Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 - November 6 LOSS I 'e-- MINUTES C',,,{ f n tf...,l, J Planning Commission City of Orange November 6, 2000 Monday - 7:00 p,m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None John Godlewski, Principal Planner, Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting of October 16, 2000. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes of October 16, 2000. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2355-00 - CLARK & DENIECE HILLS A request to construct a two-story second unit within the Old Towne District. The site is located at 475 South Grand Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr, Godlewski reported that the applicants are proposing to construct a detached two-story second unit at the rear of the property. The proposal consists of an 890 square foot two-bedroom unit constructed over a three-car garage and a laundry room, Access to the garage is taken off of Grand Avenue and off of the ailey. A total of four parking spaces are provided, The proposal was originally submitted as a 1 1/2 story development, but because of the recent regulations delining that 1 1/2 story development, the second floor is greater than 60% of the lirst, which required review by the Planning Commission as a second story unit. The proposal indicates a style of architecture that was found by the DRC to be consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards, Included in the Commission's packets are several correspondence on the General Plan and zoning consistency issue, and a letter from the City Attomey on that subject, Chairman Bosch noted for the record all of the letters and correspondence they received. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 2000 Clark Hills, 475 South Grand Street, submitted a picture board showing homes in Old Towne that have 2nd units to the rear of the property, and three-car garages. He spoke to the issues and concerns raised in the lelters of opposition, They are requesting to build a new two-story second unit with a three-car garage at the rear of their property. John Unnert. architect for the proiect, read his comments into the record. The proposed project has been approved by the DRC and it meets all of the regulations, standards, setbacks and parking requirements, It has a FAR of 46%. The project is compatible to the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is considered to be all /2 story style of structure that brings the top most elements of height down well below a typical two-story structure. 9 people spoke in opposition to the project Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange Street, spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors of OTPA. Luis Caballero, 487 South Grand Street. Kristin Caballero, 487 South Grand Street. Joan Newcomb, 429 South Grand Street. Annalisa Goode, 438 South Grand Street. Angie Rust, 493 South Grand Street. Gary Warner, 464 South Center Street; also represented Dorothy Court, 480 South Center Street. Tom Matuzak, 340 South Grand Street. Noel Wilcox, 458 South Grand Street. Neighbors were opposed to the project because of the inconsistencies between the General Plan and the current zoning designation. The blocks are oversaturated with an additional number of second units as well as a couple of single family residences that are over sized. They are concerned with the design standards, which need to be reviewed, For the entire District, massing, scale, shape, proportion, open space, rhythm and paltern need to be maintained. There should be periodic, timely reviews of the developments in Old Towne to determine when enough is enough <referring to cumulative effect), There needs to be a review of the zoning and the design standards so that some type of direction can be developed. The current project by itself may be acceptable, but no one is sure what it does based on what else is on the block, The current density is very high compared to the rest of the District. The proposed second unit fails to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 60 feet. Properties are more valuable as single family residences in Old Towne, Second units now adversely affect the use, enjoyment and economic value of other properties. The non-conforming lot designation no longer applies. There was objection to the second unit being larger than the primary residence. Concern was expressed about increased traffic, speeding, parking, noise, children's safety and density in the neighborhood, A petition was submilted, signed by 50% of the neighbors who are going to request that their street be re-zoned from R-2 to R-l. They want to maintain their homes as a single family neighborhood n not as a commercial, rental district. The project should not be exempt from CEQA review. A couple of people believed this is a new home that is being built on the alley. The entire project is oriented towards the alley. All access will be from the alley and the upstairs porch overlooks the alley, It was requested that the upstairs balcony be re- oriented towards the west. 1 person spoke in favor Barbara Frey, 405 South Grand Street. Ms. Frey plans to add a second unit on her property in two to four years, and is against re-zoning to R-l-G. Applicant's response Mr. Unnert responded to the comments that were made, The project meets the zoning requirements and parking will be provided on the site, Mr. Hills feels he is building a good project which has been designed to be compatible with the Old Towne Guidelines, The DRC has approved his project and complimented him on the design of the structure. By orienting the unit towards the alley, II gives the occupant their own separate entrance. All materials that will 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 2000 be used are compatible and will match the front house, and are approved by the DRC, At the same time they are constructing the back house, they will be painting the front house. Landscape plans were not required. The public hearing was closed, Commissioner Carlton asked about the minimum requirements for an accessory second unit built on a R-l lot. Mr, Godlewski responded that 640 square feet is the maximum for an accessory second unit in the R-1 zone. Commissioner Romero wanted staff to comment on the issue of non-conforming use for lot frontage, as questioned by Mr, Caballero. Mr, Godlewski referred to the section of the Orange Municipal Code relating to the non-conforming chapter of the zoning ordinance. Section 17,38.010 D, points out that the intent and purpose is to discourage the continuance of non-conformities where they adversely affect the intent and purpose of the code and the general plan or the maintenance, development, use, enjoyment, or economic value of other properties in the vicinity, The section that staff used was a very specific section of 17,38,070 in which it discusses non-conforming lots, which he read for the record. Staff typically interprets this section to mean that a narrower, than what is currently required lot, can be used to the full extent of the zone, as long as it meets all of the other development standards, He believes Mr, Caballero was trying to point out that there is also a purpose and intent that needs to be considered in relation to that regulation. Commissioner Smith asked if a tri-plex is allowed on a 6,000 square foot R-2-6 lot? To her knowledge, it is not. Mr. Godlewski said that under current zoning, Old Towne issues aside, the R-2 zone allows one unit for every 3,000 square feet of lot area, The condition that was described may in fact have occurred under a prior zoning ordinance, If it had, it would be able to remain as a non-conforming use. Commissioner Smith said there is the issue of density in this particular area, as addressed by the City Attorney's memo, Ms. Binning addressed the issue of consistency between the R-2-6 zoning and the General Plan first. It's important to note that she addressed the legal defensibility of having a R-2-6 zone with a low-density General Plan designation in the Land Use Element. The issue of whether or not this particular project meets other criteria is not what is being addressed, The R-2-6 zoning is not in and of itself inconsistent with the General Plan. There are many elements of the General Plan which were required to be looked at in determining legal consistency, In this case, there are three key elements of the General Plan which are impacted by the zone. One is the Land Use Element. The second is the Historic Element. The third would be the Housing Element. Under the Land Use Element, when it was adopted, it was recognized in adopting the zone that low density and R-2-6 were not necessarily consistent. But, that happens across the board in many instances. For instance, R-2-6 is not consistent with many of the existing uses in the R-2-6 zone. At the time it was adopted, there were many uses which wouldn't necessarily be considered R-2-6 uses, Exact conformity with the zone has never been a test for whether or not the zoning designation is allowable with a certain General Plan designation. Looking beyond just simply the Land Use Element, there's the Historic Preservation Element. At the time that it was adopted, there was recognition that the base zoning was not consistent with the existing uses in a great part, if not most, of Old Towne. And the Historic Element recognized that the R-2-6 zoning could possibly increase density, and recognized that this may not be good. Therefore, there were several suggestions and recommendations made when the Historic Element was adopted to mitigate this, For instance, the overlay zone, the Old Towne Design Standards, demolition control, and use regulations. The Historic Element of the General Plan says that to counteract these possible negative effects of the R-2-6 zone, there should be some overlay and some regulation of uses. In addition, the General Plan, at the time, predicted that zoning incentives could possibly enhance historic preservation, 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 2000 In the Housing Element, one of the goals of the Housing Element is to increase the stock of affordable housing. The Housing Element, when it was adopted, recognized that Orange has a historic center core to the City which presents housing opportunities. At the same time, there might be some historic issues which are not necessarily compatible with increasing the housing stock, Therefore, the Housing Element recognizes and encourages the Old Towne Design Guidelines, which are now the design standards, as a method of mitigating these competing interests -- increasing housing and historic preservation, It's the Housing Element which provides some criteria in stating that increase of housing stock on underdeveloped properties is encouraged by allowing a moderate amount of additional residential development. There is going to be tension with development of property, The key is to strike a balance. R-2-6 zoning and a low density residential designation must be looked at in the context 01 the Historic Preservation Element and the Housing Element. It is not legally inconsistent; it's legally defensible. Commissioner Smith and Pruett wanted staff to address the cumulative effect issue, as well as the precedent of constructing the unit towards the alley. Mr. Godlewski said provisions have not been made in the ordinance to go back and actually determine at what point is it considered to be too much. The cumulative effect of development of additional units in the R-2 zone has in general been accounted for in terms of all the issues that arise from ultimate development of all of the properties, not only in terms of traffic, but in terms of sewer, water and all of the infrastructure that goes along with that. In this case, it was felt by the applicant that utilization of the alley would take traffic off of Grand and focus it more on the alley, Although there have not been specific studies as to what the effect on the alley would be, the overall studies of the Old Towne area, taking into consideration the potential for increased development, probably has only gone to the level of determining what the rise in on-street traffic counts would be, and not necessarily issues relating to design or quality of life or the impact of additional cars in the alley, Ms. Binning commented on the net vs. gross acreage, It is not illegal to use net or gross acreage in different areas of the General Plan, It perhaps makes things unclear, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. The City Attorney's office has not found a legal issue with that distinction. Mr. Godlewski said the difference between net and gross acreage is looking at an area on a lot by lot basis, or an area-wide basis. It becomes a matter of administration and how to determine that. It's much easier for staff to calculate things on a lot-by-Iot basis as opposed to a gross density. In the case of low density residential, it would require a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet net to produce a maximum General Plan density of 6 units to the acre. In this particular case, the net lot is less than 7200 square feet, but il you figure the area around it, it is over 7200 square feet. In response to Commissioner Pruett's question, Mr. Godlewski said in the R-2 zone 350 square feet per unit is required for usable open space, Commissioner Pruett had some real concerns with the orientation of the unit facing onto the alley. It presents some serious problems in terms of a precedent. The alley is not designed to be a road. It also presents some parking problems for people who visit the property. In looking at the plans, the open space that is available to the unit is the balcony on the second floor. The back yard is fenced with a gate and there does not appear to be access for the people who live in the rear unit. He is concerned about the size of the project, He is not opposed to second units, But, in ferms of preserving the integrity of the Old Towne Guidelines, to have a second unit that is significantly larger than the existing house raises some concerns. The structure is wider than a three-car garage. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know why the one-car garage has doors at both ends, giving it access to the front and back. She did not think that was necessary. That could be redesigned to allow more open space for the unit in the back. The cumulative impact is important to keep in mind. She agreed with Commissioner Pruett in the orientation of the unit on the alley. That's not an attractive living arrangement. She would like to see the unit pushed more toward the back of the lot with more open space and 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 2000 decrease the size of the one-car garage. She questions the guest parking. She's not against second units, but this one needs to be fine tuned and some changes made, Commissioner Romero did not have a problem with second units due to the zoning of the property. He also agrees with Commissioner Pruett. The access to the unit is through the alley; there is no access from the front of the street. He sees parking problems for visitors, but construction of the unit will improve the appearance of the alley, There does not appear to be green, open space for the tenants. Commissioner Smith said this is not the only property in Old Towne that has a small front house and larger second unit. The City requires a parking requirement that drives the size of the second unit. There are still properties that have large barns behind the residences, She likes the orientation to the alley; it's different and it's fresh. That alley is not attractive, This proposal looks better than anything else sitting in the alley, including the looming two-story stucco structure. This would help to set a precedent of something that is different, but certainly could be attractive, The orientation to the alley preserves the front house, It lets it stand by itself in its historic context, and it improves its status on the property, She didn't think it was the intent of the applicant to shut off the yard from use by the tenant. If it is, that needs to be addressed. She likes things in Old Towne that are different. Traffic and speeding are serious concerns, but are not related to this project. She encourages the residents to talk to City staff and the Police Department about their concerns, She is concerned about the style of opposition with this project. She would love to see all of Old Towne zoned R-l. She would still encourage the pursuit of whatever zoning issues there are, But, this project came in under R-2 zoning and the applicant is entitled to pursue a second unit on his property, She thought maybe the cumulative effect is 50%, based on the number of second units in a neighborhood. The second unit for this property is appropriate and the design is not offensive. Chairman Bosch is concerned about the densification in Old Towne and has fought on occasion to change the zoning to preserve the residential character of the area, He recognizes there is quite a mixture of housing and different levels of density, The variety of styles makes Old Towne unique. The FAR of ,7 in the ordinance is quite high. Bulk and mass cannot be defined, The zoning applied to Old Towne many years ago should not have occurred, The 10 foot setback from the alley property line intrudes into the open space. He's worried about the small balcony facing the alley, That is unusual in terms of the contextuality to historic elements in Old Towne. The architect has done a great job of minimizing the size and raising the sill height of windows on the second floor unit to minimize visual intrusions to adjacent properties, The unit also puts the stairway on the inside of the garage. He is concerned about open space for the rear unit. He shares the concern about the size of the structure, but acknowledges that a second unit could work on the property if the design were modified. Commissioner Pruett pointed out that the visual intrusion of the property owners across the alley must be taken into consideration. The Commission discussed the alley issues and visual intrusions. They asked the applicant if he were willing to continue the project to re-design the second unit to address their concerns of the deck, windows, access, usable open space and the orientation of the building. Mr, Unnert agreed to a continuance. Commissioner Smith hoped that they could take a look at the cumulative effects question as it will continue to come up. She reiterated her concerns about traffic and speeding on the street. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to continue Conditional Use Permit 2355-00 to the meeting of December 18, 2000, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 2000 RECESS - Chairman Bosch recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m, RECONVENE - The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5-00 - BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE The City 01 Orange Bikeways Master Plan Update is an update 01 the City's existing 1995 Bikeways Master Plan, Key changes in the revised document include: the identification 01 bike routes established since 1995; bike lane/route construction costs, graphics, and available funding sources lor bikeway improvements; the establishment of criteria to be used in setting priorities lor bikeway construction; and the expansion 01 community and employer outreach programs, NOTE: Negative Declaration 1654-00 has been prepared lor the Bikeways Master Plan Update in accordance with Section 15070 01 the CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental impacts 01 this project. The public hearing was opened. Brian DeSousa. 8342 East Ironwood Avenue, a board member with the Calilornia Association 01 Bicycling Organizations, spoke in lavor 01 the bike plan. The plan has expanded the network 01 bike lanes and bike paths on secondary streets, While those routes are great for recreational riders, he pointed out that there are some riders riding on sidewalks, He would like to see bike lanes on Chapman, but he knows that is difficult. He stressed that motorist and cyclist education is needed through the DMV or local level. Chairman Bosch thanked Mr, DeSousa lor sharing his comments with the Commission. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to recommend to the City Council to approve Negative Declaration 1654-00, finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and to approve General Plan Amendment 5-00, finding that it is in compliance with State requirements, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn at 9:45 p.m, AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED /sld 6