Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange March 5, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Greek STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, FEBRUARY 14, AND FEBRUARY 21, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Minutes of February 5, February 14, and February 21, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1814-89 - LEE & YANG ARCHITECTS: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 59 unit motel in the C-2 zone (General Business District). Subject property is a 39,200 square foot parcel located on the south side of Chapman Avenue just east of the 57 Freeway, addressed 2330 West Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1328-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the February 5, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting.) The public hearing was opened. Applicant An-Chi Lee, 3711 Long Beach Blvd. #423, Long Beach, architect for the project, revised their plans to address the Commission's concerns from the previous meeting. They propose to move three guestrooms on the second floor, from the southern property line to the western property line, to create more interesting elevations and allow more setbacks, eliminate all windows on the second floor along the rear property line, and raise the block wall at the rear property line to 7'2" Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 2 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch felt the revisions fulfilled the concerns he had about the plan previously presented to them by reducing the scale of impact of the sou th wall upon the residents. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1328-89, with mitigation measures 1-4, and to approve Conditional Use Permit 1814-89, with conditions 1-24 as per the revised plans, including raising the height of the block wall to 7'2". AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-90 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to amend Section 17.10.040 and 17.94.050 of the Orange Municipal Code regarding the keeping of birds on residentially zoned property. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1322-90 has been prepared for this project. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff has prepared Ordinance Amendment 1-90 at the direction of the City Council. The Council had heard complaints from the residents of Orange that the City's present restriction that only allowed the keeping of five birds was too restrictive and did not allow people who wished to keep them as a hobby or as a pet, to keep more than five birds. Staff, after reviewing with Code Enforcement Division, the Environmental Review Board, and the City Attorney's Office, developed an ordinance amendment to allow the unlimited keeping of birds subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator under a Conditional Use Permit application. Staff developed this procedure in handling the unlimited keeping of birds for four reasons: (1) It notifies the applicant of the City's requirements; (2) It keeps a record on who is keeping the unlimited number of birds; (3) It notifies neighbors of the request to keep the number of birds and allows them to review the project and become informed about what the requirements will be for the application; and (4) It regulates the placement of bird aviaries or coops. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 3 Presently, the Uniform Building Code would not require a building permit and somebody could come in and just build one. By the C.U.P. requirement, it would regulate placement of it. The ordinance amendment does include regulations and setback requirements for the aviary. The Zoning Admini- strator was recommended as the reviewing body as the Z.A. already approves and reviews minor land use requests (i.e., beer and wine licenses and day care centers). The proposed ordinance amendment does not permit the keeping of additional poultry and provides definitions to differentiate between poultry and birds. Poultry and farm animals could cause a major nuisance in a residential area if allowed to be kept at more than five. The ordinance amendment f ollows the existing zoning ordinance in keeping the five number of birds. It is not an established number. It can be more or less depending on the wish of the Commission. The ordinance amendment on the setback requirements for coops and aviaries also followed the ordinance on the placement for animals to be kept. Chairman Hart asked if you would call a duck a bird, would it be a bird or duck? Mr. Carnes responded a duck falls under poultry and fowl, as would a peacock. The ordinance amendment does include a listing of birds that would be considered as pets. The Director of Community Development is recommending to have some lee way when a question comes in on whether it's a bird, fowl or poultry. Chairman Hart thought the issues of setbacks may be of interest to the audience. Mr. Carnes stated the amendment proposes that a person could build a coop or aviary on to the back of the house. The minimum distance from a neighboring residence would be 20 feet.The rear setback would be 10 feet and the side setback would be 15 feet.If a neighboring residence were built to code, he would also have a 10 foot rear setback and minimum 5 foot side yard setback. It would be at least 20 feet from a neighb oring residence if legally built. Staff read the proposed text of the staff report to the audience for clarification, which included five changes. Commissioner Scott asked what "occasional" sale of birds meant -- every six months, once a year? Mr. Carnes responded it meant every six months, or twice a year. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 4 Commissioner Bosch asked if people automatically become in violation of City ordinance when birds have off spring and they exceed the number of five birds for a short period of time? Is this intended to apply to adult birds or juvenile birds? Mr. Carnes said they could fall back on the regulations for dogs. If they're less than six months old, they're not counted as an adult. If the birds are less than a certain size or age, then they wouldn't be counted as one. Those speaking in opposition Mary Tradea, 1245 South Olive, Santa Ana, asked how much the Conditional Use Permit fee was and if it were a one-time fee? Mr. Carnes said a Conditional Use Permit costs $260; it's a one-time only fee. If approved by the Zoning Administrator, the Use goes with the land as long as the applicant meets all the conditions of approval. Ms. Tradea felt the fee was expensive. This isn't a business, but a hobby that somebody is enjoying. Chairman Hart explained why the City charged a fee for the Conditional Use Permit process. Ms. Tradea couldn't understand why the City had to notify residents within 300 feet. She didn't want it advertised that she had expensive birds for fear of them being stolen. Commissioner Bosch wanted to know how many birds a hobbyist might have before it gets to be excessive? Ms. Tradea said that was hard to say because it depends on the person and how much time they want to spend with their hobby. A fair judgment would be if it were a nuisance or if it were not kept clean. The L.A. law is based on a nuisance type complaint. Teresa Mather, 3320 Ruth Place, said zebra finches only cost 2 a piece. It doesn't make sense to get a $260 permit for 12 worth of birds. She works in a pet store and is aware of theft rings that do specialize in birds. It's a real danger when people know what you have. Theft of birds could be a problem in some neighborhoods. Delores Palush, 2231 East Trenton Avenue, thought the code needs to be revised, but it has to please everyone. She's in favor of what is said in the new code except for three things: the Conditional Use Permit, the five birds and Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 5 neighbors. The L.A. code is fair because it takes care of all that. The person who complained about her birds is not even a neighbor. She lives in Anaheim Hills. She has letters from her immediate neighbors who all like the birds. She had 65 birds at the time of the complaint, bu t at one time she had over 100 Finches and several other species of birds. People two doors down from her didn't even know she had birds and nobody complained about them. She did not think it was a good idea to notify the neighbors as it will result in theft of the birds. She felt $260 was a lot of money for a hobby. Felice Bonner, P.O. Box 2592, Orange, has very valuable birds. She has had someone try to get into her "baby room" where she keeps baby birds, but her dog alerted them and they were able to protect them. Most of the bird breeders refer to themselves as aviculturists -- a person who tries to preserve certain birds on the endangered species list. Through the Fish and Game Administration, hobbyists have donated birds to help preserve them. She felt the City was discriminating by charging a conditional fee. She doesn't want her neighbors knowing what she has in her yard. As far as age limit for birds, she hand feeds a Macaw until it is 9 or 10 months old before he becomes saleable. He doesn't become mature until he is 7 or 8 years old. The $260 fee is ridiculous. Most of the people are on limited incomes. Florence Smith, 10601 Henderson, Garden Grove, is a member of the Orange County Bird Feeders and other organizations. She became interested in birds and loves her hobby. What affects the City of Orange might affect other cities in the County. To put a limit of $260 on someone who is a hobbyist doesn't make sense. Patrick Tapley, 1431 Kekoway, Santa Ana, asked why the birds were listed on the staff report? The two basic issues are noise and sanitation. Chairman Hart explained there were birds and fowls. It would be impossible to evaluate every bird. Mr. Tapley asked who benefitted from the $260 fee and where does the money go? Commissioner Bosch explained the C.U.P. process and City ordinances which are mandated by state law requirements. Mr. Godlewski said a Zoning level of review the City has. responsible for the action City Planning Commission. The are only notified to a 300 advertising in the newspaper; Administrator It's a single that is taken Zoning Adminis foot radius. no publication is the lowest person that is it's not the trator hearings There is no anywhere other Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 6 than the 300 foot radius. The $260 fee not only pays for the postage, but also pays for staff time in reviewing the applications. It includes the Zoning Administrator going out to each and every individual request, makes a personal visit to the site and looks at the property and tries to analyze in the best land use sense whether or not the birds will create a problem or not. City staff does not have expertise in every variety of bird possible; however, they tried to list every bird that would be considered a bird and put that on the list. They also have provisions in the code that would allow something that is not on the list to be considered by the Director. The $260 is the lowest administrative fee. A Conditional Use Permit before the Planning Commission starts at $500 and goes up from there. The fee also includes the public hearing. The Council Chambers are set up and the Zoning Administrator sits and listens to testimony from the neighbors. If the neighbors, who have been notified, have suggestions or perhaps a condition that is not obvious in the field that can be resolved, then those conditions are added to make the proposal agreeable to everyone involved. Commissioner Scott asked when staff advertises for a C.U.P., do they call out what type of bird it is? Mr. Godlewski said they identify the request only. It would be a request for the keeping of more than five birds at a particular address. There would be no identification to the species of the bird. Chairman Hart wanted the audience to know the Commission did not have any control over the $260 fee. That fee is set by the City Council. He suggested they address the issue of the fee at the City Council level. Louis Palush, 2231 East Trenton Avenue, asked if it cost more to run the City of Orange than the City of L.A.? Why do they have to be charged a user's fee and not the City of L.A.? The City of L.A. does not charge a fee. Mr. Carnes stated the City of L.A., due bird keepers, passed an ordinance which is allows the unlimited keeping of birds. complaint, the City has to go ou t and animal regulation people then determine problem is. They do not require a Condi and it is permitted as an accessory use. to concerns from very simple. It If there is a look at it. The if and what the tional Use Permit Mrs. Palush had a copy of the L.A. Code. She also talked with Kathy Lyons, editor of Bird World. She helped propose the L.A. code. She stated there were no problems. Mrs. Palush though t the L.A. code was very fair and it did not cost the people to keep their birds. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 7 Teresa Mather said you could keep approximately 40 finches in a small cage in your living room. Why do you need a Conditional Use Permit for something so small? Mrs. Bonner was curious to know why the City took a complaint from someone living in Anaheim Hills and not in the City of Orange. She felt the City was making a mountain out of a mole hill. She also asked why the City didn't consider the L.A. Code? Chairman Hart responded that was not one of their options. The City Council ordered the Commission to hold this public hearing. Commissioner Bosch asked previous questions to help guide and assist the Commission on the issue of whether or not an ordinance is appropriate or what should be contained in it. Instead, he has heard words that do not apply to them, and has yet to hear a good education to help identify what is needed. Andrea Brannell, 413 Black Oak, Anaheim Hills, is a member of Orange County Bird Breeders. The concern, besides the cost, is just having a limit on this hobby. Is there another way to resolve the problem without enacting the new ordinance? Dave Baumgardner, 11891 Laurelene Street, Garden Grove, has been raising birds in his back yard for 15 years. Garden Grove now has a law similar to the one Orange has on the books. A person filed a complaint with the City of Garden Grove against him. It's important to see that the cities get laws where the people can use the property for the birds as long as they do not infringe upon their neighbors. He likes the way L.A. set up their code. A number on bird keeping is difficult to set. A key factor should be noise and sanitation. A Conditional Use Permit would be appropriate if it were a business where they were raising birds for profit. But most of the people raise birds for fun; it's a hobby. Chairman Hart summarized the concerns of the bird hobbyists. They are aware that birds do not make a lot of noise and they're not a problem to neighbors (because the neighbors do not even know people have them). He concedes that $260 seems to be a lot of money for a hobby. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott added that the City of Orange acknowledges that it is part of a wild bird sanctuary and it was adopted in the early 60's. He has compassion for the people who raise these birds. It was brought out tonight Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 8 the birds are not annoying to their neighbors. Since this is the first complaint on birds, he suggested to continue the concept of this ordinance amendment for a period of one year for review (earlier if additional complaints come up) along with some of the questions that has surfaced regarding size, number of birds, sanitation, etc. In response to Chairman Hart's question on the limitation of birds, staff stated current ordinance limits the number of birds to five. Staff is looking for a revision to that ordinance. Chairman Hart concurs with Commissioner Scott's idea to adjust their thinking. He's not opposed to the system the City of L.A. uses to act on complaints. That seems to be more fair. Commissioner Bosch had trouble leaving the limitation to five on the books as it is now. In reviewing the proposed changes, he does not see any problem with the first part - Definitions. Poultry is also fine. He prefers to see the keeping of birds for pets or hobby as a right that goes with the single family residence, subject to reasonable sanitary controls. That can be defined several ways (by the list of proposals included on Page 7 of the staff report): Occasional sale isn't a problem; confine indoors or in a coop or aviary; keeping them clean; if the Code Enforcement Supervisor determines it has become a nuisance and it isn't cleaned up, then something should happen. The only problem is that a coop or aviary should be constructed a minimum of 20 feet from an adjacent residence or 10 feet from a rear property line and 15 feet from any side property line -- that could be a bit onerous. There may be a problem with attachment to a fence, but he doesn't know too many people who keep birds as a pet outdoors. They typically keep them free standing rather than attaching to a neighbor's fence. He doesn't see a problem with having structural restraints on it any more onerous than those applied to any other allowed accessory building in a residential zone. If there is a way to word this, everyone would be happy: clean definitions, allowed by right, not limit the number, obviously if it becomes a hazard or nuisance, that's going to become known because the neighbors will complain and that will be taken care of; then allow the same structural standards as apply to other accessory uses (as far as setbacks). Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1328-90. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 9 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code be amended as written in the staff report with the following changes: Include from Page 6 of the staff report the wording as shown for Chapter 17.04 Definitions, which also continues on to Page 7. But under Chapter 17.10.030 R-1-6 Single Family Residential District, delete "Subject to Conditional Use Permit". The keeping of an unlimited number of birds is recommended as a permitted use with occasional sales permitted and subject to keeping birds confined indoors or in coops under sanitary conditions. Policing will be accomplished by Code Enforcement. Development standards as are now required for accessory structures should apply to coops and aviaries. Then, include in the proposed amendment the reference to Chapter 17.22 as stated on Page 8 of the staff report, but to not include the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.94. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart explained it has been determined by the Commission there will be no Conditional Use Permit required. It will be similar to the City of L.A.'s method of keeping birds. This is a recommendation to the City Council. People in attendance at tonight's meeting will be notified of the City Council's hearing date. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. General Plan Conformity Determination - Addition to Santiago Oaks Regional Park. There is a 32 acre open space parcel which the County has asked the City to provide a report from the Planning Commission on whether open space designation on the property is consistent with the City's General Plan. Staff's recommendation is yes, it is consistent. A resolution has been provided for the Commission's consideration. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Park Drive, Orange Park Acres, said this was the last piece of Shirley Grindle's open space in the E1 Modena Hills. Everyone out there is in support of this and would like to add this to the open space and preserve the hills. Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 1990 - Page 10 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 14-90 which finds that the proposed open space dedication is in conformance with the Orange General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED 2. Consideration of Resolution No. PC 20-90 - expressing appreciation to John Lane for his loyal and dedicated service to the Planning Commission. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 20-90 to John Lane for his services to the City. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT:Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to a study session on March 12, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to consider findings and overriding considerations in deliberations and plans/applications before the Commission; then to adjourn to a regular meeting March 19, 1990 at 7:00 p.m., proceeded by an administrative session at 6:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. s 1 d