Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT:Commissioner Pruett STAFF PRESENT:John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23. 1994 March 7, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of February 23, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2055-94, VARIANCE 1963-94 - CITY OF ORANGE A request for a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of a residential structure to anon-residential use, and a variance to allow a reduction in on-site parking standards. Subject property is addressed 488 South Glassell Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1450-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2055-94 and Variance 1963-94 to the meeting of March 21, 1994. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Walters abstained due to a potential financial relationship to property in the vicinity of the applicant's property. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2053-94, VARIANCE 1962-94 -ANTHONY J. FAVREAU A request for a conditional use permit to move a residential structure onto the property to be used as an accessory second unit, and a variance request to exceed the maximum 640 square foot unit size allowed by code. Subject property is addressed 1901 West Palmyra Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) per State CEC~A Guidelines Section 15301. Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Anthony Favreau, 1901 West Palmyra Avenue, read the staff report and added his own comments. The homes were built in 1946, not 1960. He has approached all of his neighbors and adjacent property owners to show them the site plan and explain the project. There was no opposition. The public hearing was closed. It was noted the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. There was a request for a variance with the findings that must legally be determined relative to variances, and a conditional use permit. Commissioner Smith referred to the staff report, which said on January 27, 1994, CUP 2052-94 and Administrative Adjustment Permit 941 were approved to allow three manufactured homes to be moved onto parcels 1, 2, and 4 for single family residential use. She wondered who approved them? Mr. Godlewski responded the Zoning Administrator was empowered to review and approve them. Commissioner Smith asked if the three homes would be moved onto the parcels (not built on the parcels)? Mr. Godlewski said that was correct. There was a large parcel that was subdivided. The parcel originally contained the original house and the accessory second unit on top of the garage. The request is to move what is now on two separate parcels -the garage and accessory second unit onto the parcel that contains the original house. Commissioner Smith hadn't been involved with a project like this one. Why would this go to the Zoning Administrator? It's the development of three residential lots. Mr. Godlewski replied the Planning Commission reviews subdivisions of more than four lots. It's a Subdivision Map Act division point for residential lots. Commissioner Smith asked if the desi nand the appropriateness of those individual buildings were then monitored by the Zoning Administrator? (Correct.}q Chairman Bosch said the key for him was finding criteria for findings in favor of a variance. He found it interesting there was an existing accessory unit in reasonable proximity to an existing residence from a previous larger lot. The applicant is asking for something that is the same type of relationship, in fact, cutting it down to make it closer to the Ordinance, but still greater than the Ordinance. The question becomes, "Could one have simply relocated, if one had desired, the accessory unit on the lot it's currently on and build a larger primary residence and still fall into the second unit allowance for the Ordinance (and they probably could)?" Trying to find a special circumstance or hardship is what he was struggling with relative to moving it to the adjacent lot. It's an artifiaally constructed barrier that has occurred with the lot split relative to a simple finding of hardship because of lot size, shape or topography. He asked the City Attorney relative to a potential interpretation of that required finding if it might apply to conservation of existing housing stock or utilization of existing buildings, essentially pre-existing, but made non-conforming by a prior administrative action on the same set of properties. Does that fall under that criteria of findings? Mr. Soo-Hoo responded that could be rationalized under the finding of location surroundings as long as the justification is articulated. Commissioner Cathcart had a similar concern, but felt it was less than a special privilege. Chairman Bosch was not against the application, but he was looking at the legal structure. There is a legal line that was needed that doesn't preclude enjoyment of some property rights that were previously enjoyed by the property owner, and could be recreated on one of the now existing parcels without any difficulty under the current Ordinance. Perhaps the City should allow the applicant to continue the utilization of apre-existing use. He's actually bringing it more in conformance with the Ordinance. Commissioner Walters noted there was no apparent opposition to the project. He was inclined to support the application from that standpoint. Commissioner Smith said because of the unique sizes of the lots, she was going to trust the wisdom of the applicant in trying to develop the four parcels into being a nice project. The applicatron mentions they are going to propose something to the Redevelopment Agency, which is affordable housing. She was not opposed to the project. 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2053-94 with the conditions as listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to approve Variance 1962-94 with the findings that the vanance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including the size and configuration of the individual lots, the location within the private drive and a subdivision without impacts on the public street, with more than adequate setbacks from adjacent property and utilizing apre-existing structure to continue to enjoy property rights previously enjoyed by the owners of the residences. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-94 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment adding provision to the Orange Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning Ordinance to modify the non-conforming use provisions (Chapter 17.90) to allow rebuilding of a destroyed non-conforming residential structure if done so within a specified time window. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Mr. Godlewski explained why this application was being brought forward for review ahead of the Ordinance Amendment Update. The City Council requested that modification to the existing ordinance be done as soon as possible to facilitate those properties (residential structures) that have been affected by zone changes that had the effect of down zoning the property. In these situations a property that currently exists, but is built to more than what the current zoning on the property would allow, if that property were to be destroyed by earthquake or natural disaster of more than 75% of its value, then it could only rebuild to the limits of the zoning currently on the property. Under the Ordinance Amendment if destruction of anon-conforming structure was to occur, there would be a two year time window so that when the property is destroyed (anytime in the future) then the owner of the property would have two years to get building permits and begin construction on replaang the structure as it was before it was destroyed, even though it does not conform to the underlying zoning of the property. Commissioner Walters said the Ordinance does not make reference to a time frame. He saw a time frame in the staff report, but not in the proposed Ordinance. Who would define the word, "diligently to completion"? Mr. Godlewski referred to Page 3, #2 -- that's the section of the Ordinance that would apply to residential structures. Staff would rely on the building permit process to enforce completion of projects. Commissioner Walters didn't recall this being a two year grant of time to pull a permit. It seems like a long time to allow a burned out, vacant lot sit on the street. Chairman Bosch defended the two year time frame based on personal knowledge relative to the Oakland Hills fire. The one year time frame is not enough. There's too many things that could go wrong in pursing compensation for one's loss. He shares the concern with the due diligence to completion. Commissioner Cathcart thought the one year becomes so restrictive that it makes it appear that if a person is not financially well off and they can't get something going which is outside of their control, that they're bad guys. He personally felt that was a bad thing to lay on his community; the people in Orange are good, honest individuals. He would hate to penalize the good people with a restrictive rule. Another issue is that there is an economic problem in the country, especially in California. The public hearing was opened Public Comments T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman, favors the Ordinance Amendment. He owns four pieces of property and all of it is legal, non-conforming. This will protect him. He asked what would happen if half of his duplex burned upfront (under the current ordinance, if the proposed amendment was not passed)? Chairman Bosch explained the existing Ordinance applies to a less than 75% loss of the appraised value. He personally favors the two year time frame and supports the change. 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 1-94, noting that it was categorically exempt from the provisions of CE~A guidelines. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 493, ZONE CHANGE 1166-93 -ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE -CITY OF ORANGE Ordinance Amendment 4-93 is a comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code. The proposed amendment reformats the existing ordinance and updates provisions regarding the development review process, zoning district use regulations, development standards and design standards that apply to the Old Towne Historic District. Also part of the amendment is a proposal to eliminate the RCD (Residential Combining District) overlay zone, and to apply a new height standard throughout Old Towne. Zone Change 1166-93 proposes that all properties within the RCD overlay district retain their base zone classification only, and that the RCD classification be deleted. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1437-93 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the September 8, 1993, October 18, 1993, December 6, 1993 and January 17, 1994 Planning Commission meetings.) Letters have been received from Frank Gonzales and the Old Towne Preservation Association; and a memo to the Planning Commission dated February 10, 1994 from staff. Mr. Godlewski reported staff has been working with community groups, the Planning Commission and City Council, holding numerous study sessions over the last three years. This is the first time the document has been completely compiled in all of its sections to be brought forth for a public hearing. At this time the Commission will receive further comments from the public and at that time make a decision as to any further changes that need to be made to the document before making a recommendation to the City Council on it's adoption as a new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Godlewski read from the February 10, 1994 memorandum to the Planning Commission. Also, the City Council has requested that in the process section of the Zoning Ordinance that the Commission consider that all Design Review Board and Zoning Administrator appeals be brought forward to the Planning Commission first and then, if necessary, a further appeal could be made to the City Council. Currently, the way the Ordinance is written is that Design Review Board appeals and Zoning Administrator appeals go directly to the City Council after those decisions are made. The following list summarizes the major differences between the draft documents and the adopted Zoning Ordinance and Old Towne Design Guidelines: It is proposed to establish site plan review function, both major and minor site plan review where minor site plans could be reviewed by a staff review committee. They would have the authority to add conditions and make decisions on those minor site plans. This will streamline the process and would allow a minor site plan decision to be made within two weeks. Major site plans would allow the Planning Commission to look at all new developments for consistency with circulation and all those issues that affect the site plan of a new development. Also proposed is the non-conforming section that was previously discussed and brought forward on a fast track that was before the Commission. Whatever is decided in that case will be incorporated into the document. The new Zoning Ordinance establishes review criteria for site plan and design review. Currently there are no pprovisions in the existing Zoning Ordinance. Under the residential section of the Zoning Ordinance, proposed is an R1-5 and R1-R District which allows 5,000 square foot lots and 2.5 acre lots respectively. Currently there are no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for lots of that size. The smallest is 6,000 square feet and the largest is one acre. Proposed, also, is establishing standards regulating the maximum floor area ratios for residential zones. This is in response to a request to address the bulk and mass issues of how big a building can be in proportion to the lot. There are no provisions for any review of that nature at this time. In the new Zoning Ordinance there is a number of graphic changes, charts that currently do not exist. Changes to that also relates to the frontage requirements for minimum lot frontage requirements. Staff made some changes to facilitate a little bit better design. The minimum lot size and the existing code for lot frontages generally dictate a very strict rectangular lot. By reducing the lot frontages a little bit, it will hopefully allow for a little more creative lot design. In the current code there is an open space requirement only in the R3 and R4 zones and only for those developments that have more than 10 units. The new Zoning Ordinance proposes minimum open space requirements for all developments. The existing ordinance contains only minimal provisions for the Planned Community text. In the past, a number of developers have taken advantage of the text where they could basically write their own Zoning Ordinance. The new Zornng Ordinance modifies those requirements and tightens it down a bit, starting with the minimum lot size of 10 acres for that type of development to take place. The new Ordinance also updates the senior housing standards to be consistent with Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 current state law. Regarding commercial zone standards, the current Zoning Ordinance lists a number of uses permitted by conditional use permit in the C2 and C3 districts, including adult enterprises and other such activities. Under the new commercial zone, those uses would be permitted by C.U.P., but only in the C3 district. The CP zone contains limited use provisions and the uses that are in the CP zone have generally been watered down because of conditional use permits where a number of non-conforming uses are located in that zone anyway. Staff is proposing that the use provisions for the CP and C1 zone are identical. They have also added to the commercial zone that is not currently addressed in the ordinance is establishing provisions for single room occupancy hotels to be allowed by conditional use permit only. There have also been a number of changes to the Old Towne provisions in the ordinance. The existing ordinance has an RCD overlay zone, which requires approval of a conditional use permit for all construction except single story development in specified areas of Old Towne. The new ordinance replaces the RCD overlay zone with a 1 1/2 story height limitation throughout all of Old Towne. If one wishes to go beyond the 1 1 /2 story height, then a conditional use permit would be needed. Changes have also been made to the Design Review Board membership. Currently the membership consists of two licensed architects, one licensed landscape architect, one licensed contractor and one member with demonstrated knowledge or experience in the visual arts. In order to be more consistent with Design Review Boards in making National Register determinations, staff is proposing the D.R.B. membership consist of two licensed architects, one licensed landscape architect, and two members with experience in urban planning and historic preservation or related fields. Also, newly proposed is procedures for certificates of appropriateness, nominations, designations and rehabilitation incentives. This is to allow taking advantage of financial incentives which there are currently no provisions in the ordinance to provide for. The current ordinance requires that there be demolition review. There are no provisions for designation; therefore, no corresponding demolition provisions. This would establish additional review requirements for proposed demolitions in historic districts for designated structures. Under the sign provision, it modifies provisions for wall signs to create more flexible standards (not strictly the 24 ,but rather in proportion to the size of the building that the sign is on). Also included in this review are the Old Towne Design Standards. The existing standards, which staff refers to as the Gold Book" provides minimal design standards for the residential quadrants. They have tried to make clear those standards that are already adopted and have added design standards for the residential quadrants. They've also incorporated descriptions of new processes established in the Zoning Ordinance (certificates of appropriateness, nominations and designations, and rehabilitation incentives) that currently there are no provisions for. Other issues that need to be reviewed by the Commission is that of lot consolidation to Old Towne. Staff did not address that specifically in the document, but there has been numerous discussion by the Commission. It needs to be defined in the document if the Commission desires. Provisions could be added to the residential districts, establishing maximum lot sizes and that may create some non-conforming lots in doing so. Staff originally recommended elimination of the CP zone and C3 district, but they have left both of those districts in the document in order to allow for the uses in the C3 and to allow for the development standards in the CP zone. Staff was hoping to consolidate all of the zones as much as possible, but it seemed better to leave them in in order to address those special needs in those particular zones. Planning staff was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. The public hearing was opened. Chairman Bosch stated they have received fetters from the Old Towne Preservation Association, dated March 3, 1994, and Frank Gonzales, dated March 7, 1994. Mr. Gonzales has requested that his letter be read into the public record since he was unable to attend the hearing. What was the desire of the Commission? Commissioner Smith thought the letter should be read into the record Commissioner Walters objected. He thought when someone submits a 4-page letter outlining several objections, that person should be in attendance. Commissioner Cathcart mirrored those comments. The Old Towne Preservation Association has submitted their review of the documents and did it in a timely manner. The Commission received their letter in advance of the hearing. It was impolite; it has already been stated for the record that Mr. Gonzales' letter is part of the public hearing process. The letter was received late and the Commissioners have not had enough time to study it . Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to read Mr. Gonzales' letter into the public record. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith NOES: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett Public Comments MOTION FAILED Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, didn't want to get into the Old Towne situation whatsoever, but in general, he supported the Ordinance Amendment Update. He was in favor of F.A.R.'s; this would affect the undeveloped areas in East Orange. Established neighborhoods have a right to preserve the quality of life. He also talked about the requirement for open space. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, read the letter from O.T.P.A.; they talk about a lot of "shoulds" to be taken out and replace it with "shall" because it will be held up in court. She asked if the Commission were going to vote on that Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 ppoint? Will the words be changed after the public hearing? She hoped the "Community Advisory Board" would not be included in the document; it was not needed. She voiced opposition as to what color residents could paint their homes and fences, gates, etc. She asked if FAR's included the garage space? Did the City Council vote for four districts in Old Towne? That is wrong. They have one local district, which is the Plaza. Also, she felt they did not need a local certified government. This is dictating to the people of Orange. Chairman Bosch explained they have received O.T.P.A.'s correspondence, which becomes part of the record. It's up to the Commission to determine whether they wish to introduce a change to any of the language in the document. It will have to be done and included in the final document by reference or by text brought back to the Commission before there is a vote. Mr. Godlewski responded to the FAR's. It does include the garage in the floor area ratio for all areas of the City except those areas that are governed by the East Orange General Plan. That General Plan was adopted prior to this document coming forward, and there is a general provision in the General Plan that gets so specific as to specify that garages in that area are not included in the FAR's. It is inconsistent, but is due primarily to a previously approved document. It was staff's opinion that a garage should be, and is very definitely a part of the bulk and mass of a building; therefore, the garage should be included in the FAR. Chairman Bosch said each area deserves an equal amount of study to assure that the City is providing for not just the concerns of everybody who live within a specific area of the City, but in commercial and industrial areas as well. The Commission is looking for constructive input to make this a better Zoning Ordinance for the City. Yes, it does dictate that is what ordinances do. They're looking for a balance and the public's input is important to them. It assists them in making a decision. Commissioner Cathcart referred to the Table of Contents. He noted the word "District" has been added to a lot of areas, which it doesn't have to be. The term "District" is too prohibitive. He didn't see anyone labeling this except for clarification -- not for any political or land use criteria. Commissioner Smith pointed out in the Table of Contents, starting on Page 4 in the document there is also reference to Historic Districts, Commercial Districts, Industrial Districts, Agncultural and Open Space Districts, Public Institution Districts, Planned Community Districts, Overlay Districts, Sand and Gravel Districts. If it is to be deleted in one area, it should be deleted throughout the document. Mr. Godlewski explained where that came from. Staff listed these directly out of the previously adopted document. This was the way it was adopted years ago and that's why it was put in. If the Commission desires to take it out, that's not a problem. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, has always heard of Planned Unit Developments or Planned Community Developments. By using the word "District", people will think it is already done. A few of us may be overreacting. She was concerned about "Certificate of Appropriateness". She understood from the historic preservation documentation from the state and many of their publications that the designation is to be used only on buildings which are designated on the National Historic Register or are eligible for such. It was her feeling that it was going to be part of the one stop process and that people were going to be required to have a label of "Certificate of Appropriateness" put on their property if they wished to demo or replace something. She asked for clarification on this. Mr. Godlewski's understanding of the Certificate of Appropriateness was merely that the City has established a number of criteria, rules and regulations in the ordinance and Historic Preservation Design Standards. The Certificate of Appropriateness merely states that the plans, as submitted, have been reviewed and conform to the rules and regulations that are established in the Historic Preservation Design Standards. That means that it has been reviewed by staff or the Design Review Board and that it meets the criteria established by the City. It is a deasion that allows the project to go forward in order to pull building permits or if the applicant wishes to pursue financial incentives, then all of the financial incentives of the State require the Certificate of Appropriateness be provided. The Certificate of Appropriateness is obtained on a voluntary basis. Mr. Ryan responded the Certificate of Appropriateness states whether the building is historic or not. If it is within a historic district it means it meets the standards that have been established and it has been reviewed by the appropriate authorities. If a person chooses to go ahead and get their building listed individually on the National Register or declare it as a local landmark, the Certificate of Appropriateness only applies to that work which will be done (rehabilitation or adding an addition). Chairman Bosch asked what the specific designation of the Mile Square area, which is called "Old Towne" ,within the adopted General Plan approved by the City Council? Is it not the Old Towne Historic District? (Yes.) The Certificate does not change any of the processes currently in place. It's only a vehicle for those who have a building that is eligible for further historic preservation designation under State and Federal law to pursue it if they desire. Commissioner Cathcart thought it best to get away from saying four districts. It was misleading. There is only one district -- the Old Towne Historic District. Within it, there are other districts (quadrants). 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 Chairman Bosch stressed they needed to be specific in their definitions, especially "Certificate of Appropriateness". A couple of words in the main body and then clarification on Page 10 to assure that it's meant only to refer to specific historic buildings or to City Coundl established districts. Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver, bought in the City of Orange and without moving a foot, ended up in Old Towne. She spoke about the RCD overlay zone and the 1 1/2 story height limitations. She has heard more than once there is not a 1 1 /2 story house. How do you determine the height of a single story? If you go to the peak of her house, it is two stories. Mr. Godlewski said the way staff came about 1 1/2 stories was to address the perceived need to do away with all the conditional use permits when anyone wanted to build more than one story. The discussion never got into whether you count a basement as a story or whether stories are counted from grade level and above. But, rather they were looking at the existing housing stock in the City of Orange and trying to give some limit as to how far one could build before needing additional review by the Planning Commission, or something is built so big the neighbors are going to be concerned and would like input into the project. In order to address that, staff suggested the 1 1 /2 story concept be used. In order to further darify that, they included a definition in the Definition section that establishes a base line as to what a 1 1/2 story is. If that point needs further discussion or refinement, staff can go back and do that. However, staff felt this was the solution that was most reasonable and easiest to administer for the mafority of people wishing to build in the area. Chairman Bosch felt it was important for everyone to understand what the 1 1/2 story definition was. Hopefully there are other things in the ordinance that apply to how one judges the appropriateness of the proposed expansion or replacement structure than the mere definition of 1 1 /2 stories. Mr. Godlewski stated the basis for a conditional use permit would be anything that exceeds the definition of 1 1/2 stories. If a person is building within the established roof line of the property, that person could expand within that envelope and not require a conditional use permit. When someone goes beyond that, a conditional use permit would be needed. The 1 1 /2 story limitation is proposed just for the Old Towne area. Wil Chambers, 242 South Olive, read his letter into the record. He believes every complex question has an answer which is simple, easy to understand, and wrong and that is what is happening in Orange. As he read the documents, he came across terms such as protect, protect, protect! The Design Review Board's make up is the same as the five appointed members of the Historic Preservation Association. The other terms -Historic Preservation Association, Certificate of Appropriateness, nomination & designation, demolition review, transfer of development rights, Certificate of Hardship, duty to keep in good repair, enforcement and penalties, local certified districts, certified local ordinance and Mills Act -Specific Plans - he had read about these terms in the 80's in a book called "Certified Local Government", how to do it step by step. The citizens of Orange deserve a better shake and they should have incentives, not restrictions. Floor area ratios are restrictions. In the Historic Design Standards it gives four objectives: 1) Protect unique features of neighborhoods; 2) Minimize building deterioration; 3) Ensure new construction is compatible with neighborhoods; and 4) Protect and stabilize property values. The first three objectives are gone into in great detail, but not a word on how to protect and stabilize property values. Enacting the Design Standards and the Zoning Ordinance for Orange will meet the requirements for a certified local government, which must cover the whole City -- not just the square mile of Old Towne. Ken Milbrandt, 308 South California, was disappointed the Commission did not question Wil. It looks like we're talking about new committees. He felt there were too many restrictions and committees. The City is headed towards a certified local government and he felt they were being pushed. A contractor should be included on the Design Review Board. Chairman Bosch responded relative to the process of adding more commissions and boards that Mr. Milbrandt saw written in, but he didn't think so. It defines a bit more the proposed qualifications of people who serve on the Design Review Board. The staff has a review process and the City is looking at a staff review committee that provides some standards for how they review items in house. Staff is not adding any additional commissions or boards. With regard to certified local government, there is still a lot of confusion. He thought it was important to request the City Attorney to come forward with specific legal language of what that is and to review it again. It was his understanding that there were a lot of restrictions from the State and Federal governments. Some of those restrictions apply to the older areas of the City. There is a way through that for the City Council to assume the role of a certified local government and be able to make decisions at the local level vs. having them over ruled and dictated to by state authorities. This is to keep local control over decisions about land use and property rights in the older areas of the City that currently have been taken away from the City by the State in passing State laws that apply to those areas. Mr. Godlewski said a typical case in point would be if someone wanted to nominate a public building for the National Register of Historic Places -- the School District offices. A group of people in the City now could get together and nominate that property and go straight to the State Historic Preservation Officer and say the building is worthy of being saved and get designated as a historic building. The State's Historic Preservation Officer would make that determination and send back a decision about the building. By doing so, the City was never consulted, City Council was never consulted and the-City only gets notification after the fact that the building has been designated as a National Register building. The process of a certified local government is the State's acknowledgment of local bodies set up in the City and who are empowered to make decisions and this would eliminate the need to go to the State. If Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 the City has the CLG designation, the State would recognize them as the proper organization to make their own dedsions. This group of people would go to the City Council rather than the State to nominate the building for historic designation. The City is trying to bring the authority that is now vested in the State of Califomia into the City of Orange so that the City Counal has the final say in making those determinations. Chairman Bosch thought it prudent to know what the downside of this would be. It should be identified and mitigated. Commissioner Smith thought it would be worthwhile for people to examine exactly what the process is for becoming designated on the National Register. One thing, it is very expensive; it costs about $750 for the application. There is a heanng at the State level where the owner is notified in a timely manner to oppose the designation if they care to. The pro~erty owner is notified and has the opportunity to give reasons why the property should not be included on the Nationa Register. It isn't something that can happen without the consent of the owner. However, the way it is set up now, the State of California can over ride the property owner's disagreement with the property being put on the Register and that was what happened with the School District. It is not an easy thing to do; there is strict criteria for the building and it takes a lot of money to do that. Corrine Schrock, 446 North James, asked if the certified local government were citywide? Was there a Preservation Attomey available to the City (on staff)? She was concerned about the 800 or so houses in Old Towne that were post-1940. She has read the Design Guidelines; is there a separate section to address those homes or are they covered under the umbrella of Old Towne? If she lived on a block where 95% of the homes were 2 story, would she have to go to 1 1/2 stories? She also had a problem with the screened porches (Page 38). She spoke about the RCD overlay zone -- only 1/4 of the houses have the overlay. If they took away that 1/4, they could stay with the current rules and regulations. Three-fourths of the area in Old Towne is going to be changed because 1 /4 of the area has the overlay zone. Why wasn't transfer of development rights addressed in this particular document? Mr. Ryan responded it would only be for the established Old Towne area. Chairman Bosch said there were people reporting at a conference where the State Administrator says a certified local government must be citywide. Clarification will be needed on this point. In response to the 1 1/2 story issue, the 1 1/2 story is a threshold. If a person wanted to go higher than 1 1/2 stories, they would have to obtain a C.U.P. The definition for 1 1!2 stories is a building that appears on the facade to have the second floor contained in the mass of the roof line of the design, even though it is two story inside. It was believed the City Council has not yet adopted a policy that recognizes transfer of development rights. Mr. Soo-Hoo said there was no Preservation Attorney on staff that is expert in the area of historic preservation. If an issue arose, they would consult with staff internally to see if the answer were readily available. If it were more complex, depending on the nature of the question, staff would consult without outside consul at some expense to the City. Mr. Ryan referred to Page 36 of the Design Standards -- additions to non-historic structures. "Additions to and rehabilitation of non-conforming buildings shall use the architectural vocabulary of the building's original period and shall be compatible with its surroundings with respect to size and scale." Chairman Bosch said they needed to address the screened porch for clarification. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, was bothered that the guidelines would never apply to buildings which were not considered historic. Those buildings which were non-contributing, of which there are 800 or so. She was shocked by the lads of ability of people to use state of the arts materials in building. It's something to think about. Chairman Bosch appreciated her comments. There was a difference between style and material. One can create historic styles by using modern materials. T.J. Clark, 811 Chapman Avenue, was against certified local government. He attended a preservation conference in the City of Eureka some years bads. In one of the sessions a gentleman was introduced as a City Council member and one of his statements was that "they now had a zoning ordinance in place, but it will be shelved. It would only be brought out when preservation was needed." The next speaker was a historical planner. He stated a committee was being formed and appointed. It would take the powers away from the duly elected officials (City Council) and put it in the hands of the committee. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart observed they have made great strides on 90% of the document. The front half of the document seems to meet with a lot of complimentary statements. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Old Towne is the place where the Commission needs to put their attention now. He would like additional clarification with regard to certified local government and how the existing City government fits within that. The designation of the districts needs to be revised in order to clarify what is being talked about. In looking at the Old Towne Preservation Association's remarks and the letter from Frank Gonzales, he sees two ends of the spectrum. One wants to be more restrictive than what he felt comfortable with; the other one, less restrictive than what he felt comfortable with. They are trying to uncomplicate a program they have inherited over the years. They're trying to make sense out of the zoning ordinance that apply to Old Towne, because it is unique, but without being so prohibitive that people can't Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 understand it. He hoped that they could come up with some guidelines/standards for people to understand and use. He would like to explore and further explain these things that they are enacting to their community (i.e. terminology, parameters of certified local govemment, 1 1/2 stories, etc.) Chairman Bosch thought staff needed specific input as to what the Commission wanted and he thought they had done that on the certified local govemment. With regard to the others, the Commission needs to give better direction. He didn't believe the word "should" should ever appear in an ordinance. Very often the shoulds are meant to be examples. The word "should" is misinterpreted. It's better to use the word "shall" or examples of "can" and "may". He desires not to be in the paint police business. He thought they needed to discuss the Council's interest in reviewing changing the appeal process and direct staff on the Commission's decision. The contractor issue on the Design Review Board -- it is proposed to have two licensed architects, one licensed landscape architect, two members with experience in urban planning and historic preservation or related fields -- one of the licensed architects or landscape architect may have experience in urban planning or historic preservation. He thought they should define better what experience in urban planning and historic preservation means. A great variety of citizens may have it as a degree or a number of years working in the field for a living. It needs to be defined without being overly restrictive. It would be important if there were an appropriately licensed general building contractor on the Design Review Board. The City needs someone who knows how buildings are put together, materials that are available and makes sense with regard to practicality of construction. The cantilever issue keeps coming up. If it says in the document that there shall be no cantilevers allowed in residences in the Old Towne District -- there are in historic structures. They may be small in size. It's something that needs to be preserved as a right to do within the current Design Standards. It needs to be amended to correct that wherever that occurs. Commissioner Smith took time and energy to read every page of the document. She was not as comfortable with all of the concerns as Commissioner Cathcart. She's not ready to give the document a clean bill of health. Her specific concerns are the application of CEQA -citywide -not just in Old Towne. She didn't see anything with teeth in it about CEQA; it's rather wishy washy. There is no policy and procedure for how environmental review would take place. The appropriate plaoe would be at the site plan review committee, but that is not written in the document. She was concerned with the FAR section. She was not comfortable with the citywide application of FAR's. She wanted staff to get back to the Commission on the lot consolidation issue; not just in Old Towne, but citywide. And single buildings appropriate to cover an entire lot consolidation. She was interested in hearing the role of the Planning Commission in appeals before the City Council hears appeals. She reviewed the Old Towne section after receiving the one letter, but needs additional time to review Frank Gonzales' letter. Commissioner Walters hoped that the Commissioner's concerns about the document were voiced at this hearing. He didn't think this should be continued to another meeting just to re-open the discussion. Specific recommendations should be brought to the table at this meeting or submit written recommendations to the staff so that all of the issues are discussed at the next meeting. Something needs to be done to bring this application to a conclusion. There are two extremes. The extreme of total regulation of everything, which can be found in Irvine with a rather dry, sterile cultural life. On the other hand, you can have no rules or regulations and end up with the vast waste land that he finds in Buena Park, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Brea, and Fullerton who at one time had decent old town areas. The goal is to find the answers to the questions that were posed and clarifications are what needs to be addressed. Then, try to bring the process to a conclusion as quickly as possible. He urged to take amid-stream route between no regulations and excessive regulations on the issue of the historic district, along with the rest of the City of Orange. Commissioner Smith's specific concerns included: Under Definitions -for public clarification since the Plaza Historic District was included, it might be good to include definitions for Downtown core and spoke streets since they are referred to in the front part of the document. Section 1708 -General Administrative Procedures, Pages 7 and 8 -- Staff Review Committee -- it is mentioned under Purpose -- to make environmental assessments in accordance with CEQA provisions. She has no assurance from reading the document of knowing what that entails; what is the policy and procedure? The areas where CEQA applies should be noted, unless there is some place in the document she has missed. She thought clarification was needed so the applicants are not surprised by CEQA review. Mr. Godlewski said CEQA was a separate document from Title 17. It is referenced in the document because that is the duties of the Staff Review Committee. CEQA is a separate policy document adopted by the City as to its implementation. It's not something staff intended to include in Title 17. What reference did the Commission want staff to make? Commissioner Smith asked where is the applicant informed in the process of their application that staff is looking at CEQA concerns? Mr. Godlewski explained when an applicant comes in to the office and ask for an application, as part of the application they are given the environmental assessment form to complete as well. That is a separate part of the application and staff treats it concurrently, but separate from Title 17. Staff would consider CEQA at site plan review, but they wouldn't consider it in reference to Title 17. The document lists the Committee's duties and one of their duties is to provide site plan review in accordance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 17), but the General Plan is not part of Title 17. Then also, it includes to make environmental assessments in accordance with CEQA. Commissioner Smith referred to impacts of a project on infrastructure, traffic circulation, sewers, parking, water supply, police and fire services, electricity, etc. There's another part of CEQA where you measure the impact of a Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 protect on historic resources. Where in the process is the person who notices that this may impact historic resources and what data is used? Where is the data made available? What is the policy for review in that case? Mr. Godlewski said it was outlined in their policy for reviewing CEQA. There is an environmental checklist and on that checklist it includes questions that relate to all of those issues. Depending on how those questions are answered, depends on how staff responds. It's handled under the CEQA process of review. If their policy doesn't include a close enough detail of historic procedure or if they need to address the historic issues a little more closely, then the place to address that is in the CEQA procedures -- not in Title 17. Staff could make available to Commissioner Smith a copy of the CEQA procedures. Commissioner Smith also wondered about the role of the historic planner on staff in the Staff Review Committee when the Historic District of Old Towne is involved. It seemed to her if there were projects within that area, the historic planner on staff should be on that Staff Review Committee. Mr. Godlewski responded in setting up the membership, Departments were involved in making those decisions and/or their designated representatives. He didn't expect Department Heads to be at these meetings; it will be comprised of their designated representatives, and perhaps as a matter of policy that will be developed, that those projects come up with a requirement for historic preservation planner input, would be called upon as a matter of policy to include that person. Commissioner Smith worries that policies don't always get carried through. Referring to Page 10 -notification process for the number of permits or hearings within the City -almost all of them are notification to surrounding property owners. She was concerned that demolition permits are not noticed throughout the City. Demolition of a property is a big impact on a neighborhood. She wondered why the City wouldn't take the time to notice surrounding property owners about that? Mr. Godlewski said they were required to publish it -- that can be changed if that is the desire of the Commission. This is the way it is currently in the ordinance. Chairman Bosch asked staff to pull that back up for the Commission's review. Commissioner Smith jumped to the Open Space section, Section 1714 -Residential Districts, Page 17 -Chart. She was concerned about the floor area ratios. It was her opinion that .70 FAR, which is the widest spread of floor area ratio throughout the City, is not applicable in all the places that it is specified in the chart. It was cut way down to .40 when there is a large lot in order to prevent a huge building being built, but then when there is a really small lot (5,000 square feet) a large amount of the lot is allowed to be covered by a building. In some areas of the City, the present floor area ratio is much smaller than anything speafied on the page, particularly in substandard lots. The FAR now is about 25% coverage of the lot. When a building is allowed to cover 70% of the lot, there is inconsistency with compatibility, rhythm, scale, etc. It doesn't only happen in Old Towne, but also in the East where there are tiny lots. Mr. Godlewski said a .7 on a 6,000 square foot lot is in the R2 zone. In all the single family zones, it's .6 so that means...at .5 if a person has a 6,000 square foot lot, he could have 3,000 square feet of development, including the garage. Commissioner Smith said all of Old Towne is zoned R2. She sees an inconsistency that is not carried through in the City when they allow in the R2 zone (in Old Towne) where the average is 25 to 35% coverage... Mr. Godlewski said it was not coverage; it's floor area. Example: 6,000 square foot lot (100 x 60 feet) with atwo-car garage of 400 square feet. That would be a 2-story building and 1900 square feet per floor (40 x 47 feet). That leaves a driveway, a sideyard setback on the other side and leaves about 52 1 /2 feet per front and rear yard. The FAR is on a sliding scale. If you have an acre piece of property, which is 43,000 square feet, .4 would allow a home to be built that is 17,350 square feet, that is a huge home -even for Orange Park Acres. The idea is on the larger lots, the City is trying to preserve the large open space of large lots. So they are more restrictive, yet the ultimate square footage is nothing short of a small college. Mr. Godlewski stated it was staff's opinion that the FAR numbers were very generous. Except for a few cases, all of the houses in Orange would comply with the FAR's. They would be able to be built today to the same level they are currently built. It's the over building that this would prevent. Staff is suggesting to get this into the ordinance so that in the future if it turns out they get some kind of a mansion of properties, they can fine tune it and bring the numbers down. They want to start out with something that will give them the ability to get some idea of how this affects development. From all of the studies that have been done, these are pretty good, and if not, too generous figures that would allow the development to take place. Chairman Bosch said the sliding scale was used because it appears to work out well when combined with the setback and open space standards. It's buildable; it solves the Santiago Hills problems. Yet, when Old Towne is addressed, FAR's become pretty important because of the bulk and mass of bwldings. These are reasonable standards that represent what is supported in the community without over building a lot. It's not perfect, but it's better than what they've had before with regard to giving people knowledge of what they can do and not taking anything away. 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 Commissioner Smith commented the R2-6 is too generous. It should at least be at .6 rather than .7. On Page 25 - Usable Open Space -- it shall not include any portion of off street parking, streets, driveways, turn around areas, required front setback area and slope areas exceeding 5% and shall have a minimum dimension as specified below. She wondered if sidewalks were included in that definition? (A front setback area would include anything that is in there, including sidewalks.) On Page 45, Affordable Housing - Item C - in the upward mobility allowance -what it says is that if a person's income changes, they might be upgraded and have to pay regular rent instead of affordable rent. The last line says the applicant/owner is required to maintain the total number of affordable units identified in the agreement. How will that be monitored? Should it be spelled out in the document? Mr. Godlewski said they have been dealing with the monitoring of projects and it is done on an annual basis. They are stilt discussing who will ultimately be responsible -either the Housing Division or Planning Division. That is set by policy. Commissioner Smith said in the residential district section regarding open space, does the open space requirement apply on all properties or just those over a certain number of units? Does a duplex or three units require a certain amount of open space? Mr. Godlewski responded yes. He referred to the chart on Page 17 -minimum usable open space. Under each of the zones, it gives a square footage requirement. It also references the letter O. Previously there was a requirement for more than 10 units. That is no longer in the code. It applies to all units. Commissioner Smith asked if recreational/open space could be inside a building? Yes, there are provisions for that. He referred to Page 25, 1714.10 -Usable Open Space Required; Usable Open Space Defined. These kick in no matter how small the project is. Commissioner Smith was also concerned about lot consolidation and the role of the Commission in the appeal process. Commissioner Walters saw where limits were stated (i.e., 2.5 acres). He didn't see the need or purpose for having a maximum square footage or lot size born of consolidation. He can see minimum lot size. Commissioner Cathcart said they have wrestled with multi-use facilities. There have been projects in Old Towne that have come and gone for consolidating several pieces of property and they have been unable to do that because of restrictions. He agreed that he didn't see the need for maximum limits as long as there is still in place the opportunity for the staff, Planrnng Commission and City Council to review those things. If it is made so restrictive, creativity will be left out for unique planning opportunities that may come up. Commissioner Smith thought it was a major concern in maintaining the rhythm of the neighborhood. At some point all of Old Towne could be consolidated and be a mass of large buildings. Due to the zoning, there could be the massing of large multi-family buildings where you would lose the ambiance and rhythm of the neighborhood as it exists today. She would not like to see Old Towne go in that direction. There are other parts of the City which are appropriately zoned for that type of use. The one situation where it would be appropriate is on sub-standard lots. Chairman Bosch was familiar with a few lot consolidations in Old Towne; it's a concern and a mixed blessing. They need to be sure it gives the best opportunity for creating new or modified buildings in keeping with the context of the neighborhood and at the same time, allow people to have some freedom to exercise their property rights. Commissioner Smith was not comfortable with the South Lemon Street project, especially given that the building covers the entire three lots -- there is not much open space. It's a beautiful architectural project, but there is no grass or open space. She asked if the demolition permit being noticed to surrounding properties could be addressed? Chairman Bosch thought there was a consensus regarding lot consolidation that were steps in the document to maintain property rights with less potential for misunderstanding of the needs of the district and the Commission was willing to move ahead to see how it tests out. The issue of appeals coming before the Commission first rather than the City Council -- the volume of those has gone down substantially since the City's routing changed in that the DRB now makes recommendations to the Planning Commission on items coming before them. The Commission agreed the review of appeals should be made by them. The Commission requested staff place into the draft ordinance language appropriate for the Planning Commission to be the first body of appeal and they might consider recommending that to the City Council. The Commission favored the .7 FAR as it has been studied pretty well. Staff was asked to make a specific, clear definition on certified local government. The Commission would like to know the upside as well as the downside regarding CLG, with reference to available funding accessible to municipalities and individuals. There is some basic language clean up that staff is aware of on the definitions -- regwreds vs. recommendeds. It was the Commission's desire for staff to come back with any reporting back on modifications to this in a form that would be adoptable if the Commission desired to do so. 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue Ordinance Amendment 4-93, Zone Change 1166-93 and Negative Declaration 1437-93 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 4, 1994. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST FOR FINDING OF CONFORMANCE TO GENERAL PLAN -CITY OF ORANGE Abandonment of portion of Prospect Street right-of-way easement adjoining Bond Avenue and running approximately 550 feet north. Mr. Johnson addressed this right-of way; the portion shown on the exhibit was physically abandoned. In the process the old street was no longer needed. Staff felt it was prudent to abandon that at the same time. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to find the abandonment was in conformance with the General Plan and recommend that the abandonment be completed by the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke about the FAR's, 5,000 square foot lots and the trade offs for things they needed in East Orange. It was the result of a lot of compromises. Corrine Schrock, 446 North James, spoke about Frank Gonzales and his letter. He's extremely sensitive to preservation. His office shows how sensitive he is to preservation. He's also an architect so he understands building and architecture. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett sld MOTION CARRIED 12