P~1aster, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Conditional Use Permit 1274, for reasons as stated by Staff and subject to Conditions #1 through 9, as listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED C Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1983 Page Nine U COtJDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1277, TENTATIVE PARCEL NiAP 83-757 - BURNETT-EhLINE CO.: A request to permit mixed office, industrial and warehouse uses in 120,148 square feet of floor space in the Industrial Zone and creation of lots on land located on the west side of Batavia Street approixmately 469.65 feet south of the center- line of Taft Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 836 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) By consensus of the Commission, no presentative was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Jack Hardy, 14 Mountain View, Irvine, representing Burnett- Ehline Co., the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He gave a short resume of the proposed project, pointing out that Burnett-Ehline has done several projects in the City of Orange, the most recent of which is now under construction on Katella, west of Glass ell. He explained that this project is a mixed use of office, industrial and warehouse, the project being built as condominiums for sale. He pointed out that there is nothing comparable to this project in Orange County because of the increments of space, as well as the desig n of it. This is intended for users such as, research and development firms, wholesalers, manufacturers' representatives, service oriented businesses who might have light warehousing or light fabrication requirements or, in some instances, purely clerical or office requirements. Mr. Hardy felt that the project will enhance the city in that area in particular because the kinds of businesses which they anticipate will be buying in the project will be the small or medium sized business working in clean industries; they will be owners who will have a piece of the property, and they will be presumably committed to the area. Mr. Hardy explained that the project will be built in two phases, with the first phase being the larger of the two. They are asking for a conditional use permit in order to build condominiums for sale and to have office appl ication. V There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the publ is hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner P~1ickelson to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 836. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Plaster, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 83-757, subject to the conditions stated in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet; and to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1277, subject to the special and standard conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Nickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1983 Page Ten CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1276 - GILBERT AND RACHEL VILLELA: A request to permit a restaurant in the Industrial District, including on sale beer and wine sales, on land located on the west side of Batavia Street, approximately 472 feet south of the centerline of Struck Avenue (1010 North Batavia Street, Suite A). (Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) By consensus of the Commission, no presentation was given. ''`, Chairman Fiart opened the Gilbert and Rachel Villela, the applicants, addressed th application. They explained Mexican food in their restau in an Industrial area. This there will be restaurant sea Report and are agreeable to lic hearing. 134 Rivermist Circle, Orange, Commission in favor of this that they propose to serve authentic ant, with a beer and wine license, will be mainly takeout, although ing also. They have read the Staff he conditions listed. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve Conditional Use Permit 1276, for reasons as stated by Staff, and subject to the special and standard conditions as listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez PJOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NIISCELLANEOUS Chairman Hart brought up a mailout which he had recently received with regard to the Orange County Planning Commissioners Association of City Planning Commissioners. He stated that they have been meeting at irregular intervals and he felt that the meetings have been pretty good. The upcoming meeting will be the third one and gives a chance for all of the planning commissioners to meet one another and talk about their mutual problems. He said that if any of the Planning Commissioners would like to attend the upcoming meeting, they should notify Jere Murphy and he would make a reservation. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned 9:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, May 16, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.