Loading...
2001 - October 1 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 1,2001 Monday -7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero Smith None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Sully, Planning Manager, Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Elaine Steinhardt, Recording Secretary Chair Smith acknowledged the presence the new Planning Commissioner Mr. Phillip Bonina, although he did not participate in the meeting. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN - None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF AUGUST 20, 2001. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Carlton and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to approve the Minutes of September 5, 2001. Due to Commissioner Romero's absence from the September 5,2001 meeting, he abstained from voting on the minutes motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Carlton, Pruett, Smith None Commissioner Romero MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 3. VARIANCE 2101-01- STEVE PROTHERO A proposal to add 867 sq. ft. to an existing 1834 sq. ft. Eichler residence. The addition will accommodate a larger master bedroom, bath and dressing area, powder bath and retreat/office. The Variance request is to allow for the expansion without providing the code'required minimum two enclosed parking spaces on site. The existing residence contains a single-car garage and a carport. The property is zoned R-I-8 (Single Family Residential), located at 741 East Briardale Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California environmental per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC-31-0 1 approving Variance 2101-01. Since no one was present in opposition to the application, Chair Smith waived full reading of the report. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 1,2001 Ms. Karen Sully, Planning Manager, briefly introduced Mr. Prothero's request as described in the staff report. She stated that staffrecommended approval of the Variance. She noted that project planner Mario Chavez-Marquez, Planning Aide was available to answer any questions that may arise. Responding to an inquiry from Chair Smith, Mr. Chavez-Marquez reviewed Code section 170.10.04 section (c) that pertains to the requested Variance for the proposed addition that exceeds the 25% limitation Applicant Steve Prothero, 741 East Briardale, described the uniqueness of the subject home. He noted it was cutting edge architecture when it was built and that there were only 5 subdivisions built in this style in California. He explained that the carport was an integral feature of the home and was a popular concept when the homes were built, although closed garages gained favor in the ensuing years. He believed that enclosing a two-car garage would be a draw back in terms of design. He said the result of his investigation into the possibility of enclosing the garage proved it would be aesthetically displeasing and costly since the carport would require lengthening, therefore encroaching into the atrium and the hallway entrance would be seriously reduced. He said it would not work unless the front area was tom out. For those reasons, he believed he would be deprived of his property rights ifhe were not allowed to build the addition without providing an enclosed 2-car garage. Mr. Prothero mentioned that most housing in north Orange was built with enclosed garages and the Eichler subdivision was the only one with carports. He explained that although the Police Department favored enclosed garages, they recommended approval with maintenance of the carport configuration as it was originally built. Mr Prothero felt it was important to maintain the home's integrity. Mr. Prothero also agreed with condition of approval # 2 requiring the front yard to be landscaped and agreed to adding a requirement for installation of lawn sprinklers. He asked that the last sentence of condition #1 requiring any change in color of the exterior be approved by the Community Development Director, be stricken from the condition. Responding to Chair Smith's inquiry as to the origin of the aforementioned requirement, Ms. Sully stated it could be removed since the condition was more in keeping with Old Town requirements. Chair Smith opened the public hearing and finding that no one wished to speak, she asked the applicant for his closing statement. Mr. Prothero asked the Commission to consider the integrity of the Eichler homes and allow the Variance for the carport. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carlton stated she was very familiar with the Eichler subdivision and noted that the homes would soon be eligible for application to the Historic Register and she would not want to force any major changes to the architecture. She pointed out that the addition was not visible from the street. She also pointed out that she felt Mr. Prothero was in tune with maintaining the character of the architecture. She was in favor of granting the Variance since she didn't feel the addition was detrimental to the surrounding area and would improve the bedroom area that is originally rather small. Responding to Commissioner Romero's concerns about the legal requirements necessary to approve the variance, Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz explained the Code requires two findings and he reviewed the two required findings. He explained one could consider the use of preservation of specific architecture a special circumstance for a variance finding. He also highlighted Finding #2, in Section I of 2 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2001 the draft resolution, dealing with not allowing privileges not enjoyed by other properties since there were 37 other homes in the area developed with carports. Ms. Sully added that the proposed addition meets all other Code requirements. Commissioner Pruett opined that special circumstances existed and the uniqueness of the Eichler homes was an asset to the City. Because the homes can not yet be historically preserved, he did not feel granting the Variance would be giving a special privilege. It aids in maintaining the community. He emphasized the subject addition being proposed is for a home in a unique situation in that it is on an unusually large lot, well suited to the proposed addition. Chair Smith agreed with the other Commissioners. She noted there are some Eichler homes in Southern California that are already 50 years old and are eligible for the National Registry and she would not want to impede that possibility in Orange. She asked that lawn sprinklers be included as a requirement when the motion was made. She also asked that the building color restriction be removed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton for adoption of resolution PC 31-01 approving Variance 2101-01 based on the findings in Section 1 of the resolution and subject to conditions of approval 1 through 5 with the following modifications: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. . . .Further exterior building color and materials shall conform with the existing Eichler Home. ,^.ny ehanges in eolor of the exterior of the building initially, or at lffiY time in the fUMe, shall be subject to review and approved by the Community Development Direetor. 2. The applicant shall adequately landscape and install lawn sprinklers in the front yard at the time of the room addition per O.M.C. Section 17.14.210. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2381-01 - LA PINATA MARKET & PRODUCE (FRANCISCO ARREGUIN. A proposal to allow the off-site sale of an alcoholic beverages (Type "20" ABC License) at an existing 3,280 sq. ft. grocery market. The property is zone C-1 (Limited Business), located at 1836 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC-30-0 1, denying Conditional Use Permit 2381-01. Because there was some opposition to the subject proposal, Chair Smith ordered a full reading of the report. Ms. Sully introduced the project as described in the staff report and stated that staff recommended denial of the request based on the Police Department's recommendation because of over-concentration of "type 20" licenses and because of the crime statistics in the area. 3 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 1, 2001 Project planner, Mario Chavez-Marquez reviewed the full report at which time he pointed out the property had been cleared of some of the Code violations, but over a period of a few months, the violations recurred. He stated he spoke with 9 residents who opposed the request, received 5 letters with list of signatures in opposition and he received 1 letter in favor. He also pointed out that the City of Anaheim also recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit. He included reading the reasons for staff recommendation for denial. He explained if the request were to be approved, there were 30 conditions of approval that would be included. In response to a question from Commissioner Romero, Mr. Chavez-Marquez explained that the property owner had removed the inoperable vehicles but the vehicles were again on the property. Mr. Chavez- Marquez also confirmed for Commissioner Pruett, that the area on Exhibit "A", page 4-9 of the staff report defined by a 5 foot high chain link fence is a storage area.. Vice Unit Sergeant Matt Miller, Orange Police Department reported the Police Department objects to the conditional use permit because of the crime statistics in the area, noting that crime in the census tract of the subject market was over 20% higher than average. He reviewed the over-concentration of beer and wine off-sale licenses within the same census tract. He also commented that the area is isolated and remote and the Police Department receives many calls for service in that area. He spoke of drug and alcohol problems and the presence of a street gang in the area. He said the City of Orange and Anaheim have dealt with a criminal element there. He stated there is also a problem with people going back and forth across the dark residential streets nearby. Sergeant Miller called attention to the proximity of the 91 and 55 Freeways making the area easy access for thieves. Commissioner Pruett questioned as to whether the recommended surveillance evaluation of the store was ever conducted. Mr. Chavez-Marquez reported that the service was offered to the applicant but the applicant never scheduled it. Sergeant Miller, responded to Commissioner Carlton's question concerning the time period for the figures on page 4-6 of the staff report, by stating the figures were year-to-date figures, noting that Part 1 crimes are more serious crimes than Part 2 crimes. Commissioner Carlton pointed out the crimes were not necessarily connected with the market. Commissioners Carlton and Pruett and Sergeant Miller engaged in a discussion concerning crime areas and crime statistics, and Commissioner Carlton felt it would be helpful for the Commissioners to be made aware of general crime statistics in the City on a regular basis. Applicant Francisco Arreguin, 12640 Euclid Avenue, #106en Grove, owner of La Pifiata Market and Produce, recounted that he, with the help of his parents, has been operating the store for four years and had not intended to request the right to sell beer and wine but so many of his customers have requested that he sell beer and wine, he now wants to have the license as a service for his customers. He told the Commission that some customers leave their groceries on the counter and leave when they find they cannot buy beer or wine from him, because they would rather do all their shopping in one place. He explained the configuration of the building he occupies, pointing out that his grocery business is in one- half of a building owned by his brother. He said he takes care of his half of the property but cannot be held responsible for the other side. He reported that he had improved the property stating it was an eyesore before he opened his store and he called attention to the new black top in the parking lot. He also explained the beer and wine license would increase his business, which he needs to do. Mr. Arreguin said the cars on the property belong to his brother and that they were all operable. According to him, his brother likes to collect cars and it just happened that on the day the pictures were taken, his brother asked a mechanic to come to the property to fix one of the cars but that he usually did not do that. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 1,2001 He explained that he was a small neighborhood market-part of the community, not a franchise or an outsider who didn't concern themselves with the neighborhood. Commissioner Romero stated he was concerned with the Code violations affecting the neighborhood, feeling unimpressed that some of the violations had been cleared only to appear again a few months later. He thought the neighbor would appreciate a clean property and he felt that would encourage new business. He pointed out that cars being repaired in the parking lot and dead landscaping was not desirable. He was not in favor of approving the request because of the code violations. Commissioner Pruett confirmed the property was owned by Mr. Arreguin's brother and responding to Commissioner Pruett's interest in why a surveillance had not been scheduled, Mr. Arreguin stated he had an agent helping him with this request. Before he introduced his agent, he explained that his store was equipped with mirrors and a silent alarm and he had no crime problems in his store. He expressed surprise concerning the area's crime statistics. Mr. Tony Alvarez, 2521 North Grand Avenue #B Santa Ana, stated he contacted the City to schedule the surveillance but ended playing phone tag. He reported being in contact with Mr. Chavez-Marquez and Officer Beyer in regard to this matter and he and Mr. Arreguin did attempt to work with staff through the entire process. Chair Smith opened the public hearing. Commissioner Pruett advised the applicant to prepare to speak to the issues raised during the public hearing portion of the meeting because it will help the process. Juan Arreguin, 112 North Kodiak, Anaheim, father of the applicant who also works in the market, spoke in favor of granting approval, with his son, Francisco interpreting for him. Mr. Arreguin said the beer and wine license would make the store more profitable, thus securing his job. He reiterated the problem of people leaving the store when they find they cannot purchase beer or wine with their groceries. He thought it would also benefit the government if their business increased. Mr. Alvarez returned to speak in favor of the request, saying it was for public convenience, pointing out there were 37 signatures in favor of the request while only 13 signatures in opposition. He stated they would abide by the restriction and pointed out there is no pay phone in the market. He said they did not wish to operate a liquor store, but just wanted to make a one stop shop. He did not believe it would increase crime; that it was for the people living and shopping in the neighborhood. He agreed the market is somewhat hidden from major cross streets, therefore, not likely to attract outsiders. He said they were also concerned with the over concentration of beer and wine sellers, but he contended the fact that they were a neighborhood grocery store set them apart from those in the business of selling liquor. He reviewed the many food items stocked by the market and asked for approval promising to work on the violations. Mr. Ron Breach, 221 North Kodiak Street. Unit C. Anaheim spoke in favor of the request. He stated he belonged to a neighborhood association that ran the Kodiak Street gang out of the neighborhood with the help of the neighborhood market. He felt most of the Police calls were generated by the nearby motel, which he would like to see closed. He pictured the subject market as truly a neighborhood market noting that the owner aspires at some time to expand to occupy the entire building. He felt the Circle K was a problem because it backed to the Santa Ana River Trail and he called it a "stop and rob" shop. His opinion was that Circle K should also be gone. 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 1, 2001 Ms. Edna Lumley, 220 #B North Kodiak Street, Anaheim, Ms. Carmen Delibrado, 220 #A North Kodiak Street, Anaheim, and Ms. Linda Adams, 228 North Kodiak Street, Anaheim all opposed granting the conditional use permit for beer and wine license for the market. All agreed they did not want the market to suffer hardship because of an inability to sell beer and wine, but they felt there were already many places nearby that sold alcohol and they didn't want another one. They felt it would be a danger to the children in the area because of increased traffic in the area and the traffic already is too fast and a problem in the neighborhood. Ms. Adams stated she had recently witnessed a child in the area hit by a speeding car. She also said she has suffered from crime in the area and felt an approval would increase crime in the area because a person could steal a beer and be right on the freeway. She said she was happy to send her children to the market and, along with the other women, because of the children who shop at the market, she urged denial of the request. Ms. Delibrado felt that if people left groceries to go to another store, there must be other problems. Chair Smith stated that two petitions concerning the request had been received. One was in favor of approval and the other opposed and requested denial. There were also three letters in opposition: from Richard and Jocelyn Villa, 1736 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Orange, Carolyn Isaacs, and the City of Anaheim. The applicant returned to state that he obeys all Health Department and Code requirements and since he was not owner of the property, he should not be held entirely responsible. He disputed several comments that people could walk over the hill to V ons for beer and wine. He said it was too difficult a walk. He said his customers just wanted to be able to purchase a drink to have with dinner and he did not want to be in the business of selling alcohol. He just wanted to provide the service of having it available. He spoke of his good work as a youth counselor and recounted other programs he participated in. He also informed the Commission that he still worked full time at another job to make ends meet and his parents ran the market. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carlton felt the applicant was sincere in his desires. She agreed, being aware of the property, that it had indeed been improved but she felt it was a family problem. She believed the parents need to encourage the brother who owns the property to understand that his brother is trying to keep the property clean. She also agreed that since many families walk to a market, it is a long walk up hill to Vons and a market is an important part of a community. She also noted that the City of Anaheim has suggested 16 conditions if the market gets approval. Usually, she explained she is in favor of a small market selling beer and wine but the disrepair of the site is unacceptable and she did not feel there was a consistent effort to maintain the site. She suggested the family devise a plan to overcome the problems and return to prove compliance with the Code, then she might agree to the request. Commissioner Pruett agreed with Commissioner Carlton concerning property maintenance. He also pointed out that a conditional use permit ran with the property and although the present owner's intentions may be as he describes, Commissioner Pruett was concerned with future occupants. He also felt that since there were a number of establishments selling alcohol in proximity to the subject market, it would be inappropriate for another site to be granted the right to sell alcohol. He was not sure it met the test of something that was needed by the community. He expressed a doubt that, even if the site was properly maintained, he could agree to the request. He believed a similar use in the neighborhood would need to give up their right to sell alcohol before he could consider this request favorably. Commissioner Romero agreed with Commissioner Pruett pointing out that both the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim recommended denial. 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 1, 2001 Chair Smith also agreed with the other Commissioners. She felt a lot of effort had gone into the business but she did not feel it was appropriate for the sale of beer and wine. Chair Smith felt the community did not prove there was a need and there was no strong argument for approval, since there are already too many establishments selling alcohol in the area. She agreed brother-owner was making it difficult by engaging in activities that were not allowed in the area. She felt the property owner was not aware of his responsibilities. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to adopt resolution PC 30-0 I denying Conditional Use Permit 2381-01, based on the findings in Section 1 of the resolution. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED In a short discussion preceding the vote, crime and over-concentration of businesses in the area selling alcohol were highlighted as the reasons for denial. Chair Smith said there was strength in the family business and hoped they would continue and enhance the business. Ms. Sully explained the appeal rights and procedure to the applicant. There was no new business. Chair Smith called for public comment. Ms. Jennifer Sterling, 1601 East Baldwin Avenue, Orange, spoke to the Commission concerning a residence in her residential area that, even after being sold, remains in an unacceptable condition with the courtyard filled with old mattresses. She explained the neighborhood's efforts to get the property cleaned up but said it was very difficult to do. She said Code Enforcement has been involved but it is still in the same disreputable condition. She asked what the neighborhood could do about the problem. She also explained that the neighborhood is working toward making the community more inviting. She delineated the area as west of Tustin Avenue and east of Orange/Olive. She complained that there are no sidewalks and it is dangerous for the children who travel in the streets. She also pointed out that people come into the neighborhood just to use the bike trails and park along the Riverdale area, which she feels is not a very inviting ambience. She wants funds to clean up the entrance to the community. Chair Smith suggested she work with staff on possible steps for getting assistance. Ms. Sully suggested, responding to previously made complaints about the motel across from Mr. Arreguin's market, that staff contact the Police Department concerning the Weekly Suites and return to the Commission with a status report. Commissioner Pruett thought that perhaps it could be controlled through the business license process. Ms. Sully asked to return to the first meeting in November with the status report to give her time to research the matter and coordinate with the Police Department. Assistant City Engineer Roger Hohnbaum said he was aware of the lack of sidewalks in the area Ms. Sterling was speaking of, but admitted it was not on any list slated for improvement. He suggested an avenue to explore would be to address a safe route to school explaining there may be sidewalk grant funding available for that purpose. 7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October I, 2001 Mr. Hohnbaum and Commissioner Pruett discussed the lack of sidewalks problem, determining that the safe route to school funding, which is a statewide grant, was a good grant source although it is competitive and must be applied for. Mr. Hohmbaum said all he needed was citizens to make him aware of the problem, noting staff was always willing to put the grant application together, but that support from the school district was critical for success in gaining this grant money. Chair Smith suggested that Ms. Sterling bring her issues to the City Council and the Mayor by using the Hot Line. She said City officials are proactive and rarely do they not respond positively. She suggested that she talk to them in person and also write to them. Chair Smith thanked Ms. Sterling for bringing her concerns to the Commission and urged her to use the minutes to bring the issues forward to City officials. INRE: ADJOURMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to adjourn to Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session, Tuesday, October 2,2001, in the Weimer Room. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. 8