Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange February 20, 1991 Orange, California Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the Minutes of February 4, 1991 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott abstained because he was not present at said meeting. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1894-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1371-91 - FIRST KOREAN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY: Staff received a letter from the applicant noting they wished to change their plans, but those plans have not been received. Staff recommends a continuation to March 18, 1991. Applicant John Bonilla, Incon Building Systems, 15941 Redhill Avenue 210, Tustin, requested a continuance to March 18 for this proposal. The Commission noted the audience's concurrence to continue this item. Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 2 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1894-91 and Negative Declaration 1371-91 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 18, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1889-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1364-91 - STEWART BERKSHIRE: A request for a density bonus to allow a greater number of units on site than are permitted under the current General Plan designation of Low/Medium Density Residential (6-15 units/acre). The site is now occupied by twelve apartments, and a total of 15 units are proposed. Subject property is located approximately 400 feet north of Washington Avenue at the end of Park Lane, addressed 180 South Park Lane. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1364-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. Ms. Wolff said a letter was received by the Planning Commission; it had four signatures. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented additional information on this item as it was continued from the January 21 meeting to allow time for staff to review a revised site plan. Furthermore, it was to allow time for the City Attorney's office to respond to questions raised about criteria to approve a conditional use permit to allow a density bonus. The staff report included a report from the City Attorney's office clarifying, in his opinion, what future direction the Commission could take on reviewing the conditional use permit with a density bonus. In regards to the revised site plan, the applicant made five revisions to resolve several concerns raised at the previous meeting. One was to reduce the size of one of the units from a 2-bedroom apartment to a 1-bedroom; thereby, reducing the parking required for the development as a whole by one space. By doing that, he eliminated one space between the two proposed buildings. He was able to add additional landscaping area and create space between the parking spaces and buildings. He relocated one parking space that was proposed in the existing lawn area in front of the existing 12-unit building and moved it behind the trash enclosure. He changed the entry way to the laundry room to open onto the driveway access so that it could be seen into by persons Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 3 using the garages and not be screened off. The revised plan conforms to the R-3 development standards for unit size, parking and building setbacks. The revised plan, in staff's opinion, resolves some of the minor concerns with access to the parking spaces between the buildings and improving the security for the laundry room, but it did not resolve several of the major concerns such as lack of a continuous and usable open space for the entire site and the pedestrian access from the end of Park Lane to the proposed three units. Applicant Todd Schooler, Architect, 500 North Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, stated they have increased the open space as best they could. The increase was 455 square feet from the original proposal. They believe because of the affordable housing issue that this is a viable solution. One of the major concerns deals with open space. The original 12-unit project could not meet the open space requirements and consequently, they cannot either. They tried to mitigate the issue by coming up with a different idea by giving the new units their own private yards. One of the concerns of the Planning Commission was the sound wall. Their sound engineer believes it is warranted. The units are staggered towards the freeway side for proper orientation. It will help create a sound buffer for an outside space. Also, the Fire Department's requirement of a fire hydrant was a concern. They talked with the Fire Department and they've given them several options for a viable solution. Between the public hearings, the City Attorney's office has taken the time to look at low income housing and how the state law reads in relationship to their proposal. He has talked with Mr. Herrick and to Linda Wheaton who is directly responsible for density bonuses within the State Housing Authority. There is not only an opportunity, but also room within the guideline to approve this type of project. If they adhere to the conditions of approval, which are to allow them to build the project as long as the new units become affordable housing, it meets the intent of the guideline. Because of the parking problems, they chose to meet the parking requirements and to ask for a concession in terms of the open space problem. The entire project now conforms to the parking requirements. Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 4 Those speaking in opposition Bob Peringer, 231 South Park Lane, read a petition which was submitted to the Commission earlier. He and his neighbors appreciate the development of the parcel and looks favorably on the provision of a laundry room for the residents. However, they expected a total of two additional apartments with garages and parking stalls. The parking provided is inadequate for the present tenants and their cars overflow onto Park Lane. They feel three or more new apartments will overcrowd that parcel and overburden the small street. One new apartment should be permitted beyond the one additional apartment allowed by the lot size for a total of two new apartments. They also feel 26 garages and parking spaces be required for the apartments. Peggy Roberts, 215 South Park Lane, has lived in her triplex for 30 years and is aware of all the problems in her neighborhood. The issue of concern is parking and the safety hazard it creates, especially for children. She is in f avor of improving the area, bu t not with three additional units. The apartments will not be desirable because they are too close to the freeway on ramp. She asked how high the sound barrier wall would be? (Staff responded 6 feet.) Rebuttal Mr. Schooler realizes the neighbors have problems with parking and that is why they worked to get the maximum number of parking spaces. With the parking layout, they now have turn around so the cars do not need to back out. He felt the project would help the neighborhood in terms of the congestion problem of cars and traffic. They intend to clean up the existing building so that it will look like one project when completed. Commissioner Murphy asked if the applicant is now proposing additional affordable units? Mr. Schooler responded one of the conditions for approval was that they make three new units affordable and they agree. Chairman Bosch wanted clarification: Even though the proposed condition indicates that the three new apartments are to be for lower income tenants per State Health & Safety Code, currently the existing units are affordable. (All but one.) How many of the other units will remain affordable? Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 5 Mr. Schooler does not anticipate the rent to increase substantially on any of them. Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant would be willing to enter into a recorded condition that would include most of the units to remain affordable to assure that lower income housing be maintained? Mr. Schooler believed this was acceptable in order to get the project approved. Commissioner Scott requested information about Linda Wheaton. Mr. Schooler stated she works for the Division of Housing Policy Development, State of California and he provided her phone number. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Herrick addressed the issue of Ms. Wheaton's input. Her division is not a regulatory agency empowered to enact regulations under this particular density bonus statute. The density bonus statute anticipates that the cities will adopt their own ordinances. Their opinion would be of informational value, but would not have greater or lesser legal precedential value than the opinion of any other attorney. Commissioner Murphy asked if the Commission had the ability to put in such a condition as far as some percentage of the existing housing to remain at affordable rates such that the intent of the statute is to encourage additional affordable housing in the area? Mr. Herrick responded a condition of a conditional use permit that is agreed to is going to be fairly untouchable. The City has not adopted ordinances and regulations dealing with density bonuses. The State statute requires you to grant density bonuses under certain circumstances. To date, the City of Orange has not adopted a policy position of its own with respect to density bonuses over and above that which is required by State law. Commissioner Cathcart said he was concerned about the legal precedent regarding the quality of life for the people in the neighborhood. There is a parking and traffic problem. Perhaps three units in that area are too many. Commissioner Scott said the question is the density bonus -- is the Commission granting a density bonus to clean up an Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 6 area? Or can the area be cleaned up in other ways? Policing of the affordable units would be a burden upon the City (i.e., submission of accountability of rents on a monthly basis). Commissioner Master said this was not a good trade off. It's a benefit to a couple of citizens who might end up with affordable units, but the impact would be overpowering. Chairman Bosch had a couple of technical comments regarding the conditions. Condition 3 should be amended to include that 11 of the 12 existing units be included in the agreement to be rented to lower income hou seholds. The intent is to increase the stock of affordable housing. There is affordable housing there now; it appears the only way to guarantee that the City will have more is if the existing units be included in the overall agreement. Condition 7, he presumes the R-11 insulation for exterior walls is required for sound, but the condition should be amended to say, "or greater, if required, for conformance with residential energy conservation standards." Condition 12 worried him as it called for a manually operable damper between the FAU and the outside or sound attenuating duct. Maintenance problems or the lack of care of residents could be a re-circulating air system without designed filtering air cleansing devices to take care of that. He recommends the manually operable damper be eliminated. The Fire Department is requesting that all curbing outlining fire lane accesses be painted red. It needs to be amended to indicate that the curbing or the edge of pavement of fire access lane be painted red and white lettering be placed on the curbing or edge of fire access lanes. There was an added condition for consideration at the last hearing relative to the water easements that would interfere with the new improvements. He did not see any evidence that the easements have been abandoned. Therefore, condition 26 should be added: "Prior to granting of a building permit, applicant must provide City with evidence of recording with the County Recorder of the abandonment of existing water easements which would interfere with proposed new improvements. " He also shares an environment of this bad property values circulation system. public health that satisfactory level on overwhelming sense of concern about the site for housing for anybody. It's too are negatively impacted by the regional There are specific adverse impacts on cannot be feasibly mitigated to a this project. Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 7 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master to deny Conditional Use Permit 1894-91 and find that Negative Declaration 1371-91 to be inadequate for the reasons stated by the Commission, and the specific conclusions and recommendations of the Assistant City Attorney were addressed in his memorandum of February 6, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained the rights of appeal to the applicant. IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-91 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1372-91 - CITY OF ORANGE: An amendment to the zoning ordinance to add provisions regarding increased fence height in front yard setback areas in the residential districts. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1372-91 has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of this project. Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. Staff is introducing this proposed ordinance amendment primarily because of an existing code enforcement situation. There have been several existing fences within the City that have been cited recently. Staff is proposing in a future zoning ordinance update to allow non-view obscuring fences in excess of 42 inches within front yard setbacks in the residential districts. Because this is staff's recommendation on the upcoming zoning ordinance and because of the timing involved, they are advancing that portion to the Commission and Council for their consideration at this time. The current regulations regarding fences are 42 inch maximum fence height in any front yard setback area in all the zoning districts within the City. The proposal is to allow fences up to six feet in height in residential front yard setback areas only. This would not include any of the commercial or industrial districts. The restrictions staff is proposing to impose is that the fences be non-view obscuring; that they be decorative or ornamental in design; and that an administrative adjustment permit be required, to be approved by the Zoning Administrator, in allowing these types of fences. The purpose is to allow homeowners a little bit more flexibility in using their lot area in the residential zone, but to retain the 42 inch height limitation in the commercial/industrial districts. Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 8 The public hearing was opened. Audience Input Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, suggested this was a bad proposal to present. They have lived for many years with the 42 inch limit and he didn't understand the logic behind making an adjustment to the height merely because of some reports to Code Enforcement about fences that exceed that limit. What is an open fence or a non-view obscured fence? What is the definition for an open fence? What is going to be the mechanism for enforcement of what is considered to be an open fence? He felt front yards were a very important part of one's comfort and life. What about plant material? Bushes will obscure the open view of the fence. He talked with the Crime Prevention Bureau and they were not aware of the public hearing; they were taken back abou t the possibility of six foot fences in front yard setbacks. Added crime will result from the six foot fence height; a concern of the Police Department. By adding to the height, the City would be creating a major enforcement issue for Code Enforcement. They only respond on a complaint basis now. The City is in control of minimum lot sizes and how buildings are placed on properties. He felt this ordinance is a mitigation measure for mistakes that have been made in the past or maybe smaller lot sizes in the future. He thought the City should be fostering the development of neighborhood congeniality. Any obstruction that is encouraged or granted by the City that separates neighbor from neighbor is not beneficial to the community. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, had a problem with the amended front yard fence ordinance and a problem with the current ordinance at 3 1/2 feet because there is no review process or chance for neighbors to give any input into these fences. The problem is that people don't build fences that match their homes. Fencing destroys the effect of the street. What creates value and aesthetic desirability in a residential neighborhood is conformity and consistency. He shared some pictures with the Commission -- one showing a home with a fence over 3 1/2 feet and a car parked on the front lawn, which is against code. He doesn't want to see the neighborhoods cluttered by a bunch of fences that don't belong. Dave Lucero, 890 North Orange, has a fence over 42". It's block wall and open with rod iron inbetween. Would he have to rebuild his fence? The fence has been on the property for 10 years and he has owned the house for 5 years. Marcello Vasquez, 196 South James, bought his property a year ago. The fences were pretty bad so he decided to build Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 9 a block fence all the way arches about six feet across Some of his neighbors do fence. He is looking for a he's right in between the p of the amended ordinance. around the house. He has large towards the front of his house. not like the way he built his way to get results out of this; eople opposed and those in favor The public hearing was closed. Ms. Wolff said the reason for the timing of this amendment is now is because of the Code Enforcement cases. The reason for the proposal is unrelated to that. Over a year when staff first drafted the proposed zoning ordinance, it was part of staff's proposal to allow the 6 foot high non-view obscuring fences. Simply because Code Enforcement has brought that issue up now, staff thought it would be helpful to bring it before the Commission and Council for their consideration separately from the code update. To answer the questions, what is non-view obscuring and what is the mechanism for enforcement of that -- the Zoning Administrator is empowered to make a decision of what is non-view obscuring. The verbiage in the code section relating to the Zoning Administrator specifically states that safety is a prime concern and visibility between the property, driveway and public right-of-way is the main concern. It would have to be a discretionary decision based on the design and on the visibility that is maintained. It's very hard to put a precise definition on non-view obscuring, but there would be review of each and every case. The mechanism for enforcement is whether or not someone has a permit for the fence. If there is a permit, it is legal; if no permit, it is not legal. Without a permit, Code Enforcement could respond and either require that a permit be filed or the fence must be taken down. In staff's opinion, this is a fairly routine type of issue that can be handled by the Zoning Administrator and it doesn't necessarily require the same amount of time and consideration of other public hearing type items. Regarding the question about hedges -- it would be subject to the same rules and regulations. A hedge, by definition, is view-obscuring. Anything in excess of 42 inches would not be permitted. The Crime Prevention Bureau called Ms. Wolff after talking with Mr. Boice. After discussing the proposal in more detail, they seemed to be more satisfied with the non-view obscuring aspect of the consideration and permitting process. It is difficult to quantify the aesthetic issues. Staff feels the decorative requirement and the discretionary nature of the process does help to address that issue. Mr. Lucero asked about whether he would have to rebuild his fence. The proposal is that up to 42 inches be allowed as a solid fence. Anything between 42 Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 10 inches and six feet could be open. So a combination fence of open decorative on a base of solid materials would be permitted provided it complied with the requirements of a maximum 42 inch height for the solid portion. Commissioner Cathcart asked when the 42 inch height zoning requirement become an ordinance? (No one knew.) Commissioner Scott did not believe the policing action had been addressed. Some homes do not have setbacks or minimal setbacks. He is concerned about the safety issue. The California court yard concept permitted the front yard to become the patio, as seen in Corona Del Mar, Laguna Beach, Costa Mesa, etc. There are many questions still needing to be answered before a decision is made. What are the other cities in the County permitting? Commissioner Master can understand on an individual basis where someone may wish to have a security fence, but in general he has difficulties with anything over two feet. Many more conditions must be met before allowing a fence of six feet (i.e, setback and security). Commissioner Cathcart said you stifle creativity when you make blanket statements. He didn't care for the amendment either. There are situations where a six foot fence is the best solution. In some cases, no fence is the best solution. He would hate to see everybody's yard look alike. He didn't like the ordinance because it makes a blanket statement. Commissioner Murphy concurs with what has been said as far as problems with the ordinance -- stifling creativity or visual appeal by someone's perspective vs. the betterment of the City and public safety concerns. He would like to hear from other local cities of what has transpired and what the current issues are there. Commissioner Scott said in many cases the 42 inch wall is put up defensibly to keep somebody's yard from encroaching on theirs. Each case has to be looked at individually. Chairman Bosch said this isn't Newport Beach; it is Orange. To blanket or even an individual application of this with extraordinary exceptions to Old Towne or to any existing residential environment that was planned on development standards and approvals of Planning Commission and Council, and put such a radical change potential into effect, is seen as categorically and absolutely destructive of peoples lifestyles. The 42 inch high fence has proven to be a good one. There may be exceptions and those should be brought Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1991 - Page 11 forward as variances and see if they stand the test of a variance. Creativity can work properly within whatever rules are set. To go over the 42 inches would set a precedent that would open up free-for-all development in Orange. From an environmental point of view, the effect of a six foot fence has not been studied; it would be an impact creating a whole different sense of the City. It would be foreign to Orange's way of life. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, the Commission determines Negative Declaration 1372-91 to be inadequate. The Commission feels there will be substantial new construction as a result of the change, which would have a potential negative impact on surrounding properties due to a change in the level of safety for pedestrians and vehicles, a significant change to the architecturally approved styles of development through Master Plan or Specific Plan approval and the architectural Review Board, and through substantial alteration of the massing and volume of construction to the existing street scapes. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend the City Council to not adopt Ordinance Amendment 2- 91. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED For the benefit of the people who are trapped into having a non-conforming use, they ought to made aware of the variance procedure available to them. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a study session to discuss the revision of the zoning ordinance, Tuesday, February 21, 1991, 8:30 a.m. in the Weimer Room with City Council. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. sld