2003 - February 3
C;? JCJ()' &.,? J.
MINUTES
'CITY OF ORANGE
CIT'( CLERK
February 3, 2003
Mond~IJ3~~PI'll AM 9: 26
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
Commissioner Brandman
Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
IN RE: ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRMAN:
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue the election to the
February 19,2003 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
3. ORDINANCE NO. 04-03 - CITY OF ORANGE
A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Sections 17.04, 17.10, and 17.18 of the Orange
Municipal Code in order to provide definitions and procedures for the establishment of amusement
arcades or similar commercial gathering places where electronic games are played, including, but not
limited to, video, computer, or Internet related games.
NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 24-02 recommending to the City Council the approval of
Ordinance No. 4-03.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this hearing to the
March 3, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3. 2003
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 6,
2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the minutes from
the January 6, 2003 meeting with the following changes. Page 4: The fifth paragraph should read,
"Commissioner Bonina stated that the other project addressed the structural condition of the garage; he
asked if this garage had been evaluated for its structural condition also." The ninth paragraph should
read, "Commissioner Bonina asked if the concrete driveway was accessible. .." Paragraph ten should
state, "Janet Crenshaw. OTPA". Paragraph eleven should read, "COMMENTS INCLUDED: . The
precedence has already been set for this kind of project." Page 5: The second paragraph should read,
"Commissioner Bonina asked what the standard required size is for a single garage" and the ninth
paragraph should state, "Commissioner Bonina wanted to clarify whether Mr. Rice is saying that there is
more benefit in preserving. . . "
AYES;
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero
None
Commissioner Smith
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS
2. 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 of the 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. This item was continued from the January 6, 2003
meeting.
NOTE:
The proposed Ordinance amending the Municipal Code does not meet the definition of
project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 04-03 recommending the City Council approve Ordinance No.
3-03.
Jeff Rice introduced the item, which was a continued item from the January 6, 2003 meeting.
Alice Angus, Community Development Director, gave a brief overview of the modification to the report
and the information requested by the Commission. A draft of the administrative policy, which would
establish the informal staff review committee, had been given to the Commission. It explained the
noticing procedure. If there is an item going to another formal body such as the DRC, PC or Council, the
site is posted giving residents 10 days advance notice of the decision to be made on the site allowing them
2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
to contact staff and give any input. Also there is a proposal to list the projects on the City's internet site.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending
approval to the City Council.
Chair Smith asked if this would add more work for Ms. Angus. Ms. Angus answered it was a trade off
and overall it won't impact the staffs ability to get the work done.
Commissioner Bonina confirmed that the projects would be posted on the website and they would be
posted 10 days prior to the staff review committee meeting. Ms. Angus stated the Staff Review
Committee meetings are currently public meetings and the intention of this ordinance is to no longer have
the meetings open to the public. They would be informal staff meetings only. The public could meet
with the project planner and come in and look at the plans if they have questions. The current participants
of the SRC include various department heads or their representatives. SRC currently is the decision-
making body on minor projects such as minor site plan reviews. Though this ordinance, these would be
projects Ms. Angus would make a decision on based on the committee's recommendations. A notice of
the decision would be posted on the website. They also would make written recommendations that would
move on to another level of decision making such as the DRC and these recommendations would be
incorporated into a staff report. The appeal period would remain 15 days and anyone can appeal the
decision.
Commissioner Romero asked how this compares with other cities. Ms. Angus replied that the staff is not
aware of any other city that has a formal SRC but most have an internal staff review committee.
Chair Smith stated she did not see the noticing process in the ordinance. Ms. Angus said no changes were
made in the ordinance but there is a table that shows the different types of notices that are required and
that would remain the same. The website is not listed in the ordinance but it's an additional tool staff is
looking to employ. Since an agenda will no longer be used, the website would list all the projects 10 days
prior to the informal SRC making their recommendation. The website is listed in the administrative
policy.
Commissioner Pruett asked that if tentative parcel maps are going to be referred to the Community
Development Director, why is it being submitted to Public Works. Ms. Angus stated that there is a very
technical aspect that occurs in regard to map numbering which is assigned by the County engineer.
Commissioner Pruett suggested on page 10 of Ordinance No. 3-03, section 17.44.060, Final Review of
the Application, that the last sentence be changed from "distributed to" to "forwarded to".
Commissioner Bonina asked if on page 2 of Ordinance No. 3-03, under the second B, should it read
"Within 50 days of the submittal of the tentative tract map to the Community Development Director".
Ms. Angus said that could be changed to Director.
The public hearing was opened.
Shirlev Grindle, address on file. She was concerned that the public would no longer be involved or even
invited to observe the staff review committee meetings.
Ms. Angus responded that the main thing they are trying to accomplish is to take this review body out of
the requirement that makes it subject to the Brown Act. According to the City Attorney, this is the best
way to address this issue.
Chair Smith asked what the capacity was for public input. Ms. Angus eXplained that the staff is seeking
early public input by talking to the case planner and other departments that are involved with the project.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3,2003
Commissioner Romero asked if it is stated in the Brown Act that the public cannot be involved in the
SRC meetings. Ms. Angus stated that they are trying to make this an informal group. The meetings
would stay the same time and same day but there would not be posted agendas.
Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Sheatz would this satisfy the Brown Act by having meetings that the
public wouldn't participate in. Mr. Sheatz stated that one of the key issues is defining a formal vs.
informal body. When the public is invited in, it becomes a legislative body and the meeting would be
subject to the Brown Act.
Ms. Angus explained issues are resolved currently by discussion and representatives from each
department bringing forward any concerns or issues they have. At the end of the discussion, many times
written conditions are submitted to the Planning staff to pass on to the decision making body. She
explained that currently formal minutes are not kept for the SRC. A compilation of conditions come from
each of the departments and there is review of those during the meeting to make sure they do not conflict
with other departments. A summary of what has happened then goes into the Planning Commission staff
report.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a site this information could be posted for those who do not
have internet access. Ms. Angus said that was an option even though it had not been proposed yet. She
stated it could be added as a suggestion or condition as part of the recommendation to the City Council.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pruett stated how an organizational concept was being put together that would be efficient
and also provide the public the opportunity to participate. He felt the public was not being cut out of the
process. This is allowing the departments within the City to discuss issues with a greater freedom. If the
project is so complicated and such a big project that it requires a workshop on the part of the public, then
maybe the Planning Commissioners should be going to the staffreview committee meetings. If it's an
important project, then workshops can be held. He doesn't think they are cutting out the public but
empowering the staff to do good work and work through issues and get good staff reports. If it is
necessary to have some type of input from the public because of the nature of the project, then workshops
should be held. The only correction would be on page 10 of Ordinance No. 3-03 where it should be
changed from "distributed" to "forwarded" which is consistent with the wording on page 2.
Commissioner Bonina agreed that the opportunity for staff to get together as a body and discuss projects
and not necessarily be subjected to the outside entities is a good process. He believed the noticing to the
public relative to the 10 days via the website and elsewhere needs to be as detailed as possible. After the
SRC meeting, the results of the meeting should be posted in a fairly detailed fashion so the public has the
opportunity to review it in detail, understanding the project and what was discussed. Also on page 2 he
noted that the Development Department should be changed to Development Director on Ordinance No.
3-03.
Commissioner Romero stated that during the years he has seen the public put forth a lot of positive
information on the applications the Planning Commission has reviewed. He also has seen the public, at
times, lengthen the time that it took for a decision making process.
Chair Smith wanted to recognize that this is the initial reviewing process for various land use applications
and following this process there is a lot of public review that follows by the DRC, Planning Commission
and the City Council. She would like to give this process a try. She would like to see it stated
somewhere that the information would go on a website, that there would be options for public workshops
as needed, that staff always remain open for meetings with members of the community, assurance that if
4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
comments are given to staff that they will be forwarded at the staff meeting and that written comments
from the public are welcome and the results of the meetings be posted as well as the appeal process.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there were comments in writing submitted by the public is there a formal
process of responding to that. Mr. Rice explained it depends on the situation. If a letter comes in, you get
a response, ifit's a comment on a project then typically there is no response. Staff does try to response as
much as possible to the public.
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 3-03 with the changes on pages 2 and 10
with the understanding that the comments that Chair Smith raised be included in the process and
forwarded to City Council.
Commissioner Bonina would like posted a fairly expansive description of what the results of the SRC
meetings were and have it posted on the website or somewhere else for those without internet access.
Chair Smith tries to keep in mind when making decisions like this that it's easy to make a decision when
you know the people who are involved today but an ordinance goes with the City regardless of who the
staff members may be in the future. This as proposed with good people working it will let the public be
involved. Also she thought if the process doesn't work, the City would be back to say it's not working
and something else needs to be tried.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adopt Resolution No. PC 04-03
and recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance No. 3-03.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2427-02 - RICIDE'S NEIGHBORHOOD PIZZERIA
A request for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 License (On-Sale Beer and Wine - Eating Place)
for an existing restaurant located at 20 City Boulevard West, Unit J, F-IO (The Block at Orange).
NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class I, Existing
Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. PC 09-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2427-02.
No one was opposed to the proj ect and a full reading of the staff report was waived.
Mr. Rice introduced the project. The applicant was requesting a 41 type alcohol license for on-site sale of
beer and wine for an eating establishment. On November 2, 1998 the Planning Commission approved a
CUP to allow an alcoholic beverage license at Mulberry Street Pizzeria at this location. The applicant
never executed the CUP and it expired. The new applicant is requesting to reactivate the CUP. The
Police Department reviewed the application and found it to be an appropriate location for this type of
restaurant. He would like to make a modification to conditions I and 2. On Condition I the clause
"seven days a week" should be deleted and Condition 2 should read "sales, service, consumption of
alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only from II :00 a.m. to one hour before closing."
5
PlalU1ing Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
Adam Burnhart. 8811 Alden Drive. Los Angeles, representing the applicant. He explained that they were
approved four years ago but they wanted to wait before they started selling beer and wine. Now they
would like to offer this as a service to their customers.
Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Bumhart ifhe had read the conditions and if they were acceptable. Mr.
Burnhart was agreeable.
No one from the public wanted to address this application.
Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Burnhart about some of the crime that has occurred at the Block. Mr.
Burnhart stated that within the last nine months to a year, the clientele is a little bit older and the police
have done a good job of patrolling the young people.
The pubic hearing was closed.
Commissioner Romero made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2427-02 and noted it was
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a cap to the number of ABC licenses that could be issued at the
Block. Mr. Rice responded that the State of California has an over concentration standard based on the
number of licenses within a census tract and when a new application breaks that threshold then a finding
of public convenience or necessity is required.
Commissioner Pruett noted that the police report does not break it down as to whether the crimes are
alcohol related.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adopt Resolution No. PC
09-03 and approve Conditional Use Permit 2427-02.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2432-02 AND VARIANCE NO. 2110-02 - MUKESH
AND NITA PATEL
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installations of full interior plumbing facilities to
include a bathroom, shower and bar sink within a newly constructed 1,150 sq. ft. detached exercise/game
room on property that contains an existing single family residence. The Variance request is to allow the
exercise/game room to exceed the maximum 640 sq. ft. limitation required by code. The site is located at
6304 E. Abbeywood Road.
NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 10-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2432-02 and Variance
No. 2110-02.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
No one was opposed to the application.
Mr. Rice introduced the project. He clarified the code requirements. He stated that no interior plumbing
would be permitted unless it's under 150 square feet in which it could contain a y, bath. If over 150
square feet or contains more than a y, bath, then a CUP is required and the interior plumbing has to satisfy
the requirements of code section 17.14.060 which are the standards for an accessory second units. The
accessory structure in this case is an exercise room and it can only exceed 640 square feet with a variance.
The CUP is to add plumbing to the facility and the total size ofthis structure is 1,150 square feet.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the 640 sq. ft. requirement was applicable to both an accessory second
housing unit and an accessory building. Mr. Rice explained that that standard applies to accessory second
units and accessory structures with plumbing, which would require a CUP.
Commissioner Romero wanted to know if staff checked Parkridge CC&Rs and if adding a second
residence was allowed. Mr. Rice said no because enforcement of the CC&Rs is not a zoning function.
Mukesh and Nita Patel. 6304 E. Abbevwood Road, the applicants. Mr. Patel eXplained that the intention
of adding this structure was for an exercise room. They had to go to the association first and all their
neighbors have seen their plans and they have approved it. After that it went to the architect committee
and they have fully approved it. They will utilize this only as an exercise room.
Chair Smith noted that the development standards of Parkridge Hills Planned Community district are
primarily the same as the developmental standards in the Orange Municipal Code. She noted also that
there is a restriction that the applicant is not able to rent this unit or offer it as housing. They also have
enough parking on their property with three spaces.
Shirley Grindle. address on file. She had no objection to using this facility for a game room but she was
concerned that it was not spelled out that it could not be used as a second living unit under any condition.
Terry Sherry. 6319 E. Abbevwood. He had no problem with what they are doing and none of the
neighbors have any concerns with the project.
Chairperson Smith stated that one of the limits to ensure that an accessory second unit with plumbing is
not used as housing units is by not allowing any kitchen facilities to be installed. She asked Mr. Rice if
these conditions are binding enough to ensure that this is not used as a rental or living facility. Mr. Rice
eXplained that the Commission could add another condition to further clarify that the structure shall not be
used as a second unit whether rent is collected or not. The recordation of conditions put on notice
subsequent owners when they do the title search that they are not buying a second unit. As any other
condition of approval, the City just needs to keep an eye on things.
Commissioner Pruett wondered if maybe there should be something in the condition of approval basically
providing some recognition that the association has reviewed and approved the project. He'd like to
avoid the concept that a project approved by the Planning Commission would override the CC&R's that
are placed on a property. Mr. Rice explained that generally the concept of CC&R's and zoning are two
different elements of the bundle of rights called property ownership and generally they are not mutually
exclusive events but need to be read together. The only area the Commission has to enforce is the zoning
area.
Commissioner Pruett felt that future projects should include something in the staff report in which the
applicant understands how these two things work together because it looks like they are approving
something completely separate from that.
7
Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003
Commissioner Romero commented that even with CC&R's requirements set by a homeowner's
association, based upon state and federal law, it could be overridden.
The applicant came forward for closing remarks.
The public hearing was closed.
Chair Smith felt a condition should be added that states the building shall not be used as a second living
unit.
Commissioner Romero made a motion to approve CUP 2432-02 and Variance 2110-02 noting the
application was exempt under provisions of CEQA with the addition of condition #7 that this new
construction is not to be used as a second unit for residential purposes.
Commissioner Bonina felt these conditions need to be conveyed to the homeowner's association.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adopt Resolution No. PC 10-
03 and approve Conditional Use Permit 2432-02 and Variance No. 2110-02.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16454 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 38-03
CENTEX HOMES
A proposal for a 121 dwelling unit condominium development arranged in courtyard patio homes.
NOTE:
The environmental impacts of the proposal have been reviewed per approved Final
Environmental Impact Report 1305.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 08-03 recommending to the City Council the approval of
Tentative Tract Map 16454 and Administrative Adjustment 38-03.
No one was opposed to the application.
Mr. Rice, Planning Manager, introduced the project.
Mr. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, further eXplained the staff recommendations. The project is to include
121 detached single family homes and it's a clustered development with most of the vehicle access
coming off of the interior courtyard with a spine street. The units are mostly two stories and the applicant
is proposing to allow, as an option, a third story loft type development. The Serrano Heights Specific
Plan does allow a third story subject to being a certain distance from single family zones. The project
includes an administrative adjustment request to allow 80% of the side yard setbacks for the residential
structures to have some portion of the required side yard setback less than five feet and a minimum of
four feet from the adjacent property line. With the exception of the administrative adjustment request,
staff found it was in conformance with the development standards. The Staff Review Committee has
reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the TIM and administrative adjustment. The
Design Review Committee also reviewed the proposal and found it an interesting design and unique type
8
Planning Conunission Minutes
February 3, 2003
of development. One condition of approval recommended that the final landscaping, building and site
plan return to the DRC in order to review the building elevations along the spine street.
Commissioner Bonina asked for a historical perspective of the project and where it fits into the overall
Serrano Heights residential development. Mr. Carnes explained it was approved originally in 1987. At
that time it was approved for 1800 dwelling units to be developed on what is included within the entire
project area of 720 acres with 250 acres being developed residentially with various densities. This
particular site is designated for high density at 15-24 dwelling units per acre. The development
agreement that was created originally between the City and the original property owner established
specific criteria on the development standards and also the financing of the improvements including the
creation of a maintenance district. The applicant at that time did work out an agreement regarding the
school fees with the school district. In lieu of paying park fees, the proposal did include the dedication
and improvement of a 4.4 acre park site that is presently in the design review process and should begin
construction some time soon. It did include the creation of a municipal facilities district to pay for the
improvements in that area including Serrano Avenue.
Chair Smith asked who owns the property. Mr. Carnes replied that Sun-Cal is the owner and confirmed
that Edison has no interest in the property now. She also wondered why the specified five foot setback
couldn't be honored. Mr. Carnes explained that if it was strictly applied, they would not be able to fit as
many units on the property. He also confirmed that there would be 20 off-street parking spaces as well as
additional on-street parking. He explained that the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet and the tract
map subdivides that into four lots. He stated that the lot lines are defined by air space rights and not
specific lines on the ground.
Commissioner Bonina asked if each unit has two covered parking areas and room for two on the
driveway. Mr. Carnes stated the units do have two car garages but that most of the units do not have
space for a driveway approach in front of the garages.
Mr. Rice stated that staff, in reviewing the original resolution, identified several of the general conditions
that are null and void because of prior agreements through the Specific Plan and the development
agreement with the developer. Also there were several duplicate conditions, so those were deleted. The
issue of fire protection was clarified and the ability of the applicant to obtain alternative means of
protection from the fire chief.
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. 18101 Von Karmen. Irvine. He stated they have an entitlement to
build 335 multiple family homes on that parcel. Their proposal is to build 121 condominium homes. He
eXplained that this project has been around for quite awhile and they are trying to fine-tune it to meet the
needs of the community and the residents who live within the project. He stated that over 75% of the
project has been occupied. They have built less but bigger homes and have provided more open space.
The request tonight and deleting the conditions is nothing new or concerning since these were conditions
that were not included in prior requests made before the Commission and City Council. He explained
how this project provides sufficient parking and it actually has more parking than required by the code.
Chair Smith wanted it clarified that she was not the Chair of the Commission in 1999.
Scott Adams. 2031 Orchard Drive. Newport Beach, architect for the project. He stated how proud they
are of the community design and the architecture. They have created designs that increase the livability
of these homes and work to the benefit of the perspective residents. They have a clear organizational
value to their site plan. These are the real homes people in the community are looking for. There are 64
parking spaces on the spine road as well as 23 additional spaces making the overall parking site ratio 3 to
1. The eight-foot separation is more common for clustered condominiums than the older R-l side yard
setbacks, which are typically five feet each for a total of ten feet. This is not a reduction in privacy based
9
PlaMing Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
upon the integrated design of the floor plans and where the window patterns are placed. The primary
bedroom windows are either looking out to an open space or an opposing blank wall.
Commissioner Romero indicated that the plans do not show how the trash receptacles will be covered or
hidden. Mr. Adams explained that pads will be provided and they are willing to work with the trash
authority for this jurisdiction.
Chair Smith did not get a 3 to 1 parking ratio as stated previously with 329 totals spaces being less than
the needed 363 spaces for a 3 to I ratio. Mr. Adams admitted to a mathematical error and so it's actnally
2Y:. spaces per unit. Chair Smith was also concerned with the four foot separation and the building over
hang, the eaves, the roof overhang that comes very close and she is worried about fire. Mr. Adams
eXplained that there will be a six-foot air space separation and pulling a foot out of each plan would
compromise their livability. Chair Smith asked if they kept the 5-foot setback how many units would
they lose. Mr. Adams would have to get back with a definite answer.
Commissioner Bonina asked for the details of the lighting plan. Mr. Adams eXplained that the green
lights on the plans are not the large scale street standard or a light pole but it's a reduced height light pole,
which allows the spread of light to occur on the common driveways. Mr. Rice eXplained the layering and
hierarchy of the lighting created an aesthetic effect throughout the community.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Adams to speak to the proposal of the third story on some of the units and how
many that will include. Mr. Adams stated there would be an occasional third story loft volume on Plan I
and this was an accessory space and is less than 500 square feet. They are not a story but a mezzanine
type of a volume. Approximately half the units on Plan I would have this third story loft. The height is a
7 foot plate and is found in the middle of the home's envelope. Chair Smith asked if this gave a third
story view of the neighbor's yard. Mr. Adams said that it would not due to the window patterns.
Mr. Elfend clarified that the current Serrano Heights Specific Plan in this development area does permit a
multi-family structnre and three stories is a permitted use. The sale of the property between Sun-Cal and
Centex will occur sometime in the near future and there are certain conditions attached that deal with this
sale as it relates to a recordation of the final map. He wanted to clarify that there is a recorded final map
on this tract already and a recorded final map already approved on this site.
The public hearing was opened.
Michael Caoalotto. 2695 Promontory Avenue. He had concerns about home values; the higher density of
this project which would increase traffic and congestion on a single street; the placement of trash cans and
how they would be emptied; parking density and the possibility of using Kendra for extra parking; and the
possibility of the development behind this project having their views blocked with the three story units.
Eric Messenger. 8379 E. Norfolk. Villa Park. He was concerned with reducing the setback from 5 to 4
feet and he'd like to see them further reduce the density.
Mr. Elfend stated this project was offering something better than what was permitted. He further
explained that the Serrano Height project was approved for 1800 homes and half of those were to be
multi-family homes. Approximately 1100-1200 units will actually be built in the project area. The
neighbors should be favorable to the fact that they are permitted to build these higher density homes but
they are not building them. The project does allow for three stories in this location. The traffic
generation rates from this project are much less than what were expected when the 1800 homes were
approved. He has talked with waste management and based upon the plan the Commission has, they have
found the location of the trash receptacles acceptable.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
Commissioner Bonina asked what the potential value of these units are. Mr. Elfend was hesitant to
estimate that number because the housing market and prices are accelerating. Commissioner Bonina was
told the range could be between $300,000-$800,000. He was also told construction would probably start
in the third or fourth quarter of this year. The property is pretty much already graded.
Chair Smith wanted to know the number of properties with loft units and she was told 25 of the 50 on
Plan 1.
Kevin Karami. 2031 Orchard Drive. Newport Beach, project designer. He eXplained that the architecture
is all spanish and monterey in which brickwork would be introduced along with the stucco, woodwork
and rod iron.
Commissioner Bonina asked how the third loft units would affect the views of the properties above it.
Mr. Elfend said this proposal would minimize the three-story view impact as opposed to what could have
been built per the development agreement. Mr. Elfend confirmed that there was a slope facing the Pulte
development and it's between 25-50 feet.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pruett stated that even though there might be some concern on the part of some of the
neighboring residences as to the density, he thought this proposal to lower the density addressed many of
the issues and concerns that had been expressed in terms of traffic, building height and parking. He felt
that the way the project is laid out, it creates value. He liked the courtyard approach, the different styles
on each of the residences and he thought the Centex homes are very attractive. He did feel that the trash
issue was a problem but it's a problem that is faced in every neighborhood. Many of his concerns have
been addressed in the proposal put before them. He noted on addendum A on item 17 it should say "all
lots" and not "all lost".
Commissioner Romero mentioned when he first looked at the project he didn't like it because of the
density but then he remembered what had been approved in the past and he was pleased to see a far
superior decrease in the amount of units. He didn't have a problem with the assumption that the value of
these homes would be far in excess of a $300,000 to $350,000 value. The character of the construction is
much better than a stucco box. He was willing to allow the administrative adjustment because of the
downsizing of the density.
Commissioner Bonina found the project very creative and he thought the market place was going to be
very receptive to the product. One benefit overall to the entire Serrano Heights area was the reduction in
density and increased value would be realized. The land planning and architecture was very creative on
this project.
Chair Smith stated she approved of the design concept of this project and the architecture was beautiful
and she appreciated the decrease in density. However, she was not in favor of the administrative
adjustment because it does compromise the privacy and quality of life of the residents and it's a loss of
two feet for each residents. She was concerned with the architectural features that are so close together
that privacy would be compromised.
Chair Smith recommended to the City Council that they adopt Resolution No. PC 08-03 recommending
the approval of the TIM 16454 with the conditions and findings as listed in the current staff report.
Commissioner Bonina wanted to know if they could approve a tract map as it's laid out there with the
understanding that in the body of the tract map it has an administrative adjustment already plotted on it.
Mr. Sheatz replied yes.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2003
Chair Smith noted that the environmental impacts of the proposal have been reviewed and are contained
in Environmental Impact Report 1305.
Commissioner Pruett asked for approval of Administrative Adjustment 38-03 and Commissioner Romero
seconded. Chair Smith repeated her opposition to the administrative adjustment reducing the 5-foot
setback to 4 feet because it compromises the privacy and quality of life for the residents. The buildings
are too close for comfort and for the price of these homes they should meet the code.
MOTION
Moved by Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to recommend to the City Council to
approve Tentative Tract Map 16454.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City
Council to approve Administrative Adjustment 38-03.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero
Commissioner Smith
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn to the Planning
Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, February 19,2003 at 6:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Commissioner Brandman
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 pm.
12