Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange October 16, 1989 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Greek STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner & Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Minutes of October 2, 1989 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1774-89 - RICHARD JACKMAN: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of two, two story structures on a lot that is surrounded by one story structures on property located on the south side of Palm Avenue, 125 feet east of Batavia Street, addressed 802 West Palm Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1309-89 has been prepared for this project. (This item was continued from the August 7 and September 6, 1989 Planning Commission Meetings.) A staff report was not presented. Ms. Wolff made additional comments regarding this project. The Commission has been presented with two alternative proposals. One is revised Plan A and the other, revised Plan B. Both of them meet the Commission's concerns. Proposal A is the applicant's preferred choice for their submittal on this project. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Jim Jackman, 7346 Grovewood Lane, stated his brother and he and their wives are purchasing this property and would like Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 2 to meet the Commission's concerns. He prepared some photographics which he submitted to the Commission. Their initial concept was to develop the property with two units in the back and two, two story buildings. The idea was not liked and they went back to the drawing board. He apologized for not being present at the previous meetings. It was his understanding that by putting two, 2 story units on the lot divided it up too much; it was too heavy toward the neighboring property and it should be centered more toward the middle and that a one unit, duplex structure might be a better use of the property. They were presenting revised Plan A and revised Plan B, both of which were identical as far as the dwelling units and garages go for the new structure. There is no change between the two. The elevations are posted on the wall for exhibit. There is about the same square footage; the old one ha.d 1,114 square feet each and the revised plan is 1,050 square feet for each unit. They each have two, 2-car garages, the entry is on the sides, they have increased the setback by a foot, they have gone from five feet to six feet, they have increased the setback of the two story structure so that it is centered over the middle of the unit rather than being at the outside. The windows have been designed to look into the center and to the other areas; not into the neighbors yards. Privacy for the neighbors will be preserved to the maximum extent. They propose to build nice three bedroom units, meeting the kind of development that is compatible with Old Towne. Little yards and private patio space will be provided for each unit. He believes their plan is compatible with the size of the lot. He explained the differences and preferences of the two alternative plans. The existing property has two driveways. One gives access to the rear, one services only the 2-car garage in front. The existing house was built in 1928 with a newer garage, which is basically sound. Their preference is Plan A. Plan B knocks down the existing garage and rebuilds a new structure on the lot line so there would be access beside the new structure to get to the back. It doesn't give them much in extra width. There are some detriments to Plan B. They prefer Plan A because it's open space is about the same. They could use the open space more constructively. The existing driveway on the side would only have to accommodate the two back units and there will be full turn-around area in the back with 25 feet of paving that is required behind the garages. Keeping the old garage helps to preserve the character of the neighborhood. That is a very typical kind of use of many of the units there and will have the least impact on the street itself by just keeping the driveway and garage just the way they are. iE'lanning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 3 They are willing Commission likes photos in detail favorable decision. to build either Plan A or Plan B if the the duplex as proposed. He explained the and looked to the Commission for a The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott believed previously there was concern as far as the driveway width going back to the units in the rear. In reviewing several site plans where duplexes are located throughout the City, it seems it has worked. Commissioner Scott favors Plan A. Chairman Bosch felt the applicant has done a great job in reducing the apparent volume of the units not only by bringing them together, bu t by placing the single story component of the units adjacent to the property line. He was also concerned about having two driveways on site. Given the low occupancy of those driveways, however, he felt the open space gained to the rear of the existing garage, if left where it is and how that could be rehabilitated to serve the existing residents as a good outdoor yard space, is a good asset offsetting the existing two driveways onto the site. He prefers Plan A because it seems to have more assets than liabilities with regard to that existing driveway. Commissioner Scott wondered why the applicant selected a 36" fence? Mr. Jackman said staff recommended 36" because it was consistent with what the City preferred. His concern with fencing is with the old avocado tree back on the property line. They are hoping to preserve the tree and will work with staff in building the fence. Chairman Bosch prefers the 36" fence additional site line clearance it can children in the neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded that the Planning Commission accep Environmental Review Board to file 1309-89. as well because of the get, particularly with by Commissioner Scott, t the f findings of the Negative Declaration AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 4 1774-89 subject to the conditions as listed, based on Plan A. Staff to work with applicant in saving the avocado tree. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott Greek IN RE: NEW HEARINGS MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1790-899 - SANTA FE PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION: Proposed Conditional Use Permit application to allow retail and office use in excess of the 25~ accessory use permitted in the industrial zone on property located on the north side of Taft Avenue between Glassell and Neville Streets, addressed 307 and 415 West Taft Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1317-89 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. Ms. Wolff mentioned there was one additional condition of approval recommended by staff -- TSIP f ees that are incremental and having to do with the rate difference of traffic generation between office and industrial uses. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Jim Young, 3230 E. Imperial Highway, #100, Brea, said this project represents the last of their development of holdings in the City of Orange. They have developed approximately 30 acres in the last four years. Their request revolves around the fact that they do not anticipate they will have any type of user who would just want to use one space with 25~ improvement with office space; however, they are talking to a number of users who may want more than that. They are having difficulty in marketing the space because even though it has somewhat of a retail orientation, they are precluded from having retail uses due to the parking requirements. They decided to approach the City about a Conditional Use Permit as a blanket rather than on an individual basis because of the prospect of having a tenant wanting to lease and then having to go through the C.U.P. process each time. The C.U.P. addresses the entire project as opposed to each individual unit. There is 35,000 square feet and it could be as many as 30 tenants. The public hearing was closed. i'lanning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 5 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1317-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Mr. Young was not aware of the additional condition regarding the TSIP fees. He was not sure what that entailed. Ms. Wolff had a copy of the condition from the Traffic Engineer and read it to the applicant. It would be based on the percentages the applicant was asking for in the Conditional Use Permit. The fees are based on square footage. There is approximately 19,000 square feet of office. The applicant will absorb the additional costs. Chairman Bosch explained that since the applicant was asking for a blanket C.U.P. it seems appropriate that they pay a blanket TSIP fee to cover that. The Commission and Mr. Young discussed length, including the potential policing explained the problems of the blanket use the routine issuance of business licenses. and Code Enforcement are not aware of a until Planning notifies them. the TSIP fee at problem. Staff as it related to Business License special situation Commissioner Master understood the recommendation was for the applicant to pay the TSIP fees prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Chairman Bosch confirmed that was the intent of the City in order to administer that fee. Piece meal administration would cost the City more than the difference. He did not have a problem with the proposal in terms of land use and how the parking meets it, but the administrative process which is also an essential part of the zoning ordinance is the part that's looking at a waiver, based on normal practice. Commissioner Scott thought with limited staff, it was placing a burden on them to try and police the action. Chairman Bosch noted a precedent has not been set to assist them with this project. Ms. Wolff interjected the way it has been handled on certain other projects where the City has permitted greater than 25$ Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 6 office uses, is that the use has been tied to a particular lease space. It can be written down and verified. It does not require constant maintenance and updating. Chairman Bosch thought this request was overly broad; too much of an overview. It needs to be a bit more focused to narrow the risk factor and the administrative problems down substantially. Mr. Young would be agreeable to restricting the space to some portion of the building, but would need to think about it. He would be willing to accept a continuance for a short period of time to come back with another plan. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1790-89 to November 6, 1989. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14061, ZONE CHANGE 1118-89, VARIANCE 1866-89 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 89-24 - CSC BUILDING COMPANY: Proposed Tentative Tract Map to allow subdivision of a parcel into seven (7) residential lots, a Zone Change from S-G to R-1-8 (Residential Single Family, Minimum Lot Size 8,000 square feet), a Variance to allow creation of one lot with less than the minimum depth required by the Orange Municipal Code, and an Administrative Adjustment to allow creation of two lots with less than minimum required lot width. Subject property is located at the west end of Mountain Avenue, 315 feet west of Mabury Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1310-89 has been prepared for this project. Chairman Bosch was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Carnes presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting a tentative tract map and a zone change to allow a subdivision on an irregular shaped 2.3 acre parcel into 7 residential lots. The zone change is to change the zoning from a sand and gravel district to R-1-8 single family minimum lot size 8,000 district. The project also includes a submittal for a variance to allow the creation of one lot with a lot depth of 75 feet instead of the R-1-8 district's minimum lot depth of 100 feet, and an administrative adjustment to allow creation of two lots with lot widths. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 7 The public hearing was opened. Applicant George Kearns, Salkin Engineering, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, represented the applicant. Because of the configuration of the property and the location of the access, the existing road and the angle that it comes in, it doesn't appear they are able to develop the site without having a substandard street or some type of substandard lot on the residual piece of land. He discussed a couple of issues. Staff was concerned about the three easements on the property, two of which have been removed. A letter of intent has been received from the Edison Company for removal of the other easement. The other major issue is the sewer. Because of the grades and the elevations of the site they cannot join the sewer. They have proposed originally to put in a pump and private sewer system. Staff suggested they might be able to use the gravity sewer going along the riding trail and connecting at Loma. The condition reads as an option, but in any event they will get sewer to the site. They would like to modify one of the conditions of approval of the homeowners' association. They prefer to have a maintenance agreement with deed restrictions, but not a homeowners' association. They concur with the staff report except for that condition. Those speaking in opposition Bob Wagner, 5637 East Mountain, had a couple of questions about the sewer and what was going to happen to the street water that runs off the lawns? What provisions are in the plan to accommodate this because there are rio storm drains on Mountain? All homes on the street are members of a particular homeowners' association. Would these houses be part of that association and made to comply with the CC&R's? The average lot size is just under 9,000 square feet. It was verified that the new lots would be larger than 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Hart stated the new homes are not part of the homeowners' association. They will have their own improvements which will be approved by the Design Review Board. Mr. Johnson addressed the drainage issue. The existing natural grade is in a south westerly direction. When this is developed to an improved grading concept, it will continue to drain in that direction; however, each lot will drain to the street first and then the water will drain to the south within the street and will be picked up at the end of the cul-de-sac with a catch basin and a pipe that will drain off into the creek which is adjacent to the development. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 8 Nancy Wagner, 5637 East Mountain, asked why the new homes would not belong to their homeowners' association since it is a cul-de-sac. They will miss alot in the community by not belonging to their association. Mr. Herrick said the City could condition any improvement on the requirement for a homeowners' association for this tract. It would have to be justified by the circumstances of the existing tract and what is being proposed. There is no authority to require this tract to join a homeowners' association established for another tract. Commissioner Hart thought there were legal problems associated with the suggestion of new homes joining an existing association. Mr. Johnson believed the Maybury Ranch Homeowners' Association would have to vote them into their association in order to make them a part of it. Robert Over, 1721 Williamsburg, wanted to know where the proposed easement to the west for a sewer line would run? Mr. Johnson said the intent would be to put the sewer within what is now the horse trail that goes from the end of the property to Loma Street. It would run in the horse trail. There would not be any manholes; the sewer would have a curve in it such that the horses would not have to negotiate any manholes. There should not be an encroachment or be a detrimental use for the four people. Commissioner Hart said the existing sewer will be at the opposite end of the tract. Mr. Over asked where the pump would be installed? Mr. Johnson responded it will be installed in the street. They could acquire a right to place it in the street as long as they maintain that area. It could also be outside the street at a location to be chosen .by the developer. It would be a below ground pump. The pump work on an "as needed" basis. It does not run continuously. A similar pump is located off of Santiago. Earl Kent, 5502 East Lexington, received a letter in reference to the sewer easement. His problem is that his property is onto Loma. He feels it is slipping and if they put sewers next to him, he is afraid his house will slip. ee wants a guarantee that his property will be protected. Commissioner Scott stated all work will be done under the inspection of the Public Works Department. Everything will be certified. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 9 Mr. Johnson responded the developer will be responsible for negotiating with the property owner. Each person may have their own concerns. He was not aware of any slippage in that area. The construction of a sewer should not give rise to any detrimental effect, but each owner will need to look at that individually. Commissioner Hart said the residents will have the option to allow the sewer to be installed. The City will not negotiate for any right-of-way connected with the sewer. Mike Stenovich, 1733 North Williamsburg, said his property was adjacent to Lot 7 where they were requesting clearances for depth. They have a fence along the back of their property which is not on the property line. It is inset about six feet. There is also an easement behind their property. Is there a six foot easement on his property and on their property making a 12 foot easement and will they be required to build a fence on their property line? Commissioner Hart stated the map shows a six foot wide easement in the area in which the resident described. The pipeline easement is not on his property, but adjoins it. Mr. Stenovich asked what happened to that piece of property? He is the only one with a lot behind his house. Will the developer be required to build a fence on their property line? Mr. Hart did not believe there was a condition to build a fence. The City does not condition tracts to build fences. Mr. Johnson hoped the owner and developer could get together and work something out. There can be a consolidation of property lines or moving the fence over. However, if double fencing is erected, a permit will be needed. A copy of the staff report with the conditions of approval were given to Mr. Stenovich for review. Rebuttal: Mr. Kearns thought he could clear up some of the questions. The issue of the water running onto Mountain and becoming a maintenance problem is not a problem because it will drain away from the street. A homeowners' association will create problems f or seven home s. Hopefully a compromise will be accepted like CC&R's and a deed restriction. It could be reviewed by the City Attorney, as well as the adjacent neighbors for comment. They do not intend to do anything to the neighbor's yards and will not build fencing. He is willing to work with the neighbors to resolve their concerns. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 10 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott had a problem with condition 8 regarding the sewer pump. If one or two people didn't pay, the system would not work and it would have to be closed down. He asked about posting a cash bond and entering into an agreement with Orange County Sanitation District to maintain that pump. Mr. Johnson felt the pump was not a very good second choice as opposed to gravity flow. It's a continuing cost that the City would like to avoid. If a bond is needed for assurance that could be part of the condition. Commissioner Scott requested condition 8 be amended to include a maintenance agreement be entered into with Orange County Sanitation District to maintain the pump system if it had to be installed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1310-89. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Tentative Tract 14061, Zone Change 1118-89, Variance 1866-89 and Administrative Adjustment 89-24 subject to the conditions as listed with Condition 8 amended. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek MOTION CARRIED The Commission discussed CC&R's, code parking issues and deed restrictions. have the power to enforce parking be enforceable. Ms. Wolff stated because a zone change item will be forwarded to the City Council final determination. restrictions of The City does not cause it is not is involved, this who will make the Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 11 IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM ADMINISTRATIVE ADJOSTMENT 89-25 AND A FOUR PERCENT REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING - DMP PROPERTIES: Request for an Administrative Adjustment to allow the use of the "universal" parking stall size, and four percent reduction in required parking for a parking lot redevelopment plan proposed in conjunction with the remodeling and expansion of an existing commercial center located at the northeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and Grove Avenue. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Dan Pearl, 610 Newport Center Drive #1490, Newport Beach, said DMP Properties is the owner of the property. They presented their development plan to the Commission about this time last year. The property is about 25 years old and it is commercial property. They like to call it a shopping center, but it is a mixture of everything. They are working with City staff and their architect, Mr. Kitashima, because of their concerns in increasing the number of parking spaces over what is currently there (about 56 spaces). They wanted to get the ingress and egress as comfortable as possible so there would not be an overflow of cars on the main driveway at Orange-Olive. They request to keep the existing driveway, which was going to be eliminated. They feel they can get more cars to exit onto Grove and take the traffic off of Orange-Olive. They are building a new building on the corner. They will end up with 7 or 8 spaces short and are asking for an Administrative Adjustment for the universal parking space so they will not have to put in those compact spaces. They are putting more landscaping in the form of a berm across the street from the park on Grove Street. They removed it from the rear. There is an existing block wall and a storage facility. Since no one is there, the landscaping is not appreciated. To make it useful, they relocated it to the front. The Design Review Board approves of their changes. Joe Kitashima, architect, 1920 East Katella Avenue #F, was available to answer any questions. He commented about the parking and the removal of the plantings because it was difficult to maintain. Chairman Bosch asked if he were involved in the actual layou t of the parking adjacent to the restructuring of the central drive off of Grove? (Yes.) His concern is the Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1989 - Page 12 back-to-back parking on the double side of the 24 foot cross aisle buffer. He is worried about the keeping cars in those spaces. What wide landscape island that include thrive adjacent to the cars)? island on the easterly there is no landscape protection of cars and could be put in the 3' s the curbs (what will Mr. Kitashima said low shrubs of some kind would be planted. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Administrative Adjustment 89-25 subject to the conditions as listed. Chairman Bosch did not have an objection to the reduction and use of the uniform space, but has a problem with the deadly parking space adjacent to the crossing. He would like to see the landscaped island at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the existing service area restored to landscaping. That piece of landscaping would serve to buffer the long row of parking along the backside of the retail buildings. Commissioner Scott amended his motion to Chairman Bosch's suggestion as far as the landscaping on the northwest corner (triangular area). Commissioner Master concurred as he seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission adjourn to October 18, 1989, 4:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with City Council to discuss the East Orange Plan to be held in Conference Room C; then adjourn to October 19, 1989 at 7:00 p.m., Community Room of the library; and adjourn to Monday, October 30, 1989, 7:00 p.m. for the continuation of the Special Meeting regarding the East Orange General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. /sl d