Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1988 - Minutes PC~ w City of Orange Orange, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 1988 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Administrator - Current Planning; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 1988 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of December 5, 1988 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-88 - CITY OF ORANGE: Proposed amendment to Chapter 17.76 of the Orange Municipal Code, updating and revising the City's parking ordinance. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1226 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened and closed as there was no discussion. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept the findings of the Environmental Review ~,~' Board to file Negative Declaration 1226. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved b: Master, Council parking AYES: NOES: y Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner that the Planning Commission recommend the City adopt Ordinance Amendment 2-88 revising the ordinance for the City of Orange. Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 2 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USB PER!!IT 1728-88 - T.S.A.B., INC.: Request for a Conditional Use. Permit to allow the development of a 5 unit two story apartment within 75 feet from an R-1 (Residential-Single Family District) zone, pursuant to Section 17.32.110.b and 17.32.110.c of the Orange Municipal Code. This site is zoned R-3-7 (Residential Multiple-Family), located at 773 and 775 North Glassell Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1266-88 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a two story 5 unit apartment development that occurs within 70 feet of a R-1 zone property. The specific section of .the Code requires a conditional use permit when height limits are exceeded this close to R-1 zones. The actual development is a two story 5 unit apartment complex. The site plan shows two 2-bedroom apartments and three 3-bedroom apartments with 10 enclosed parking spaces. There is a single driveway into the center of the property with parking on either side and the development is a horseshoe type development. The setbacks are minimal on the side setbacks and right to code minimums on the rear setback, which may present a problem to the privacy of the R-1 neighborhood adjoining it. Commissioner Hart questioned why the rear yard setbacks in R-3 are different from R-1? Mr. Godlewski responded in a R-3 development there is high density developments on both properties that are adjoining and the high density developments continue at the same levels. The public hearing was opened. Proponent: Hadi Tabatabaee, 15935 San Miguel, La Mirada, prepared the drawings for the project. The five units comply with the ordinance as far as setbacks, densities, number of parking spaces required and the size of the units. Similar projects have been approved in the neighborhood. It does provide enclosed parking garages with access from inside the garage to the units. Deck Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 3 areas will be used for open space. If the project were to comply with the code, the lot is not buildable. It is a hardship because of the lot size and shape. In talking to the neighbors he learned of their concern with the decks to the rear of the property. He stated they could be eliminated and the windows screened for privacy. Those speaking in opposition: Scott Specht, 776 North Orange, was opposed to the invasion of his privacy and questioned how it would affect property values. Patty Ritchie, 618 East Culver, thought the zoning should be uniform and supports the opposition. Kelly Specht, 776 North Orange, was opposed to the two story development looking into their back yard. Rebuttal: Mr. Tabatabaee spoke of the concern for the rear windows and rear decks, which could be eliminated or provide five foot high fencing around the deck to give the neighbors privacy. He was open to suggestions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch was concerned with a number of aspects of the plan. He was in favor of supporting the General Plan with regard to the higher densities adjacent to the designated higher arterials, but also strongly in favor of protecting the land value and privacy of single family homes that are adjacent to R-3. He felt the design of the project caused further imposition by imposing decks on the second floor to the middle section and further west on the project, which forces the two story buildings closer to the R-1 property line. He did not believe it was mitigable by merely enclosing or walling off the second floor deck. That creates a building mass that is also an imposition, although it blocks the sight lines. The traffic circulation on the site is also a concern. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1266-88. ® AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED • Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 4 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 1728-88 without prejudice and the consideration of an Administrative Adjustment for a 19 foot clear garage width. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski explained the motion to the applicant. The denial without prejudice would allow the applicant to come back with a revised, similar plan before six months. Denial would require a substantially different plan or to re-file after six months. Commissioner Bosch feels there could be some modifications that are not significant to the extent of requiring a total redesign. Problems could be mitigated. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1724-88 - STEVEN GLASSEY: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a two story second unit in the R-2-6 (Residential Duplex) zone, pursuant to Section 17.26.110 of the Orange Municipal Code, located at 226 East La Veta Avenue. NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. The staff report was presented by Mr. Godlewski. The applicant is proposing to partially demolish the existing house and totally demolish the garage in order to construct a remodel of the original house and adding a second dwelling unit above a new, attached three-car garage. The additional required parking space will be provided at the rear of the property between the garage and the property line. The new construction behind the house would basically consist of the new garage area on the first floor and a new living unit on the second floor comprised of approximately 1,182 square feet. Chairman Scott asked about the demolition issue? Mr. Godlewski stated at the time the staff report was written and at the time the application was submitted (September 22, 1988) there are two ordinances which have taken place since that time. One is the demolition ordinance and the other is the Old Towne • Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 5 Guidelines. It was staff's opinion that they should go ahead and proceed with the application as a Conditional Use Permit. The Old Towne Guidelines would require a Design Review Board review before Planning Commission j review. Inasmuch as that was not adopted at the time the application was submitted, staff opted to continue with processing before the Planning Commission; then continue with the Design Review Board. Staff has not gone into great detail as to how the demolition s ordinance will be implemented into the project; it's something that will require more research. Commissioner Hart noted a letter from the Old Towne Preservation Association was received asking that the project be placed on hold because of the demolition ordinance. Mr. Minshew stated the application was filed and was in process before the urgency ordinance was completed. Upon that basis, the Planning Commission can proceed with the hearing. The public hearing was opened. Proponent: Steve Glassey, 226 East La Veta, stated if the main concern is the demo of the existing detached garage, the garage itself was built 70 years ago and is just about ready to fall apart as it is. On the actual house, they will be taking out the interior partitions and just building a new unit inside the existing house. Commissioner Bosch reviewed Mr. Glassey's plans and wanted to know which way the stairway is intended to work? Mr. Glassey said they would be going up the stairs from the driveway side of the building. Commissioner Bosch noted from the floor plan that the reconstruction of the existing residence, a rear ~'~^± portion appears to set itself up quite easily to become a third unit on the property. His concern was substantiated from the foundation plan which shows a stem wall and depressed footing area for a potential entry adjacent to the new entrance off of the driveway. He asked what the intent of the plans were? Mr. Glassey owns his own business and wants to have his study and business next to his house. There will be a pocket door. It is a permitted home business. Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 6 Those speaking in opposition: Dan Slater, 177 South Jamison, is concerned with the facade. It does not lend itself to the overall feeling of community in the neighborhood. Blank walls do not do much for the streetscape. It would be great if something could be more attractive from La Veta Street. Also, the second story unit is quite bulky and massive. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Slater if he were philosophically opposed to the second story unit? The Design Review Board determines the architectural features. Mr. Slater would like to see it go through the Design Review Board and he cannot oppose the second story philosophically. He would rather see one story units. He is not opposing the second story, but is opposing the size of the second story and the elevation from La Veta Street. Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, opposes the project, but does not oppose the zoning issue. He feels it is an appropriate use for the property. He pointed out the Design Guidelines have been in process for many years. This issue should be addressed on the basis of the Design Guidelines and demolition. He suggested starting a process now of going to the Design Review Board first. Chairman Scott felt reversing the process was wrong because the Planning Commission is not a body to approve or disapprove a design concept. Commissioner Bosch stated the issue before them was a second floor unit, it's massing with intrusion upon the neighbors, and other sufficient issues to discuss with regard to the project without trying to remove the right of the applicant to move forward based on his date. Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood, was perturbed from the proceedings of the meeting. He feels the issues of design and the RCD have been dealt with in the past by removing windows or doors. He asked for consideration in the design of this process for the project. According to the demolition ordinance, it's an issue of a permit to demolish all or part of a building. The proposed project is totally changing the scale, harmony and character of the streetscape by the removal of the front facade, front entry, the face of all those windows are going to be removed; then, the design of Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 7 the new building is inconsiderate of that scale and harmony that was once the established building. He was very much opposed to the "mass" of the new structure. Commissioner Hart stated the Commission is not the Design Review Board and defended that position. He agrees the mass of the building should be taken into consideration. Chairman Scott stated the Commission has not designed buildings; they have made recommendations to the D.R.B. They are not a designing body. Commissioner Bosch said the schematics are not the issue. What needs to be settled is the issue of the appropriate design for implementing two story utilization on the particular piece of land. Mr. Rahn felt it was a hand 'n glove situation to look at harmony, scale and character. You have none of these without design. Patty Ritchie, 618 East Culver, did not like the mass of the proposed project. Gloria Boice, 143 North Pine, noticed the application was submitted September 22, 1988. When was the Design Guidelines ordinance passed? Mr. Minshew was advised it was after that date, but he did not have the exact date. Mrs. Boice thought the ordinance was passed September 13, 1988. Commissioner Hart was in the dark about the date and felt they may be acting on something that cannot be acted on. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1724-88 until January 16, 1989 due to the clouded issue. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Appointment of new Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the City of Orange Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1988 - Page 8 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission nominate Randy Bosch as Chairman. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission nominate David Hart as Vice-Chairman. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAIN:Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Chairman Scott thanked the Commission for their support and help during his tenure as Chairman. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned to their next regular meeting on Wednesday, January 4, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. /sld c