2001 - April 16
C')f'otJ . G.,j, j
(',~
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
April 16, 2001
Monday - 7:00 p,m,
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
~
Karen Sully, Planning Manager,
John Godlewski, Principal Planner,
Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attomey,
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works
, ':) -
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2364-01 - TOYOTA OF ORANGE
ITEM TO BE CONTINUED
A request to allow the construction of a five-bay car wash/auto detailing structure and two buildings
for storage of equipment and supplies at an existing auto dealership, The site is located at 1400
North Tustin Avenue, This item was continued from the March 5, 2001 meeting.
NOTE'
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions 01 the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Ms, Sully recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of May 7,2001. The applicant is
still working out certain issues that arose from the last meeting and needs additional time.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to continue Conditional Use
Permit 2364-01 to the meeting of May 7, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
INRE:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
CONSENT CALENDAR
2, Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of March 19, 2001.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes of
March 19, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
Commissioners Canton, Pruett, Smith
None
Commissioner Romero
MOTION CARRIED
1
Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2001
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS
3, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. PC 1-01 - CITY OF ORANGE (DECORATIVE BANNERS)
A proposal to amend Section 17,04.023 and Chapter 17.36 of Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code
pertaining to regulations for decorative banners.
NOTE'
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act,
Ms. Sully introduced this item that is being proposed by the City's Economic Development
Department to install decorative banners on street light standards along Tustin Street. There are
approximately 60 banner locations that have been identified, A section of the code needs to be
amended in order to allow the decorative banners.
Lisa Kim. Proiect Manaoer in the Economic Develooment Deoartment. requested that the
Commission consider an ordinance amendment to allow the placement of decorative banners on
street light standards along commercially and industrially zoned areas of the City. The amendment
will allow the Economic Development Department to implement an effective, economic development
tool to promote the image of the City. Through these banners, they will be able to create an
atmosphere to stimulate and increase business activity, as well as enhance the City's streetscape,
Initially, they will be implementing the decorative banners on a trial basis to target the Tustin Street
corridor, The program will be implemented on a yearly basis and banners will be changed seasonally
with patriotic and holiday banner decorations, There are three (3) banner designs proposed for the
program. The size of the banners are 3'xB', The initial banner will include a generic City banner that
identifies Tustin Street, followed by seasonal banners to be displayed on Memorial Day. July 4.
Veteran's Day and the Christmas holiday season. The generic banners have been designed by a
graphic designer retained by the Redevelopment Agency, The designs have been presented to
members of the City Council. and staff has not heard of any opposition to the proposed banners. The
patriotic and holiday banners can be ordered through a catalog, This program will be funded by
Redevelopment funds. generated from the Tustin Street Project Area, Staff estimates approximately
$15,000 to be allocated for this program. Maintenance of the banners will be done by City staff. but if
the maintenance of the banners is contracted out. it will be part of the maintenance contract by an
outside service,
Chair Smith is dismayed that the generic City banner for Tustin Avenue says "Tustin Street", It has
always been referred to as Tustin Avenue, but when the Redevelopment Plan was filed, it was filed
and approved as Tustin Street,
Commissioner Pruett would like to come up with some other name than "decorative banner" only
because there is an existing ordinance that deals with banners for businesses and there could be
some confusion.
The public hearing was opened.
Shirlev Grindle address on file, spoke against the City putting up decorative banners, She wanted to
know if the public knows what is being proposed,
Ms. Kim explained the purpose of the program and the banners will be implemented over the course
of one year, on a trial basis, The proposed banners will not be hung across the street, but will be
mounted vertically on street light standards,
The public hearing was closed.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2001
Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with recommending approval of the ordinance
amendment, but would like staff to come up with another name for the program other than "decorative
banners",
Chair Smith personally likes the flags because they represent a festive atmosphere, Orange is
missing that extra touch, She noted that the Tustin Street banner program will be implemented on a
trial basis to assist the City's Economic Development efforts to focus attention along Tustin Street
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to recommend to the City
Council to approve Ordinance Amendment No, PC 1-01, and direct staff to prepare all necessary
documents, including taking a look at the titling of "decorative banner" to possibly another name. The
proper body to review and select the bannerslflags should also be specified in the ordinance
amendment
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
4. APPEAL NO, 481, "LYNETTE AMMER AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS" - APPEAL OF
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2001-116 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 170-01
An appeal of the Staff Review Committee approval of the proposed subdivision of an approximately
one acre vacant parcel into three smaller parcels with the location of a private driveway along the
west side of the property. The s~e is located at 4629 East Walnut Avenue,
NOTE'
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act,
Ms. Sully explained that Ms. Ammer and surrOUnding neighbors filed an appeal of the Staff Review
Committee's February 14, 2001 detennination, which approved the Tentative Parcel Map and Minor
Site Plan Review, The reasons for the appeal include the following issues, which are detailed in the
staff report: privacy, drainage, grading, traffic and safety,
Mr. Godlewski presented a full staff report and noted that the Commission reviewed this property in
December, 2000, At that time, it was a four lot subdivision, which was denied because it would
overburden the site. The applicant re-designed his project to be a three lot subdivision with a
driveway along the side of the property, similar to what was previously indicated by the Commission
that could be found more acceptable than a four lot subdivision. The applicant came back to the Staff
Review Committee with a drawing indicating the driveway for the three lots on the west side of the
property. The Staff Review Committee looked at, and discussed the various aspects of the s~e, and
recommended approval of the driveway on the west side. At that point, the Staff Review Committee
realized the application was not fully complete, There was also discussion of the Minor Site Plan,
which is reviewed for lots w~hout direct frontage on the publiC street. So, the application was re-
packaged and brought back to the Staff Review Committee as a complete package, At that time, the
applicant went back and looked at the comments that were made, met with the surrounding
neighbors, and re-submitted the Minor Site Plan and Tentative Parcel Map, only this time showing the
driveway on the east side, The Staff Review Committee reviewed the application and considered the
issues relating to the site. They discussed the driveway on either side of the property and how traffic
would be affected, as well as grading on the site, the general lay of the land, and how drainage
generally flows from east to west, Even though the applicant submitted the Tentative Parcel Map
indicating the driveway on the east side, the Staff Review Committee approved the plan and the
Minor Site Plan with the cond~ion that the driveway be placed on the west side because ~ would have
less impact in tenns of grading, which was the primary concern of the Staff Review Committee.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 16. 2001
As this application was appealed by the neighbors along the east side of the property, it became
apparent to staff that one of the conditions that was discussed was not clearly articulated, Staff felt it
was important that whichever side of the parcel the driveway ends up on. a condition was necessary
to state which side of the properties the individual lots facing the driveway would be considered the
front, rear and sides of the lot, and setbacks could then be determined. The front yard setback will be
taken off of the private driveway; not off of Walnut. The proposed condition is worded on Page 2 of
the staff report.
The Staff Review Committee also considered the topography of the lot, which is generally flat. The
lot does not vary more than three (3) feet. Some of the neighborhood concerns had to do with the
past history of the parcel, A soils analysis will be required as one of the conditions of this project.
There are a total of 14 conditions, but some of the conditions might not address the neighbors'
concerns. Mr. Godlewski recommended some modifications to conditions 3, 6, and 9 to make them
more clear, An unresolved issue concerns the sidewalk. There Is sidewalk that continues along
Walnut Avenue, to the east of this property and stops at this property, Typically, the Public Works
Department requires that the sidewalk continue and be developed with the development of the
property, across the frontage of the proposed parcel map. There was some concern that the
sidewalk would lead to nowhere. The Commission can either require that the sidewalk be put in now,
or agree that it be bonded so that the City will take the money to do the improvements at such time
when the rest of the street is done.
The Staff Review Committee approved the Tentative Parcel Map and Minor Site Plan with the
driveway on the west side of the property. The appellant and neighbors have appealed this because
they are concerned that the property and neighbors would be better served if the driveway was on the
east side of the property.
The public hearing was opened.
Aooellant Lvnette Ammer 532 North Hamlin Street clarified that she and her neighbors are
appealing the decision of the Staff Review Committee in placing the driveway on the west side of the
property, Grading and drainage are not a problem, The land can be graded on either side. Placing a
new driveway on the west side will create a potential traffic and pedestrian hazard. There will be six
driveways on Walnut. Moving the driveway on the east side would help break up the existing
problem, She shared pictures with the Commissioners. The neighbors right to privacy and the
enjoyment of their back yards will be deprived If the driveway were built on the west slde. The owner
has met with the residents and made concessions with them by putting the driveway on the east slde.
She is afraid that her back yard will not get the afternoon sun to heat her swimming pool; it has a
solar blanket. Fifteen (15) more trees will be saved instead of two, privacy for more families, and the
placing of windows has been discussed. The driveway on the east side will be more uniform with the
neighborhood. The driveway for this property has been on the east side for over 40 years.
Public comments were made at this time:
Shiriey Grindle, address on file. opposed,
Thomas Meiss, 705 Schug, neutral position,
Ted Feger, 4625 East Walnut, opposed.
Rick Mendez, 4625 East Walnut Avenue, opposed.
Brent Rickard, 4625 East Walnut Avenue. opposed.
Sandy Rickard, 4625 East Walnut Avenue, opposed.
The main issue is privacy, but the Staff Review Committee considered all the issues of grading and
the fact that there is a telephone pole that would have to be relocated if the driveway is on the east
side, To drain all lots to the street will require retaining walls, The issue of privacy has been settled
because of the required 20 foot setback. There will be a sight distance problem if the driveway is
located on the east slde. There is a legal, non-conforming use on the west slde of the property. And,
4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2001
the more distance that can be placed between these homes and the legal equestrian use will be
much better, The applicant was asked to build homes that will fit in with the existing neighborhood,
One speaker is actively involved in issues concerning bird life, trees and environmental matters,
They are more concerned about saving the Junipers along the east property line as they provide
privacy as well as nesting materials for the birds. They would also like to save the two large Palm
trees. There is heavy foot traffic from the Jr. high school and many cars, By placing the driveway on
the west side, it would give a buffer of 54 feet to the stables, rather than 20 feet if changed. There
would be less noise and more privacy if the driveway were placed on the west side. Pictures were
displayed of the neighbors' back yards and the proposed property,
Douglas Ammer, 532 North Hamlin Street, in favor.
Melvin Aou, 2700 N. Whitehall, owner of property, in favor.
Linda Caples, 11201 Santa Rosalia, Stanton, spoke for Nancy Wallace, 518 North Hamlin, in favor.
Ms. Cortez, 517 North Hamlin Street, In favor,
Greg House, 23970 Nicole Way, Yorba Linda, property owner's representative, in favor.
Nick Licata, 4644 East Orange Grove Avenue, in favor.
Cindy Johnson spoke on behalf of Ms, Vazquez, 506 North Hamlin Street, in favor.
Mary Vitullo, 542 North Hamlin Street, in favor,
A majority of the surrounding neighbors (homeowners) agree that the road would better serve them
on the east side of the property, The owner met with the neighbors to discuss their concerns. He
has agreed to retain as many of the trees as possible in a planter box provided that the driveway is
on the east side, Seven of the eight neighbors whose property is immediately adjacent to the Walnut
property would like the driveway placed on the east side. Since the property needs to be re-graded,
grading should not be an issue, By placing the two story homes that close to the existing back yards
will block the sun and take away the residents' privacy, If the driveway is located on the west side,
the Juniper trees will be in someone's back yard, By putting the driveway on the east side, the trees
will be contained in a planter and would remain on the property as existing landscaping. One
resident's personal happiness will be affected by the placement of the driveway on the west side of
the property, along with the other neighbors,
Mr, Reynolds explained the City's procedure for those speaking on someone's behalf. The person
should be present to clarify their position to avoid misrepresentation, Commissioner Pruett further
elaborated that it is important to recognize the fact that someone has a written statement which can
be read into the record, but the statement needs to be signed,
Ms, Rickard submitted two cards. Myrna Lopez and the Vazquez family. A signature was submitted
eartier from Ms, Vazquez. Before Ms. Vazquez left town, she called Ms, Rickard to say she was
misrepresented and that she is opposed to the driveway being on the east side.
Ms, Ammer made her closing remarks, She asked the Commission to turn in their booklets to the
Hamlin Street petitions and letters. On Page 3 the signatures of the Vazquez family are on a letter
asking to be removed off of Sandy Garcia's petition. On the next page there Is a letter stating their
position and Mr. and Mrs, Vazquez has signed this letter, stating they would like the driveway on the
east side, Ms. Ammer read a letter from her doctor relative to her severe health problems and that
the proposed development will block the sun's ability to heat her pool, There are also letters in the
booklet concerning the horses, Horses and roads do not mix, It would be more advisable to put the
back yards by the horses than it would be the driveway or front yards. She thanked everyone for
their support, The driveway has always been in their back yard. The neighbors would like to see the
driveway on the east side of the property,
The public hearing was closed.
In response to Commissioner Cartton's question about requiring Design Review for this project, Mr,
Reynolds told her the way the code is written, Design Review could not be required,
5
Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2001
Commissioner Romero heard issues about drainage and traffic safety. However. the staff report
states that grading, traffic or safety are not concerns. His main concern is for the horses. It appears
that the property at 532 Hamlin will be the most affected with either an east or west driveway due to
Lot 3. The property at 506 Hamlin will be minimally affected due to the required setback from the rear
property line if the driveway were to be placed on the west side.
Commissioner Carlton thought safety is an issue with this project. With the driveway on the east
side, there will be an issue with cars coming out onto the street. The distance of the houses on
Hamlin have large setbacks. With the houses backing to the west, there will be more odor from the
horses. The six (6) driveways don't seem to be a major issue in her mind. Three additional families
exiting the driveway onto Walnut will adapt. She is in favor of placing the driveway on the west.
Commissioner Pruett doubts if the two story homes will cast a shadow over the pool. The back yard
should not be affected until late in the day by shade. A solar pool cover should not be affected. The
issue of safety is very important. If the driveway were put on the east side, there is a block wall that
will create a sight line problem for not only cars, but kids that might run along there. If the driveway is
placed on the west side. the front setback from that property and the low fence line provides a line of
sight. It would not be fair to the adjoining property owners. as well as the potential owners of the
property, to basically give them a situation that is unreasonable and unbearable from the standpoint
of providing for a safe and well designed piece of property. To place the driveway on the east side
would do that -- it would place the back yards of these properties up against the adjoining use that is
an allowed non-conforming use and it would create problems. The other concern is for the safety of
the animals. and their proximity to the automobile traffic. Putting the driveway on the west side of the
property is an appropriate strategy from a Planning standpoint and he supports denying the appeal.
Chair Smith concurs with the other Commissioners. She believes that the driveway noise from three
homes will be a nuisance. She also concurs that the driveway should be placed on the west side of
the property.
The Commission talked about the conditions of approval and possibly adding to them to help clarify
the intent of the conditions. They also want to preserve as many trees as poSSible on the site, which
staff will take into consideration. Mr. Reynolds cautioned that the project cannot be subjected to
Design Review or Site Plan Review. The following conditions have been added and/or modified:
Condition 3' Reciprocal ingress/egress. drainage and utility easements between parcels, and
mainfenance of common driveway, shall be recorded prior to the transfer of title of any parcel.
Condition 6: All three parcels shall be rough graded at the same time per a grading plan approved
and permitted by the City Engineer. including street frontage curb repair and replacement. as directed
by the City Engineer. A preliminary soils investigation will be required.
Condition 9' The private driveway shall be bonded or constructed per approved site plan no. 170-01
and per a plan approved by the City Engineer prior to the City approving the Final Map. The cul-de-
sac and one side of the drive shall be posted no parking fire lane. The drive shall be designed to
carry a 60,000 lb. fire truck and trash truck.
Condition 10: Dedicate and construct Walnut Avenue. including City sidewalks. to City standards.
Condition 15: As a condition of permitting the division of property as delineated MSP 170-01 having
parcels without direct frontage on a public street, all such lots shall consider the property line furthest
from the access drive as the rear property line and that line opposite and parallel to the driveway to
be the front property line for purposes of defining yards.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2001
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to deny Appeal No. 481
upholding the Staff Review Committee's decision for "approval with conditions" of Tentative Parcel
Map 2001-116 and Minor Site Plan Review 170-01. Included in this motion are the Department of
Public Works, special conditions and remarks, modified and added to as follows:
Condition 3' Reciprocal ingress/egress, drainage and utility easements between parcels, and
maintenance of common driveway, shall be recorded prior to the transfer of title of any parcel.
Condition 6' All three parcels shall be rough graded at the same time per a grading plan approved
and permitted by the City Engineer, including street frontage curb repair and replacement, as directed
by the City Engineer. A preliminary soils investigation will be required.
Condition 9' The private driveway shall be bonded or constructed per approved site plan no. 170-01
and per a plan approved by the City Engineer prior to the City approving the Final Map. The cul-de-
sac and one side of the drive shall be posted no parking fire lane. The drive shall be designed to
carry a 60,000 lb. fire truck and trash truck.
Condition 10: Dedicate and construct Walnut Avenue, including City sidewalks, to City standards.
Condition 15: As a condition of permitting the division of property as delineated MSP 170-01 having
parcels without direct frontage on a public street, all such lots shall consider the property line furthest
from the access drive as the rear property line and that line opposite and parallel to the driveway to
be the front property line for purposes of defining yards.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
Ms. Sully apprised the public of the appeal process of Planning Commission's action to the City
Council.
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn to their next
Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, May 7, 2001. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
MOTION CARRIED
Isld
7