Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/4/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California January 4, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF M11INUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 1981 ~' Commissioner Coontz asked fora correction on page 9, the last sentence of the first paragraph: "She pointed out the Commission- ers had all been in favor of this...", asking that "the Transpor- tation Improvement District" be inserted in place of "this". Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes of December 21, 1981, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERh1IT 1177, VARIANCE 1672 - SCHWEDER: A request to allow construction of a two-story second unit and a variance request to permit a reduced side yard and internal garage width in the RCD Overlay District on the east side of Center Street, south of Palmyra Avenue (335 South Center Street). (Note: Negative Declaration 745 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains .14 acre of land located on the east side of south Center Street, approximately 224 feet south of the centerline of Palmyra Avenue (335 S. Center Street). The property has approximately 50 feet of frontage on Center Street and a lot depth of 125.5 feet. It contains a one-story single-family residence and is zoned R-D-6 residential duplex within the RCD Residential Combining district overlay zone. Mr. Lanz explained that the applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a second dwelling at the second story level over the existing garage at the rear of the property in a Residential Combining district (RCD) and a Variance to permit a reduced side yard, as well as a reduced width in a covered garage addition. The applicant proposes to construct a 700 square foot, two-bedroom unit over the existing two-car garage to which will be added another 9 foot x 20 foot enclosed parking space. The dwelling will be 3 feet from the side yard. One open 16 foot by 20 foot parking space will be developed at the front of the property. The parking space will take access from Center Street. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Two Mr. Lanz pointed out that a field review revealed that most of the si ngl e-story structures i n the nei ghborhood, including the one on the subject property, have atti cs that approximate atwo-story structural height. Line of site views from the surrounding streets to the proposed structure are essentially screened from view. Two- story additions exist on three lots at the south end and on one lot on the north end of this alley. He further pointed out that views to yards of adjacent lots are either at sufficient distance or blocked by roof lines of adjacent structures to satisfactorily pre- clude view intrusion into adjacent yards. Mr. Lanz said that the 14 foot alley and 14 foot set back provide a 28 foot wide access to garage spaces vs. a 25 foot wide drive, as specified in City parking standards. The Staff reviewed the proposal and expressed four concerns: 1. That the 3 foot side set back on the south side of the garage is below the required 5 foot side set back required by City Codes . 2. That the proposal addition and the two existing garage spaces are all below the required 10 x 20 inside dimension required by the City Code. 3. That wheel stops be provided for the proposed open parking area at the front of the property adjacent to the existing one-story house. 4. That fi nal elevations are consistent and i n harmony with the character of the existing neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings o~F the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 744. It is the Staff's opinion that approval of Conditional Use Permit 1177 and Variance 1672 is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the City of Orange General Plan, 2. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the RCD district. 3. That the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning. 4. That Variance 1672 is appropriate as alley access in this 1 ong urbanized area provides for development of the subject property similar to development of like properties in this vicinity and i n this zone i n the City . Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1177 and Variance 1672 subject to the 12 conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson asked regarding the side where the 3 foot side yard is proposed whether there are any openings on that side. P~1r. Lanz replied that they do not have a plot plan as yet and, there- fore, know nothing about what is planned for that side. However, if there are any windows there, they would look down upon the roof of another dwelling, not into any windows . ~. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Three Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Kim C. Schweder, 631 Ember Lane, La Habra, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he had nothi na to add to the Staff Report, but was willing to answer any questions which might be asked. Jose Perez, 328 S. Center, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he lives on the west side of the street adjacent to the alley. At the present time there is a parking problem in that area and this addition would add to the parking problems there. H e wondered if Mr. Schweder was a real estate agent and he also wanted to know if Mr. Schweder lived at this address. Mr. Perez also felt that this addition would take away from the aesthetic value of the other homes in the area. He was concerned about this. ~' Chairman Mickelson pointed planned for the addi ti onal clarification purposes that is that atwo-story unit is unit on the property and i f story unit, he would not be out the additional parking which is cars on this lot. He stated for the reason this is before the Commission proposed. The zoning permits a second the applicant were to build another one- required to come before the Commission. Joe Kolina, 338 E. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, speaking also to the parking problem in this neighborhood. Commissioner Coontz asked what the problem basically is, wondering if it is because garages are not being used for parking cars. Mr. Kolina did not really know the reason, but stated that there are so many cars parked on the street they cannot even get the street swept. Commissioner Hart wondered if the neighborhood would be in favor of a no parking situation on the street so that i t could be cleaned at times. Mr. Kolina thought that this could be a solution to their problem. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the problem does not center on this one lot. It must be caused by many homes in the neighborhood. Arthur Ficken, 343 S. Center, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application, asking how high the apartment woul d be and how close to his home. Chairman Mickelson explained that the existing garage is three feet from the property 1 i ne, so the apartment would be three feet from his property. Mr. Ficken stated that he objects to the second story next to his property. This makes for a crowded situation and is bringing riff raff into the neighborhood. P1r. El 1 i s , the architect for Mr. Schweder, explained that there i s ample room for tV,~o new parki ng spaces which are not there now. This would make the parking situation better -not worse. Chairman Mickelson asked him about the construction of the two-story structure right up to the swimming pool. He wondered about the footing which must be placed i n this kind of a si tuation. Mr. Ellis replied that they see no problem in this area. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Four i Commissioner Coontz questioned the plot plan, wondering what would be in the 17 foot setback area. It was explained that this would be open yard all the way back. There is no need for access in that area. 20 feet along the side of the house would be paved fora driveway. However, ingress to the garage would be via the al 1 ey. Chairman Nickelson pointed out the area in question on the plot plan, explaining in greater detail how this driveway would be set up and where the extra parking would be accomplished. h1r. Fi cken again addressed the Commission, aski ng why this city must be crowded like a can of sardines. Chairman Nickelson explained about the laws i n the city and why th i s applicant has a 1 egal ri gh t to build a second unit on this property. Virginia McMahan, 328 S. Center, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she has been trying to visualize how the parking would be set up on that lot. Chairman Nickelson explained this in detail to her and she was shown the plot plan. She said that her concern, as a property owner, is how the property in question will look and how this will affect her property. This will also add another renter to the area, which is adding to th ei r problems i n the neighborhood. Commissioner Coontz asked if there was any lawn at the present time and Ms. McMahan replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Hart explained that the problem which they are faced with is that the property is zoned for a second unit. The Commission cannot take this away from the landowner. He pointed out that the Design Review Board will review the plans and Ms. McMahan will be allowed to express her concerns about the aesthetics of the plan. Commissioner Coontz explained that the Design Review Board looks at both the architectural and landscaping designs when reviewing a plan. Commissioner Master explained the proposed parking plan in greater detail, pointing out on the plot plan where three additional cars could be parked. Ms. McMahan asked if this proposed paved area would extend all the way to the sidewalk and was answered in the affirmative. There being no one else to speak for or against this appl ication, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Nickelson then explained to Mr. Perez that it is an academic question as to whether or not Mr. Schweder 1 fives at the address in question, since it has no bearing on the approval of the application. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 744. AYES: Commissioners Mickel son, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickel son commented that he thought i f Mr. Schweder showed his plans to the neighbors, perhaps there would be less objections. He thought the neighbors might be able to make suggestions for improvement of the plans . ~J Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Five i Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve Condi tional Use Permit 1177 and Variance 1672, for the reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the 12 conditions set forth in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz suggested that Commissioner Hart's comments with regard to specified "no parking" on Center should be followed through and a message should go to the Traffic Department for con- sideration of this kind of designation on the street. It was decided that this item should be referred to the Traffic Department for thei r consideration. Chairman Mickelson spoke in opposition to this idea, since he did not believe that a single street should be singled out for special consideration. The pa rking problems which exist on Center probably exist on many streets in the City of Orange. Commissioner Coontz felt that the people on the street have the right to ask for help for their situation. Commissioner Vasquez supported a study of the situation by Staff. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Staff give a report on the parking situation on Center Street, together with any recommended improvements . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Piaster, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1178, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-722 - SCOTT: A request to permit 4 industrial/office condominium lots in a proposed 13,997 square foot bui 1 di ng; lots without access to a publ i c street i n the M-2 (Ind us trial ) District on the east s i de of Main Street about 265 feet south of the centerline of Alvarez Avenue (623-631 Main Street). (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Since this application had originallybeenpresented to the Commission quite recently, the Commission requested no presentation in this matter. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that the last time this matter was before the Commission, the developer was concerned over two items of the design, namely, the redesign of the access drive, which Chairman Mickelson had understood to be a reciprocal shared drive and already in existence, which he now understands is no longer true. Mr. Lanz replied that this is so, that it is no longer a reciprocal access and has been redesigned since the report was written to accomplish abetter access from the existing drive. Staff is satisfied with the redesign and the traffic engineer is also satisfied. Chairman Mickelson then stated the second concern, which was a reciprocal agreement on the private driveway to the south. Mr. Lanz explained that the condition has now been changed so that there is a crash gate for emergency access of fire vehicles which has been provided until such time when they might be able to get such an access . Commissioner Coontz wondered if the slight redesign which had been mentioned was minor enough not to affect the previous decision of the Planning Commission on this matter. Mr. Lanz explained that the whole plan is very feasible and acceptable to the Staff. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Six `r Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing, asking the applicant if he wished to address the Commission. The applicant, Douglas Scott, stated that he had read the Staff Report and accepted all conditions as set forth in it. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1178 and Tentative Parcel Map 81-722, for the reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the conditions 1 i sted i n the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Chairman Mickelson commented on Condition #4 in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, questioning it because he felt that it could not be fulfi 11 ed. He asked the applicant to explain this situation. Doug Scott explained that it was his understanding that the redesign of the driveway did not affect the fact there was an reciprocal access agreement. This has always been a common drive and he did not expect it to be changed. He said he was sure that there is an access agreement somewhere in his records. The driveway already exists and he did not think there was going to be a problem. Ch airman Mickel son said that he was concerned whether thi s condi tion would become a problem. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1179 - VASQUEZ: A request to permit the construction of a church to replace an existing church structure i n the RD-6 (Res i denti a 1 Duplex) district on the northeast corner of the intersection of Park Street and Philo Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Commissioner Vasquez stated a conflict of interest in this matter and abstained from discussion and voting in this matter. Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to permit the construction of a church to replace the existing church structure. The property contains .43 acres of land located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Park Street and Philo Avenue. It has approximately 153 feet of frontage on Park Street and approximately 125 feet of frontage on Philo Avenue. The property is presently occupied by the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Inc. Church in the RD-6 (Residential Duplex), 6,000 square foot minimum lot size district. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant requests approval of Conditional Use Permit 11 79 i n order to construct a two-story church building to replace the existing church building on the subject property. The Staff has reviewed the request and expressed five concerns A. That temporary measures must be made to minimize the disruption of the site's use for church purposes and associated parking impacts by striping and for parking al l areas not covered by the existing or proposed structure and construction of two proposed curb cuts to Philo Avenue prior to construction. A temporary curb cut should be placed i n 1 i ne with the northern driveway for egress to Park Street to create a viable circulation pattern on an interim basis. B. That the proposed trash encloser be located in the southeast corner of the property to provide better service access thereto. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Seven C. That some treatment be made to the stairwell on the east end o f th e proposed structure to (1) Block views i nto nei ghboring yards . (2) Preclude an area conducive to vandalism. D. That views from the second story into neighboring properties be obscured, E. That when the proposed structure is inhabited, the existing church be removed as soon as possible and all parking lot improvements be compl eted ( i ,e. parking, 1 andscapi ng) . The Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1179 for three reasons: 1 . That the applicant's proposal is compatibl e with the existing zoning and land uses. 2. That the appl icant's proposal meets all the development requirements as specified by the City of Orange zoning ordinance. 3. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the City of Orange General Plan. The Staff recommends approval of the proposed project subject to the 27 conditions listed in the Staff Report. P1r. Murphy pointed out that Conditions #1 through #9 are special conditions, the rest being standard condi tions . He itemized the first nine conditions as follows: 1. That those areas not covered by the existing or proposed structure be temporarily striped for parking. 2. That two proposed curb cuts to Philo Avenue be installed prior to construction of the main structure. 3. That a temporary curb cut be placed i n 1 i ne with the northern driveway for egress to Park Street prior to construction of the main structure. 4. That the existing curb cuts along Park Street be removed and replaced by curbs. 5. That the trash encloser be located i n the southeast corner of the property and approved by the Sanitation Engineer. 6. That the stairwell on the east end of the proposed structure be redesigned subject to approval by the Police Department and Planning and Development Services Department. 7. That when the proposed structure is i nhabi ted, the existing church be removed as soon as possible and all planned parking lot improvements be made within 60 days of occupancy. 8. That a 6-foot view obscuring masonry wall as measured from the high grade side of the property line, be constructed along the north and eastern property lines. 9. That one way view obscuring glass be used on the second story windows on the northern elevation. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Eight Commissioner Hart asked about the necessity of Item #3 on the recommendations. He did not see that it served any purpose. Mr. Murphy explained that the driveway in that area would probably only function in one direction. Therefore, the applicant has stated that they wish to provide a driveway out to Park Street in order to complete that circulation system. Commissioner Hart com- mented that this is a rather expensive improvement to make. Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification of Condition #2, that an easterly driveways be constructed prior to the construction of the main structure. Mr. Murphy explained this in more detail. Regarding Condition #4, Commissioner Master suggested that a change i n wording be made from "the" to "any". Chairman Mickelson wondered if it would not be better to lump these questionable conditions into one condition and Mr. Murphy explained that these conditions are general parameters to follow; they are not hard and fast rules. Chairman Mickelson opened the public heari ng. Daniel Aguirre, 1418 N. Huron, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission on behalf of the pastor of the church, explaining with regard to the curb cuts that there are two existing curb cuts now -one located at the front area of the new proposed church and one just south of that area. The only additional curb cut would be the one on Philo. There were twel ve people i n the audience, appearing i n support of this proposal. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Co ndi ti o na 1 Use Permit 1179 , for the reasons s to ted i n th e Staff Report and subject to the conditions as listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson asked for wording to explain that the intent of the first four conditions are to provide off-street parking during the construction period and that if the Staff sees fit to modify those conditions slightly, it is acceptable. Commissioners Hart and Master accepted this wording in the motion. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: PRESENTATION BY STAFF: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT STATUS REPORT. It was decided by the Commission to hear this report in Study Session after the adjournment of the Planning Commission meeting. CONSIDERATION ON PROPOSAL TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISED LAMPLIGHTER TENANT RELOCATION PLAN ON JANUARY 18, 1982. Commissioner Hart felt that he would like a presentation in this matter, stating that he did not particularly care to meet with the owner of the park individually. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Nine Commissioner Master wondered, after hearing several comments from the owner of Lamplighter Mobile Home Park referring to "Major Commercial", whether we are talking about rezoning in this area. Mr. Murphy explained that the reference to "Major Commercial" was probably addressing the Land Use designation being requested by the Lamplighter's owner not necessary a zoning designation. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he would support a study session on this matter and felt that he would like some more time to study this more thoroughly. Chairman Mickelson clarified what would occur in the proposed study session, pointing out that there would be presentation by Staff, possible questions asked of the applicant and study of material already presented, buy there would be no public hearing. Commissioner Vasquez asked a question with regard to a cover letter written by the applicant, dated December 23, 1981. He assumed that this letter had already gone out. Therefore, since it was mentioned in the letter, he thought the Commission was bound to hear this matter on January 11th. Commissioner Master thought that this letter was inappropriate. Commissioner Coontz agreed with Commissioner Plaster that the tone of the letter was inappropriate, but explained why that particular date was chosen. She also explained why she is against a study session since she feels that is there is one it should be very formal and structured. Commissioner Vasquez felt that a notice should be circulated on city letterhead to show that the city is committed to keeping the public informed. He would not like to see the people dissuaded from attending any work session we have. This letter should reaffirm that a study session will be held on January 11, 1982. Staff was directed to send a letter out to the inhabitants of Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the time to be set for the study session. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to hold a study session on Lamplighter Mobile Home Park on January 11, 1982, at 5:00 p.m., with notice to be sent to the residents of the park notifying them of the meeting and correcting any erroneous information given in the applicant's letter to them. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ABSENT: Commissioners none ANNUAL REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Nominated by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that Commissioner P~ick~lson be Chairman of the Planning Commission for a second term. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, that nominations be closed. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson Planning Commission h1i nutes January 4, 1982 Page Ten Nominated by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that Commissioner Hart be Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for the coming year. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to close the nominations. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to a study session at which a presentation would be made of the Transportation System Improvement District Status Report, then to be reconvened to a study session on January 11 , 1982 at 5:00 p.m. Commission will then reconvene to a regular meeting on Monday, January 18, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. u EXCERPT FROh1 THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 4, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman P~ickelson at 7:30 p.m, PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that this meeting adjourn at 9:20 p.m, on Monday, January 4, 1982 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, January 18, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on h1onday, January 4, 1982. Dated this 5th day of January, 1982 at 2:00 p,m. r P. Murphy, City Planner and Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. F STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on January 4, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on January 5, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of January 4, 1982 was held. ., ` Q ~` ~, re P. Murphy, Secretary ~a