Loading...
2003 - January 6 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange January 6, 2003 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero Commissioner Smith Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC P ARTICIP A TION: None. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: la. CONTINUE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 18, 2002 TO THE JANUARY 20, 2003 MEETING. Commissioner Brandman asked that the minutes be reviewed to clarify what she had said in regards to: 1) p.7 "Commissioner Brandman said she thought that not every trip is one child", 2) p.l0 "Mitigate noise & emission" MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue the Minutes from the November 18,2002 meeting to the January 20,2003 meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: lb. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero None None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2002. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes of the December 2,2002 as submitted. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero None None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 6,2003 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2419-02, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1702-02, AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 243-02 - ANDREW PASZTERKO, ARCIDTECT (SHELL GAS STATION) A proposal to redevelop a 0.447-acre vacant lot with a Shell Gas Station, a 176 sq. ft. employee kiosk, a 5,952 sq. ft. canopy, required landscaping, and the closure of two driveways at the northwest comer of Lincoln Avenue and Glassell Street at 105 West Lincoln Avenue. The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial (GC). The zoning of the site is Limited Business (C-1) District. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1702-02 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt this document as an adequate and complete assessment of environmental issues related to the potential approval of this project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 01-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2419-02, Environmental Review 1702-02, and Minor Site Plan Review 243-02. Vice-Chair Pruett addressed this item and Commissioner Bonina reclused himself from this item. Since there was no opposition from the public regarding this project, Mr. Rice read project proposal as on agenda. Vice-Chair Pruett then asked the applicant to speak on his behalf. Mr. Andrew Paszterko (2055 N. Alvarado St., LA 9003) is architect for applicant, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has read, understood, and accepts all the conditions set forth by the staff. Mr. Paszterko is present to answer any questions the commission may have. Vice-Chair Pruett asked for comments from the public. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED: Mr. Roy Shahbazian (3808 E. Palm Ave.). COMMENTS INCLUDED: . The reduced number of driveways on the project is a benefit to the public because of safety concerns. . Having a bus stop close to the intersection is also beneficial because it improves safety for pedestrians. . Suggest having a traffic engineer recommend bus shelters for those comers. Mr. Paszterko was reinvited to speak and he expressed that he agrees with Mr. Shabazian concerning the bus shelters. Vice-Chair Pruett closed the public hearing and brought the floor to the commissioners. Mr. Hohnbaum stated that the city is asking for a dedication for that property. He also added that he would take the suggestion concerning the bus shelters back to the OCTA. 2 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes January 6,2003 Vice-Chair Pruett expressed that he can sympathize with the comment made by Mr. Shahbazian regarding the number of driveways because he observes people driving through the station, which poses problem for pedestrian safety. He also suggested Mr. Hohnbaum to bring these issues to the OCT A. Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Hohnbaum to address the comment about the covered bus stop, whether the city would have to pay for it. Mr. Hohnbaum explained there are three (3) different types of bus stops: 1) there isjust a sign, no cover; 2) there is a sign and bench for people to sit on--the city has to pay to put that in; and 3) a covered bus stop, which media companies will pay for to advertise their company-this would require organization and cooperation between all parties involved. Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Hohnbaum if the city could accept money from a developer who wants to contribute money to the city to put a covered bus stop at a particular location. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that has never happened in the past, but it can be done. Another issue is whether the sidewalk would have enough room, eight (8) feet, to accommodate a covered bus stop. In response to Commissioner Brandman's question as to whether there is enough space on that particular sidewalk to accommodate a covered bus stop; Mr. Rice replied that there is room for a bus stop. Mr. Hohnbaum explained it's not just a matter of whether there is enough room; there is also the question of practicality. Vice-Chair Pruett interjected that this commission's scope of decision-making does not include the issue of the bus stop, and encouraged staff to discuss it further with OCT A. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve Conditional Use Permit 2419-03 with the additional condition stated on the memo dated January 6, 2003. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Romero Commissioner Bonina None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED (3) VARIANCE 2114-02 - TONY & LETICIA TRABUCCO A request to allow the expansion of an existing single-family residence without the required on-site parking that would cause the demolition of an existing historically contributing garage structure. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential - 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LDR). The zoning of the site is Duplex Residential (R-2-6). The site is located at 450 South Orange Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities Accessory Structures). 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 6, 2003 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 02-03 approving Variance 2114-02. Because there was opposition from the public regarding this project, a full staff meeting was required. Staff Lau presented this project. In summary, the applicant wishes to expand an existing single- family residence without providing the required onsite parking that would cause the demolition of an existing historically contributing garage structure. Commissioner Bonina wanted to clarify whether it is accurate to say that staff recommends the approval of the variance based on the historical value of garage. Staff Lau explained the historical value of the garage is the basis of support for the recommendation of approval for the variance. Commissioner Bonina stated that the other project addressed the structural condition of the garage; he asked if this garage been evaluated for its structural condition also. StaffLau replied that the condition of the garage is fair, although there will be some reconstruction needed to maintain the condition. Vice-Chair Pruett asked the applicant to speak on behalf of his project. Mr. Tony Trabucco explained that the garage needs some work, specifically the door. He added that he wants to retain the garage because of its historical value. Commissioner Bonina asked if the concrete driveway was accessible through the alley; in which Mr. Trabucco replied in the affirmative. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED: IN FAVOR: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA: (464 N. Shaffer) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . The precedence has already been set for this kind of project. . Having this variance approved will help minimize FAR. . In favor of keeping a historical building. IN OPPOSITION: Charles Botzum: (453 S. Orange Street) COMMENTS INDLUDED: . The current garage is not being used for parking because there is a washer and dryer in the garage. . Object because there are not enough parking spaces on the street if this applicant doesn't use his driveway and garage for parking. Mr. Trabucco expressed he does not agree with the description that there is a major parking problem in the neighborhood, that the problem is cyclical, but not all the time as the Mr. Botzan stated. He added that the project design includes a new parking pad on his property, so he would not need to park on the street. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 6, 2003 Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Trabucco whether the garage is being used for storage or for parking. Mr. Trabucco replied that it is currently being used for storage, but as soon as the contents can be removed, he will use it for parking. Commissioner Bonina asked what the standard required size is for a single garage. Mr. Rice replied that the interior is required to be ten (10) feet) by twenty (20) feet. Commissioner Brandman asked about the Commission being allowed to require modifications to the existing garage to have additional room to accommodate the washer, dryer and a car, and whether the commission can require the applicant to add an additional parking pad on the property. It was agreed that those could be possible conditions of approval. Commissioner Romero expressed concerns that the garage being used for storage and not for parking. Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Trabucco if there is any problem with taking the washer and dryer into the house structure and how many bedrooms will the reconstruction provide. Mr. Trabucco replied that there would not be a problem with moving the washer and dryer into the house, but the preference is for them to be in the garage. Also, there will be three (3) bedrooms and one (1) office room after the construction is completed. Vice-Chair Pruett closed the public hearing and brought it to the commissioners for discussion. Vice-Chair Pruett reminded the commissioners that the issue before the commission is not the parking situation in the neighborhood, but whether the applicant should be granted a variance to the two (2) car garage requirement by code. Mr. Rice went further to explain that the policy question before the Commission is; should the Commission preserve a secondary historical resource in lieu of satisfaction of citywide parking standards? Commissioner Bonina wanted to clarify whether Mr. Rice is saying that there is more benefit in preserving the garage against the addition of parking. Mr. Rice replied in the affirmative. He also added that the issues include the condition of the property, having historical value, being located near Old Towne, which may have warrant for a relief from the two (2) car garage city code policy. Commissioner Bonina expressed that he feels the rear elevation, on the second floor, is really too massive for the structure. Mr. Rice explained that the Design Review Committee has addressed that issue intensively. The current design reflects modifications to reduce the massiveness of the previous design. Commissioner Romero asked what the current requirement is for the footprint of a two (2) car garage. Mr. Rice replied the current requirement for a two (2) car garage is twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet, and the set back is also twenty (20) feet so two (2) cars can be parked in the garage and two (2) more cars can be parked in the driveway. Commissioner Romero said it seems there would not be enough space for a two (2) car garage if this variance is denied. Mr. Rice replied that if this variance were denied, the city would work with the applicant to find a solution that meets code. 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 6,2003 The commissioners then discussed the applicant's current parking situation and how the proposed reconstruction will affect that. The proposed project will allow the applicant to have a total of three (3) onside parking spaces, one less than what is dictated by code. Commissioner Bonina stated that the current garage is a substandard in size and the set back is also substandard size. He asked what the city code says about this issue. Mr. Rice replied that the code requires a two (2) car garage with two (2) open spaces in front of the garage. Commissioner Brandman asked if the pad behind the garage is substandard in size already and are all the driveways along the back of this tract? It was identified that the pad is substandard in size and that several properties take access on to Orange Street rather than the ally. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve Variance 2114- 02. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Romero. None Commissioners Bonina, Brandman Commissioner Smith MOTION FAILED Since the motion failed, Mr. Sheatz explained to the applicant his options: 1) He can appeal; 2) He can take it back and redesign the garage; or 3) He can bring the application back to the Planning Commission on another date when there are five (5) members present. Mr. Trabucco replied that he wishes to bring it back when there are five (5) Commission members present. (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2433-02 - THE SALVATION ARMY A proposal to establish a church facility with shared use parking within an existing multiple-tenant office complex. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Industrial District (3 story limit .60 FAR). The zoning of the site is M-1 (Light Industrial District). The site is located at 2207 Orangewood Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 03-03 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2433- 02. Since there were no objections from the public regarding this project, Mr. Rice read the brief summary of the project from the agenda. Mr. Michael Freeman (668 Elmwood St.), the applicant stated he has read, understood, and willing to comply with all conditions set forth by the staff. 6 Planning Commission Minutes There were no public comments. APPROVEJ January 6, 2003 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve Conditional Use Permit 2433-02 as submitted. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero None None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED (5) ORDINANCE NO. 3-03; AMENDING TITLES 16 AND 17 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE DELETING THE STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEE AND SUBSTITUTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS THE INITIAL REVIEWING BODY FOR VARIOUS LAND USE APPLICATIONS. An ordinance amendment to eliminate the formal Staff Review Committee (SRC) to allow for more efficient review of proposed subdivision and development plans. In place ofthe formal SRC process, all the affected departments will still review plans internally and comprehensive comments will be shared with applicants however, formal decisions on minor site plans and recommendations on other applications will come from the Community Development Director. To ensure that the input of each affected department is considered, an Administrative Policy will be adopted to establish the membership and role of an informal staff review committee. NOTE: The proposed Ordinance amending the Municipal Code does not meet the definition of project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065. Since there was objection to this proposal from the public, Ms. Angus was asked to present the proj ect in detail. Ms. Angus explained the s~ope of the ordinance amendment. She explained the history, the current operation of the Staff Review Committee, and how the amended ordinance will affect the current procedures. Commissioner Bonina asked if the public had the opportunity to participate in the process before 1975. Ms. Angus replied in the negative. In response to Commissioner Bonina's questions, Ms. Angus replied that before 1975, the public did not have opportunities to participate in the process. They would be sent notices when there are new projects and after that a staff review process was created. Then in 1996 the formal SRC was created, with it, public notice was required. The changes proposed will delete the SRC as a formal body, however, notice of applications filed will still occur so that the public may continue to comment on projects. Ms. Angus continued to explain that project determinations will also be publicized through the notice mailings also. The public can participate in the project by submitting mailings, emai1s, through phone conversations with the city's staff, or by setting an appointment and speaking with a city staff member in person. Commissioner Romero asked how the public could participate if there is an appeal. Ms. Angus replied that most of the time, the projects would go on to the next committee, so there would not be an appeal. 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 6, 2003 Commissioner Romero asked if Ms. Angus has a rough approximation as to the number of final determination projects versus projects that move up to another hearing body. Ms. Angus reported from5-10%. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED: IN OPPOSITION: Rov Shahbazian: (3808 E. Palm Ave.). Shirlv Grindle: (5021 E. Glen Arran Lane) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Would not feel prepared for attending a meeting with only 72 hours notice concerning the project. . Recognizes that amendment to the ordinance will help reduce red tape. . Is opposed to proposal because it reduces the public's ability to participate. . Does not feel the Brown Act affects this ordinance and should not be a factor in the proposed amendment. Ms. Grindle read a note left by a public member who could not stay for the meeting. The note was left with the commission and it read: They opposed deletion of the SRC since "consultation between departments is very important and an avenue for public comment early on in the proj ect" . Ms. Angus explained that the intention of ordinance is to help the staff be more efficient, not to squelch the public's comments through an Administrative Policy, issues such as the continued role of SRC and the posting of projects pending staff determination on the Internet will be specified. Commissioner Bonina clarified the proposed process--when there is a new project, the public will be sent notice; at that point, the public has the ability to access staffmember(s) regarding the project; then the staff heads of different departments will meet, the public will not have access to this meeting, but do have ability to give comments for the meeting through email, phone, letter, or by appointments. Commissioner Brandman commented she would also like to limit bureauracy. She asked whether staff has explored de-legalizing the SRC committee so that the Brown Act is not relevant. Ms. Angus replied that internally, this has been a struggle. Vice-Chair Pruett stated what he felt were the issues at hand: 1) The interpretation is that the SRC committee will not go away, but it will no longer be appointed by code, and it will be structured differently to avoid the problems with the Brown Act. 2) The public notice and public meeting process and procedure. 3) How to keep the public involved, which is what the public is concerned with. The consensus is to continue the meeting till further clarifications can be addressed and the Administrative Policy can be provided in conjunction with the Ordinance. 8 APPROVED January 6,2003 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue this agenda item to the February 3, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero None None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting January 20,2003. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero None None Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:55pm. 9