Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - September 20 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: (1) September 20, 2004 Monday-7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JULY 19, 2004 AND AUGUST 16,2004. A motion was made by Commissioner Bonina to approve the minutes from the July 19, 2004 and August 16, 2004 meetings with minor changes as noted. Commissioners Domer and Pruett abstained from the July 19, 2004 vote as they were not present at that meeting. All Commissioners approved the minutes from the August 16, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Smith noted that a correction to the July 19, 2004 minutes included noting that Commissioners Domer and Pruett were absent. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (2) Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None Commissioners Domer and Pruett (July 19, 2004 Only) None MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE NO. 1227-04, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1722- 04 - 300 AND 400 BLOCKS OF SOUTH GRAND STREET A proposal for a Zone Change from Duplex Residential (R2-6) to Single Family Residential (R1-6). NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1733-04 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15070 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. APPROVED Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced Sherman Jones, Associate Planner, to give the staff report on the Grand Street rezone. Mr. Jones explained that the zone change was before the Planning Commission because of a multi- year analysis that staff had conducted. In 2000, the City Council instructed the Planning Department staff to do an analysis of the 300 and 400 blocks of South Grand Street. They were to review bulk and mass issues, parking, development standards, and historic neighborhood patterns for both of the blocks of South Grand Street. During the past four years, the Planning Commission has conducted five workshops, the most recent being in September 2003 to review implications of reclassifying the study area. On February 2, 2004, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to reclassify both the 300 and 400 blocks of South Grand Street. In June 2004, the City Council instructed the planning staff to go forward with the reclassification proceedings and that brings the actions forward to this Planning Commission hearing. It was further noted that with the zone change from R2-6 to RI-6, the F.A.R. will change from .70 to .60. The current R2-6 zoning permits additional units on the lot with no size limitation providing the development intensity on the site falls within the permitted F.A.R. If the zone change is approved, staff has determined that there will be 11 legal non-conforming lots created, and those will have multiple units. Negative Declaration No. 1733-04 was also prepared in conjunction with this proposed zone change. Staff determined that there were no negative environmental impacts associated with the project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve Negative Declaration 1733-04 and Zone Change 1227-04. Chairman Pruett asked if the Commissioners had any questions at this time. There being none, he invited the public to come forward with their comments. Open Public Hearing Opposed: Ken Milbrat, 308 S. California Street. Mr. Milbrat mentioned that he also owned property in Old Towne on Orange Avenue. He questioned why this was being done, believing it was a petition backed by the OTP A. He felt the OTP A had done a lot of good in Old Towne. He stated that down zoning the property would cause property owners to lose their rights and freedoms. He was concerned that the whole area would be down zoned and he still had not heard anyone say why. It was his opinion that in the last 3-1/2 years only two buildings had been added, with a total of approximately four or five more cars. He agrees with not having overly large second units in the back. He believes that a large majority of the people that agree with this measure already have their second units in the back, and over half the petitioners do not even live in the zone affected. His recommendation was that any Commissioner who had participated in the OTP A should not participate in a vote on this matter. 2 APPROVED Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Commissioner Smith noted, in response to her name being used in Mr. Milbrat's comments, that she was not the person who said that we should rezone the whole area. That was included as a recommendation from the full Planning Commission and it was a 5-0 vote that it should be recommended to the City Council to look into that. To clarify, Commissioner Pruett added that, more importantly, the item in question had nothing to do with the item before the Planning Commission tonight, which is rezoning the 300-400 block of Grand Avenue. The other item was a Minute Order to the City Council, and was a separate item. Also Opposed: Gloria Cease, 2418 N. Fairmont, Santa Ana (representing the owners at 391 S. Grand Street) - she stated that the owners were not so much against the rezoning as they are to the fact that they would not be compensated since they will have to give up putting units in the back. She stated that they had no immediate plans to do so, but they wanted the right to do it, if, in the future they wanted to. They do believe it will devalue their property. In Favor: Anne Seibert, 340 S. Olive Annalisa Goode, 438 S. Grand Street Jeannette McClain, 354 S. Grand Street Yvonne Early, 365 S. Grand Street Barbara Frey, 405 S. Grand Street Jean Newcomb, 429 S. Grand Street John Caglia, 2243 E. Wilson* Andrea McCullough, 325 N. Shaffer The public's (above) comments noted their approval of rezoning the 300-400 blocks of Grand Street. Many felt that the units that had already been built under the present zoning decreased the quality of life in the area, added to the congestion, and increasing density would only further this. Ms. McCullough also stated that she believed the primary reason that those who were against the rezoning were so because it might decrease their property value, when in fact, property values have increased within the Old Towne area. It was also noted that the Rl-6 zone permits accessory second units. John Caglia stated he was not familiar enough with the subject to make an opinion, but noted he was a candidate for the City Council. He noted that he was a developer, and the residents should at least know what is going to happen to their property values if this ordinance is passed. The public hearing was closed. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission September 20, 2004 Commissioner Smith asked, for the benefit of the people who spoke, if Ms. Roseberry could outline what the R-l zoning does include, because it does include the ability to build a second unit on the property. Ms. Roseberry stated that there was an ability to build an accessory second unit on an R-l zone. An accessory second unit can be no larger than 640 sq. ft. There is parking that is required with this second unit. This is smaller than a standard unit that you might be able to put on an R-2 lot. This is a State Law that the City of Orange does follow. Commissioner Bonina inquired about the parking for the R-l zone. Ms. Roseberry stated it was two covered spaces for the primary unit, and one uncovered space for the accessory second unit. Chairman Pruett noted that there were some issues raised in the public comments, and he would address those in his comments, as well. He stated that the reason that this particular location was originally addressed for re-zoning was because of the impact that the additional development for higher-density units in this area was causing in the area of parking and congestion. Also, it was disrupting the fabric of the community, especially if all of the lots were developed with secondary high-density living units. Based on the hearings that they've held, the re-zoning is addressing those concerns. In terms of the concern for the economic impact that this has on the properties affected, he does not believe that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to look at the financial issues, but rather more the land-use issues. He deferred to Ms. Roseberry for her comments. She said she could touch on this briefly, and perhaps the Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz may wish to expand upon it. She stated that when you look at rezoning a piece of property, what you don't want to do is remove all viable economic return on the property to the property owner. That would be considered a "taking", which this is not. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated that Ms. Roseberry was correct. To the extent you want to avoid a "taking" issue, you would want to weigh economic use or economic viability of the property. Chairman Pruett stated that the economic viability remains, based upon the ability to still use the property for an accessory second unit. Commissioner Smith noted that it is a very recent change in the law of the State of California, so it causes all of them to readjust their thinking. Two years ago, it was not the situation, so it might appear that you lost the ability to have a second unit on the property. This is not the case. The law (regarding accessory second units) is very new, and it was taken into consideration during this entire process. Commissioner Dorner asked staff if you have a structure that is legal non-conforming, what are the requirements of the owner if there is a sale, or the City to those owners, once the City Council 4 APPROVED Planning Commission September 20, 2004 does approve the rezoning. Ms. Roseberry stated that usually what happens is that the City will get a letter from a loan officer or broker, asking about the status of the buildings on the property. Research will be done to indicate what is legal, what is illegal in some cases, and what is considered legal non-conforming. The code has a process for legal non-conforming, i.e., you can't expand a legal non-conforming building. What is important if it's legal non-conforming it can't be expanded. Commissioner Domer asked when/if this is passed, would there be notification to the residents of this two-block area? Ms. Roseberry stated this could certainly be done. Everyone on the two blocks and 300 feet beyond the block's perimeter did receive a notice of this night's Planning Commission Meeting and they will receive a notice when it goes to the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Brandman moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 34-04 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 1277-04 and Negative Declaration No. 1733-04. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Brandman moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 4, 2004. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 5