HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-1994 PC MinutesC~~v~. C~- a- ~MINUTES
Planning
Commission City
of Orange PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Wafters ABSENT:
None STAFF
PRESENT:
John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning;Stan
Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Ariomey:
Gary Johnson, Cfty Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 21. 1994
April 4, 1994
Monday - 7:00 p.m.Moved
by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of March
21, 1994 as recorded.AYES:
Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Wafters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED IN
RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2051-94, VARIANCE 1967-94 -ORANGE EMPIRE RESALES,
INC.A request to allow the establishment of a used automotive sales and service facility in the M-1
zone (Light Manufacturing District), at the former Renfree Volkswagen dealership site. Also requested is
a variance to allow for a reduction in code required minimum front yard landscaping setback. Subject
property is located at 210 West
Katella Avenue.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1451-94 has been prepared to identify
the potential environmental impacts
of this project.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was
waived. Mr. Godlewski commented this was a rather unique request for the variance and some items needed to
be pointed. The property was originally built as a new car dealershiplrepair facility. As such, 8
pretty much established the land use at the property. At the time it was established, no conditional use permit
was required and it since became vacant for more than six months. The new applicant is now required to
apply for a conditional use permit, but is faced with meeting development standards that may
be very difficult because of the previous existing situation of how the buildings were placed
on the lot.Tha public
hearing
was opened.Aoolicant Sfu Livingstone, 515 East Maple Avenue, stated he and his partner both graduated
from Orange High School in 1972 and they have owned and operated Orange Empire since 1988. They
originally started in Orange, but outgrew the facility and moved to Anaheim. They look forward to coming back
to Orange at the Renfree property which has been vacant for almost four years. They would like to
take that property and do the renovations up to the standards of new car dealerships that are in town.
Also, the City Council has approved a financial aid package, which is conditioned upon the Commission'
s approval of the varianceand C.U.P. There are 6 conditions for car sales; they easily meet five of
them. The only condition they do not meet, and the reason they are asking for a variance, is because
of the pre-existing condition that is there with regard to a 15 foot landscape setback. looking at the plans, there
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
setback for landscape. If they're required to go back 15 feet, the pre-existing showroom would
permit them only one row of car display as opposed to two. They could come back five feet. At the 15
foot setback they would be at a great disadvantage with regard to merchandising and displaying those cars
to the public. One of the reasons they wanted to move to Katella was the tact it was a tremendous
street for drive-by traffic. It would be a tremendous hardship on them 'rf they had to give up 15feet.
They're not asking for any special treatment. The five major new car dealerships in the City do not have
15 foot setbacks on their arterial streets. They would like to have the same advantage as the
other dealerships with regard to merchandising. They've had an excellent relationship with planning staff. The
deal would not have goften as far as the Plannng Commission hearing without the help of Chuck Lau.
Many people have tried (over the past tour years) to put together deals with the owner who is not
enthusiastic about the General Plan oT Orange or about his property in general. Mr. Lau has been helpful
and instrumental in getting the deal this far. Stati recommends approval be granted with certain conditions; they
have read the conditions and do not have a problem concurring
with them.The public hearing
was dosed.Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve
Negative Declaration 1451-94 as prepared, and find that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment
or wildlife resources.AYES: CommissionersBosch, Cathcart,
Pruett,,Smith, Wafters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 2061-94 with the conditions listed in the staff report, and Variance
1967-94 because the existing buildings in combination with the current landscape setback
requirements would reduce the available display sales area on the site; thus, it would
result in an economic hardship.AYES: Commissioners
Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith,
Wafters NOES: None _ MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch agreed with the findings regarding the variance. Although the
City has the power and sometimes the necessity to cause properties to be brought up to code given
over the years they may fall into disrepair causing negative impacts on health and public welfare, this is a
case where there is an economic deprivation. This is a minor adjustment being requested and clearly
does not create any special privilege for
this particular piece of land.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2060-
94 - REXCO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT A request fora 25% density bonus to allow the construction of 13 rental townhouse
units. One or two of the units will be rented to lower income households. Subject property is
located
at 725 West Fletcher Avenue.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1452-94 has been
prepared to identify the
potential environmental impacts of this project.No one was in opposition to this item and the staff report was not
presented. There was an error on Page 3 of the staff report that the Commissioners received. All
other staff reports were corrected. It was the difference between very low and Tower income on the right hand
side of the pa a (monthly rents). They were reversed. A corrected list was handed
to
the Commissioners at the administrative
session.
The public hearing was opened.olicant William Uhl, 2729A Saturn Street, Brea, represented the owner, Harold D.
Miller. Their project is a 13-unit townhouse project for lease. They have endeavored to develop a
project that exceeds all of the City standards in the way of parking, size of units (35-40%); 2-car
garages are provided for all of the units,as well as access from all the units to the garages.
The Design Review Board was very complimentary of the project. They only had one comment -- they asked for
the
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
understand if their plans needed to be reviewed by the Design Review Board after the Commission's
hearing. That question was asked and the D.R.B. said they did not need to see the plans again. They
talked to other owners of multi-family developments in the area to clear the air and let people know
about the proposed development. They have reviewed the conditions listed in the staff report and do
not have a problem with them. They stipulated to one unit being very bw
inceme.Chairman Bosch asked 'rf they were required to provide a handicapped or ADA accessible housing unit
or percentage thereof, including bedrooms? if so, it boks like it would require the design of an unit
to provide a bedroom ~ the ground floor or a straight stair
run.Mr. Uhl responded he checked wBh the State. The townhouse project, by virtue of the fact they
are 2-story units are considered to beexempt. It's in the code and he verified it by
telephone conversation
as well.Chairman Bosch wanted him to be aware of the handicap requirements. In his opinion, there
was ample room on the site to work on. He appreciated they provided more than the minimum
required open space. tf in fact there is another interpretation between now and the building phase,
the Building Division will bt
him know.Commissioner Cathcart believed the Design Review Board wanted to see final landscape
plans and irrigation plans, whether it's for approval or
information purposes.Mr. Godlewski said that was correct. He did not attend theD.R.B. meeting, but he will check
the Minutes for their discussion on this project. They just want to see the plans to make sure all items
have
been incorporated.The public hearing
was dosed.Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve
Negative Declaration 1452-94 and finds that the project will nothave a significant adverse impact on the
environment
or wildlife resources.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart,
Pruett, Smith, Wafters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 2080-94 with the condtions as listed
in the staff report.AYES: Commissioners Bosch,
Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2058-
94 - CHAPMAN GENERAL HOSPITAL A request to expand the hospital with the construction of two building
additions. Subject property is boated at
2601 East Chapman Avenue.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1449-94 has been prepared
to identify the potential
environmental impacts of this project.Chairman Bosch was excused from the meeting due to a probable economic
conflict of interest under the regulations of the California Fair Campaign Practices Act.
Vice-Chairman Cathcart chaired the hearing.There was no one in opposition to this item;
a staff report was not
given.
The public hearing was opened.Applicant Howard LeVeen, Executive Director of Chapman General
Hospital, 2601 East Chapman Avenue, stated the hospital was a 25-year old general acute hospital.
It
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
they need to expand the facility. They request to build a second floor for inpatient beds, double their
operating space, double their recovery room space, double their intensive care space and allow them to
have the ability to create a birthing center. The architect and consultant were introduced and spoke about
the specifics of the proposed project.
Tim Massanari, architect, spoke briefly on the design requirements. The hospital has grown and goften
busier. The only space left to go into are the patient rooms for X-ray, administration, business
offices,etc.. The patient wing will be for replacement beds; it's not changing the license of the hospital. It's
a tight site. They also realize the hospital will continue it's daily operation during construction. The onlywaytoaccomplishthiswastobuildadditionstotheexistingbulding. He explamed each of the additions
in detail. Some on-site traffic concerns were created and Mr. Nickelson has been working with the
City to resolve them. There will be a small mechanical room in the back; that was not planned at all.
But during the design process, it became apparent there were other mechanical problems within the
building itself and they needed to look seriously at a mechanical plant. tt worked out best in the back to get
the most parking on the site. The theme of the design was set by the new entry that was built two years
ago and they wanted to maintain that H they could. He believed a simple looking buikfing could be
beautiful and attractive wfth clean lines and white
in color.Commissioner Smith understood there would be a second use on the second floor of
the mechanical building in the back. She wanted the architect io describe the second
story addition.Mr. Massanari explained they would like to locate the engineering staff on the second floor, as
well as
business offices.Bob Mickefson, 328 North Glassell, consultant to the hospital, covered some of the site plan
issues. He referred to Page 1 of the staff report regarding the exchange of property between the
City and Chapman General Hospital. Staff felt that was a bit premature and the hospital foundthatacceptable.The site plan does not hinge upon that exchange. They offered to withdraw that portion of
the proposal.There might be a need for a free right turn Zane northbound on Ywba and if that doss
happen, the property is there to provide it. On Page 6 of the staff report there wets some site plan
concsms they have been working on. He used the maps on the board to illustrate those
concerns: parking spacestcirculation regazding the ambulance entry; reciprocal easements between the properties
for traffic circulation and parking; the parking lot will be redesigned for Yorba Street traffic enteringg and
exiting on the site. Hs thought he was responsible for misleading staff about theproposedmechanicallstoragabuildingtotherear. He was under the impression that at one time ft was going to be a
flat faced warehouse building, unoccupied except for storage and mechanical equipment. He
then discovered theca would be a second floor proposed. The Police Department was concerned that
behind the building there would be an isolated area of the parking lot 'rf it remained a one storywarehousebuilding.With the occupancy of the second floor, wtth windows looking down to both the front and rear
of the building onto the parking lot, that issue is resolved. The parking lot will not be isolated,
especially when Yorba Street is extended to the north. They met with the Design Review Board on
three different occasions. Same suggestions were made to the landscape plans to which they have incorporated
in their plans. He believed they recommended approval of the project, and they wish to see thefinalplans.They found alt conditions acceptable with the exception of condition 10 -relocation of the
mectanical room addition, to the satisfaction of the Crime Prevention Bureau, to allow visibility from the hospital
into the rear parking lot. There is visibilityand it's not practical to relocate that building for a number
of reasons.Commissioner Smith asked what were the provisions for lighting at night in the parking tot
behind the
mechanical building?Mr. Mickefson responded the parking lot would have Ii hting according to modern daystandards (1 fooicandle on the surface as required by the safety code}. There is also a condition
requiring either photocells or time clocks to keep the lights on
all night.Commissioner Smith thought there was a lot of business put under one roof. She asked if
all the hospital services were located in the building or is there an attempt to relocate those services
that could be on other sites to get maximum patient use of
the facility?Mr. Mickefson said there were some oft-site leased space. Mr. LeVeen stated the
hospital has leased certain taciliiies in the community for business-type functions. It was the hospital's intent
to have ail clinical services located under the roof of the hospital, with certain
business-type functions located elsewhere.Regarding the parking issue in the back, he said there is a skeleton crew
working
Planning Commission Minutes Apra 4, 1994
employees needing parking spaces are the nurses and clinical staff caring for patients around the dock.
That number is not more than 40 people. Therefore, those employees would park in the front of the
hospital -not in the back lot.
Commissioner Walters askedrf a sign could be posted at the front of the hospital that indicated additional
parking was available behind the hospital. The number of parking spaces was typically cak:ulated from
the number of hospital beds. Yet there has been a dramatic increase at all hospdals for use of the
emergency room areas for which there really is no accommodation for parking.
Commissioner Pruett asked it it made sense to have a sign that indicates that parking for the emergency
room is in the back of the hospital vs. visitors parking in the front?
Mr. Mickelson pointed aut there was adequate room on the site far at least two ambulances to be there
simultaneously and than there is some undesignated space that ii someone came in on an emergency in
their own car, they could park in that space.
Mr. LeVeen said it would make sense to designate some spoil for emergency parking contiguous to the
emergency room. They will make those accommodations.
Commissioner Pruett asked if the offices above the mechanical room would be manned 24-hours a
day?Mr. LeVeen responded no. Those offices would be for the "back of the house" support
services.People will not be working there around the dock. The parking lot in the back will be used as a last
resort when the hospital is full and
overcrowded.Mr. Mickelson added they have been working with the Police Department about adding a
security program for the
hosptal.The public hearing was
dosed.Commissioner Smith believed the project to be a goad plan and design. She accepted the rationale
for the placement of the expansion to the building. She had concerns about the back parking lot, but
was enlightened to hear the use of the Parkingg lot would be diminished during the evening hours.
She thought extra lighting in the back portion of the parking let could be required and perhaps something
that said the perceived surveillance of the building might be enhanced by particular lighting remaining on
24 hours so that it wouldn't be perceived as a vacant
building.Commissioner Pruett was concerned about the back parking lot issue as well. He was not sure it
has been fully addressed. He agreed there was a real problem with the lot in the way it has
been developed. He hoped the applicant would explore with the Crime Prevention Bureau some
other alternatives than just putting up a building with lights left on all night to where there was a
perceived security. He thought a high level of security would be required. He'll support the project, but
was uncomfortable with that portion of the
plan.Commissioner Cathcart concurred with the ~ncern regarding the lack of visibility in the back behind
that building. He would hesitate in applying so many conditions that it would be prohibitive at this time,
but he would Tike to add a couple of things. He didnt have a problem with omitting condition 10, but
he would like to see an additional condition 10 that would add signage showing parking is available in the
rear and any additional parking management signs deemed appropriate for ease, access and visibility.
He wanted to add condition 11 -for the applicant to work closely with the Crime Prevention Bureau
to develop a security guard system andtor lighting; and hospital staff to make rounds to ensure the area
was safe between the hours o sun down and sunrise. He concurred the lighting would be an issue, but
1 footcandle is a lot of
tight.Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smth, to approve Negative
Declaration 1449-94 and finds there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact
on the environment or
wildlife resources.AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett,
Smith, Walters
NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch
MOTION
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council
to approve Conditional Use Permit 2058-94 with the listed conditions in the staff report and changes
and additions to condition 10 -adding signage showing parking is available in the rear, and any
additional parking management signs deemed appropriate for ease, access and visibility; condition 11 -applicant
to work closely with the Grime Prevention Bureau to develop a security guard system and/or IigMmg;
and hospital staff to make rounds to ensure the area was safe between the hours of sun down and
sunrise;and the elimination of #4 in the project description section on Page 1 of the staff report
regarding exchange of property between the City and the hospital. The Commission was referring to the
revised plan as submitted on March 31,
1994.AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Smith,
Walters NOES:
None MOTIONCARRIEDABSENT: Commissioner
Bosch Chairman Bosch returned to the
meeting.IN RE: ~'ONTINUED
HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-93, 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 io 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 hetght standard throughout OId Towne. Zone Change 1166-93 proposes that
all properties wdhm the RCD overlay district retain their base zone classification only, and that the
RCD classrficat~on be deleted.NOTE: Negative D~Iaration 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, January 17,1994 and
March 7, 1994 Planning Commissi~ meetings.)Staff submitted the memorandum dated March 23, 1994
to the Planning Commission outlining their comments on what they had done as per the Commission'
s request from the previous meeting.Additionally, there was information that addressed the
certified local government and certified local ordinance questions to some degree, as well as a memorandum
from Mr. Soo-Hoo, dated March 24,1994. Attached to that are all the pages staff made changes
to for insertion into the document (blue book}. Changes were also made to the Historic
Preservation Design Standards. There were so many minor Changes, rather than corcecting pages, staff reprinted the
document and put °tick marks" in the margin to show where the changes ocx:urced. It was pointed
out in the memorandum some of the controversy that evolvedfrom the previous meeting concerned the
CLO/CLG as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance and Design Standards. These were of some
concern to the public and Commission; however,approval of the document m no way approves the CLO/CLG concept. It'
s merely a framework that if the City, atsome future date, wishes to go w~ih the CLO/CLG, they
would have to go through another set of public
hearings and adoption procedures to
do so.
The public hearing was opened.Public comments Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, said they have heard about the one
step process for a Tong time, to make things easier for people. If the City intended to reduce the
hassles for citizens, why must there be so many new rules and regulations and even a new
committee -- another layer of government (BBA).Reducing the layers of bureaucracy is animprovement for a City
and it's citizens. Adding complicated procedures and restrictions is detrimental to the average citizen.
Many people who purchased homes in Old Towne do not want a Zoning Ordinance. Why should they be
singled out after they purchased their property. She referred io the areas of Olive and EI Modena; those areas have
Planning Commissan Minutes April 4, 1994
should Old Towne have such stringent rules and regulations and not the other old structures in the City?Why is CEQA required? That could tie up a person's small project for a long time.
Mr. Soo-Hoo replied CEQA is a state mandate that requires cities and other forms of govemmenttoevaluateprojectsforitsimpactontheenvironment. Regardless of what the City of Orange does init's ordinance update, CEQA will still apply by state law. It would not be absolutely necessary to refertoCEQAinthelocalordinance, but the provisions would still
apply.Mrs. Schrock asked for the definition of "small structure". Mr. Godlewski said that was a quotedirectlyfromtheStateGuidelinesandStateHandbookregardingCEQA. The "small structure" depends onwhattypeofstructureRis; whether it is residential, cwmmarcial or industrial. CEQA defines what theoccupancyofastructureistoqualifyas "small". Staff put the definition in the document to point out that theserulesdoapply. It's a courtesy to put them in so that the citizens have as many of the rules as possibletoknowwhatappliesandwhatdoesn't. CEQA applies to the entire City - to every project that isconsidered, but it is a State mandate.
Mrs. Schrock also asked what base zoning meant {Page 24)? Mr. Godlewski said base zoning was thezoningthatwasshownonthezoningmap. These standards can be more restrictive than the zoning thatislistedonthezoningmapitself. It's the underlying zoning plus whatever the standards are. Mrs.Schrock thought that was d~criminatory.
Mrs. Schrock had ons other question on Page 36 about floor elevations and asked for an explanation.Chairman Bosch said the floor elevation was the line of the floor ftselt. These are recommendations as adesignguideandarenotarequirement. Staff is trying to address compatibility with adjacent buildings.
Regarding arcular driveways {Page 41), Mrs. Schrock read circular driveways are not permitted in the frontyard, but they exist throughout OId Towne. She felt they did not need the ordinance; it is discriminatoryanddregulatesapersontodeath.
Ted Williams, 233 West Palm, endorsed the comments made by Mrs. Stthreck. They feel they are beingdiscriminatedagainstforlivinginOldTowne. The property adjacent to him was approved for 25 units perlot, whereas the area he lives in was down zoned from R4 to R2. It's hypocritical to continue to imposemoreconditionsontheolderpeoplewholiveinOIdTowne, while at the same time allowing higher andhigherdensitypropertiesadjacenttothem. They feel they are being imposed upon and thou freedom isbeingtakenawaybytheCity. It's time to start simplifying ft; not making it more complicated.
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, said at the last meeting the Old Towne Preservation Associationwantedtheword "should" taken out of the document and be replaced with "shall" because "shall" will holduppincourt. She asked that the word "shall" be taken out, but she has counted 86 "shall" words in thetvtarch23, 1994 memo. She thought they did not need a certified local government in Orange. PeoplehavetherighttoliveintheirhomesandtheyshouldnYhavetoLiveundersuchrulesthataboutninepeoplewant.
Eileen Hertielder, 720 East Culver, asked how long do 120 year old houses survive? How long does theCitywanttokeepthem? She thought the houses would deteriorate because people will lose interest intryingtorepairsomethingthatisalmostirreparable. She felt it was a waste of time for everyone.
Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Godlewski "rf the ordinance prevented people who have older homes fromremodeling, removing, replacing their homes? Or does 0 regulate the method in which they replacethem?
Mr. Godlewski responded ti's merely the method in which one goes about it. It does not prevent apersonfromdoingevenroutinemaintenance. A person can remodel their home, rebuild it or remove flandbuildanewhome. It's just a procedure to make sure that whatever you replace it with is consistentwiththesurroundingneighborhoods.
John Boca has been a resident of Orange since 1962. He has the right to speak up. There are certainareasofgovernmentinwhichthepeoplearebeingregulatedtodeath. He's tired of AQMD, tired ofOSHA, tired of the socialistic approach to govemment. He thought this issue should be given to thevoteofthepeople; felt it was a waste of time.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
Apra 4, 1994 ---Ralph
Zehner, 630 East Culver, asked'rf the old ordinance did the same thing as the new ordinance? Mr.Godlewskirespondedyes, there are provisions in the old ordinance to allow the same thing. The new ordinanceisalittlebiteasiertouseandclearertounderstand. The old Historic Design Guidelines later adoptedasStandards, had a number of ambiguities and conflicts.Mr.
Zehner read from 4 ages of information. Hs said there ware approximately 2,620cities!communitiesintheStateofCalifornia. Right now there are only 150 communities that have established someformoflocalpreservation. Out of those, there are only 30 that have a certified loce! govemment ordinance, or some form of it. There are only 30 homes in the State that are under the Mills Act. The CLGwouldcoverallbuildingsandstructuresthatareover50yearsold. It'sthe entire City -not just Old Towne. He believed the community did not want a CLOlCLG or it'sframework mentioned in the document. On Page 9 it refers to the 1992 survey, which has not been adopted by the Cdr Council.Whyhaveitinthere? On Page 8, it says there are 1,300 structures in Old Towne. No, thats another inconsistency. There era 2,300 structures. On Pages 8, 9, and 10 ft says we're the second largest wfth 1,300 - 2,300 old homes. Who is number one? He talked about the certificate of appropriateness -- he thought the documentrequiredeveryhometohaveacertificateofappropriateness. They should only apply to structuresontheNationalRegistry. On Page 9 it speaks about the D.R.B. and thefive positions. 12 onlynamesfour -- what is the fifth position? Then, there is the Board of Appeals.Chairman Bosch responded the
Board of Appeals currently exists under the statutes of the City of Orange, the State, andtheStateBuildingCodeandUniformBuildingCode. The purpose of this is to set it rn placewithoutcreatinganewBoardorCommission. The reason is to appeal an unjust ruling by a building inspector.Mr. Zehnercontinuedwith
his thoughts on overlays, RCD's -- the communty doesnot want these. On Page 37 security bars areaddressed. Can't people have these bars on the front windows of their homes? He noticed all appealscomebacktothePlanningCommissionratherthantheCityCouncil.Chairman Bosch explained the CityCouncilrequestedthattheappealprocessbechangedtoputtheappealsthroughthePlanningCommission.) Mr. Zehner asked for a quick, timely manner on this process.He asked for a definitiononwhat "over shadow" means? What is considered an adverse effect? The big one for him was the "transfer of development rights" -- this is an incentive that is not even mentioned in CLG/CLO,sBBA,~AR and go
back totheeoginal guidelines hat wosre nn~placetwo toythree months ago.Mrs. Walters asked if theymust
remove their security bars if they are already installed?T.J. Clark, 811 West Chapman,
was definitely against the CLOtCLG, but he's also concerned about the security bars. His house has thesebarsandtheywerebuiltinthehousein1924whenthehousewasoriginallybuilt. Must he remove thebars?Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, acknowledged
the hard work by the Commission and staff and adopted intott e~Historic Preset/ ationElementtoftheGeneralPlanasagoalpn~ 1981 bng before the formation of O.T.P.A. and at a timewhenmany of the Orange Taxpayers Association sat on a very large committee for the City to makealong-term plan for preservation in the City, with complete concurrence and support by all themembersthatparticipated. At that time there was no opposition. She also spoke with the State OfficeofHistoricPreservationthispastweak. k's real)y a tragedythis has been a controversy. After 13 years ofplanningandadoptingdesignstandardsforOldTowne, and with those in place, they're waiting forsomeoftheincentivestorollin. Those can only happen with some type of certified status for the area. You have very few options to enable yourselves to qualffy for soma of the Federal and State tax credits. The reason no one hears about them is because Orange does not qualify at this point. One waytoqualifyisthroughtheCLOJCLG, by the City Council certifying the local district as a certified district totheStateorFederalgovernment. At that point, Orange could then qualify for many tax credits. The otherwaytoqualifyisbynominatingtheareaasaNationalregistereddistrict. It is the desire of the O.T.P.A. membershipP and othercitizensin the area to have some of these type of credits and are supportive oftheCLO/CLG. She commented they spentnumerous hours on their letter which they submitted at thelasthearing. It had been reviewed professionally for their organization and she was disappointed not tohavereceivedaresponsefromstaffontheircomments.The public hearing was Gosed.
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
Chairman Bosch said H was true as far back as 1961, at the bequest of dtizens, the City Council adopted
certain goals with regard to historical preservation, and since that time the community, in a variety of ways,
has continued to inform itself oT the values and the hard work and challenges that surround that type of
issue. Because of that action and other actions the City Councl took with regard with the Plaza becoming
an official historic district, and the improvements of many hundreds of thousands of dollars the City has
made on behalf of the taxpayers to encourage commercial rebirth and vitality of that area, that the whole
social and economic structure and livability of the entire Old Towne area, as well as the City, has been
greatly enhanced. It doesnY mean they can' t loam over time and improve and correct things that have
gone awry. He's constantly told they are spending all of their time on Old Towne and nothing on the rest
of the City. That's absolutelyy far from the truth. There are a number of or anized and individual people
who have a great concern for what happens in the spec'rfic area of Old Towne, and bring issues for
discussion and engage the Planning Commission and City Council. It's to be commended because that
makes something better along the way. Perhaps others in the other part of the City don't feel as
emotionally, technically or economically attached to what happens in their part of town. Perhaps they teal
comfortable with what is going on, and realize the City spends more time in those areas than given credit.
The intent under the law is to have ordinances that apply to the entire City. It is also the law to recognize
existing conditions and special dreumstances that are imposed through CEOA and the EIR process.
There are many regulations, some overshadowing and overbearing, that all must live with, but to some
extent hopefully the City can interpret the regulations for the benefit of the citizens. The ordinance treats
specially many parts of the City, including the historic village of Olive that is slowly being incorporated
into the City of Orange in order for the people to receive services there. It's a continuing evolving
process to integrate all of this together in order to recognize the value to the City as a whole and the
specific, unique features in many other parts of the City. The City is stuck with CEOA; it's the law -you
have to do it whether it is mentioned in the document or not. The Building Board of Appeals is
something that has bean incorporated into the Uniform Building Code since its inception and other ICBO
related codes with regard to building. If an owner or design professional feels that the interpretation of
the code by Building & Safety offidals is unjust or inappropriately applied, they have a place to go in
their local community rather than being imposed upon by the State or some regional govemment. It's
incumbent upon the City to grant that kind of relief rather than letting the people of the CHy be struck
without having an appeal, and try to streamline govemment by putting those powers and review authority
with an existing body rather than creating a new one. He was very contained about the certified local
government and discussion overall. The intent of that whole body of law is an admirable one, but like
many, become subject to a lot of misinterpretation. The proposed ordinance does not mandate this
type of organization. Nis set up so that at whatever time the City Council, with input from the citizens in
a separate set o1 hearings and studies, can vote upon that. It is the Commission's duty to recommend to
the City Council who to look out for, what the benefits or liabilities, where to get more information and
what has happened elsewhere. The Council will then deem an appropriate time to take this issue under
discussion. There is one other issue of concern -- simplifying. Zoning will not be eliminated. He thought one
of the concerns of the people was the proposed revision to the Historic Preservation Design Standards
are the larger demon than before. Yet, he finds the document has fewer "shalls" than before and
has a lot more leeway and takes out a lot of ambiguities to help make it easier to apply. It's a great improvement
over the existing ordinance in terms of getting interpretations from the Design Review Board,
Planning Commission or City Council in guiding people who want to control the destiny of their own
properties. If it is the will of the people to keep the existing ordinance, they will be back in awhile wishing
and petitioning for a change back to the proposed ordinance. He thought that might also be the case
with the certified local government. Someday someone will simplify ft or get the State out of the way
of it to assure that local control continues. Someone will pioneer the lawsuits, the Bass action suits to boil
it down to something that will give them the assurance that something is being done and can be applied
to the City for everyone's benefit. The general feeling is that the City has come a long way.There
is a basic zoning ordinance that is constantly updated. They have made major improvements in the historic
standards, which he wished could be incorporated. He personally would keep the existing one rather
than the revised one. Several recommendations should be made to the City Council on these issues.
Commissioner
Cathcart asked staN to discuss the items Mr. Zehner specifically identified because R was important
to address them.Mr.
Godlewski responded first to the question on pre-existing conditions. There is a section in the
ordinance that deals with non-conforming and pre-existing situations. Except for a very
few exceptions,non-conforming situations and conditions that are pre-existing are allowed to remain
and are allowed to be maintained and continued so long as they exist. The question
regarding circular driveways keeps coming up. Circular driveways are not allowed in the front yard. That doesnY
preclude
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
having a circular driveway that comes onto the property and grclas behind the front yard setback - as long as
the curve is behind the required setback area. Again, 'rf a person has a arcular driveway and it doesnY meet
the requirement, ft 's apre-existing sftuation and was built fo the standards ai the time, 8 is allowed
to remain. Another point was the certificate of appropriateness required of all structures. The certificate
of appropriateness is actually a decision of the Design Review Board. If a person wants their property
to be listed an the National Register, then one at the requirements is to have a certificate of
appropriateness, which is merely a decision of the Design Review Board. Currently, the D.R.B. makes
decisions on properties regarding devebpments every Wednesday. They don't have any stated
resolution or anything other than the Minutes that documents what their decisions are. This is merely
documentation of what the Design Review Board's deasion is. If a person chooses to use that decision
to pursue their own designation of their property as a National Register property, then it can be used to
do so. The Board of Appeals was something Chairman Bosch addressed.
Commissioner Cathcart asked about the architectural signif'~can~ of a building as it relates to the issue of
pre-existing conditions. Would there be a time frame in which to rebuild anon-
conforming,
historical structure?Mr. Godlewski said it would be the property owner's responsibility to provide the
City withdocumentation (i.e, a picture orbuilding permits/plans} in order to rebuild. They must show that
ft was existing before it was destroyed. Mr. Ryan added staff has a survey of photographs
and buildings which have gained additional architectural elements over time become part ofthat building's fabric
and it would
be acceptable.Commissioner Cathcart said on Page 8 there was discussion about the numbers of
historic buildings.Perhaps numbers should be less sigrnf~cant in the document and more of an approximation.
It always leads to disagreements. On Paga 9 it discusses the historical survey. He thought
the documentation should state the survey was not voted on or approved by the City Council. {The survey
was accepted and filed by the City Council in May, 1992.) Staff needs to be more specific as to identification
of
the survey.Mr. Ryan said that was not the total number of buildings in OId Towne. Those are the
number of buildings which were ident'rfied both in 1982 and 1992 as being contributing historic
structures. The transfer of development rights was originally included in one of the first drafts, but due to the
fact there was a lot of discussion was omitted trom
the guidelines.Chairman Bosch would like the City Council to consider the transfer of development rights
as something for staff to undertake in the future as resources become available. It's not only valuable for
Old Towne,but in other areas of the City
as well.Commissioner Cathcart had concerns about the terminology and elements that would
transpire for cert'rfied local ordinance and certified local government. In the memo that was handed to
the Commission,the approval by the City Council of these documents, does not result in the adoption of the
Cl0/CLG.Commissioner Walterssaid 66°10 of his time has been spent on this small district. It's an
important district,but shame on all of you to not work out the solutions and problems among the residents
in the community. The only historic area he finds in the region that has some true ambiance to it lies in
the Cfty of Orange. He thought that was io the credit of both sides and all the people who have done
what they could. Twenty-six of the changes recommended and asked for fast lima by those in
opposition to the ordinance, 2t of them have been addressed and have been modified and incorporated
in the document.Enough is enough -he's prepared to move forward wfth the ordinance as it is. The City
of Orange can be proudof what it's got in the way of traditron. The Old Towne area is an attractive area that has
held it's property value. He felt nothing they changed at this meeting or next month or next year
is going to make some people a supporter of any form of ordinance. The proposed ordinance is
a big step forward from
the previous ordinance.Commissioner Pruett was ready to move forward on a recommendation to the City
Council. He thought with anything new there were a lot of concerns and issues that people had because of
the changes. Ha felt this particular document, in the way ft has been prepared, is really going to
be more beneficial.Commissioner Smith was in favor of the proposed ordinance. She found it extremely
offensive to be compared to a socialistic approach by members of the audience. To be told their work
is useless was insensitive and offensive. What bothers her the most, the gentleman who delivered
those
Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1994
has never sash in the Chambers before. His information was obtained from other people. She
believed they were privileged to live in a democratic society where they were entitled to their opinions
and viewpoints. She struggled to find out how people who represent a taxpayers organization will
oppose measures that would give tax credit advantages to some property owners. She thought this
was discriminatory and against property rights. She would give up her circular driveway in a moment if
that would do anything to the preservation of Old Towne (she didn't even like the driveway - it came with the
house and has been there for 40 years). But that's not the point. She struggled with people who pick
at little things like that and say they represent the community at large. She took those comments with a
grain of salt. She never wants to go back to the days of neighbors shouting at neighbors in public meetings
over a period of 8 to 10 years. It is no accident the community has been preserved and there are
1,300structures in the area because the community preserved them. Her house is 106 years old and she
had no doubt it would stand for another 106 years. She thought the West Coast struggled with a mentality.
The East Coast has structures that have been standing for 100, 150, 200 and 250 years because
those people preserve their community and history. Ii Old Towne were to go to the vote of the ~
ople, ft would be an overwhelming consensus to preserve the Old Towne neighborhood. She wou
d like to polish a few areas of the document. She shared Mr. Zehner's concern about the wording of the
D.R.B. composition. The pendulum keeps swinging from being too strict to not being strict enough.She
was concerned that the fifth seat be held by someone whose main area of expertise is in historic architecture.
She was not comfortable in leaving that to two of the five should have experience in that area.
Because of the way the D.R.B. is set up now, they will mainly see projects in Old Towne. It's within
the rationale of the D.R.B. to have someone who sits on that body whose main area of expertise isstronglyweightedintheareaofhistoricarchitecture. She didnY think it was discriminatory or askmg too much.
She would not like to see the D.R. B, composed of three architects or to be weighted to the other side
especial)y if the certificate of appropriateness will assist people in documenting the historic authentiaty
of their properties. A credible source is needed on that body. She thought it was misinterpreted
the place of the 1992 historic inventory. They wouldn't of had a 1992 survey had they not had
a 1982 survey. Everyone knows the Council could not adopt the historic survey; however, without a ten
year analysis of the original survey, the original survey loses some teeth. She hoped the wording would
be appropriate and give weight to the fact that the City spent a lot of money on the inventory,spent
a lot of time on ft, and it was a necessary piece in the preservation of this particular area. She also addressed
the tact that the CEQA documentation was ap ropriate in the ordinance, as explained by Mr.Godlewski
at the last hearing. Her understanding of CE~A was that any structure or building, which is considered
a cultural or historic resource, could have CEQA applied to it. It doesnl have to be old. If k is
something the community values, CEQA can apply. It is the recognition by the community of the value of
the building as a historic or cultural resource. Therefore, ft doesn't have to be in a historic district; R can be
on a hill by itself or be elsewhere and CEQA would still apply. She believed it was better to put things
out front so developers and builders know what the law is and what the provisions are. Then there are
no surprises or secrets and hopefully there will be a minimum of lawsuits. She suggested at the last hearing
to incorporate two simple definitions into the definition list. Those being "downtown core" and spoke
streets". She would like these added for simple clarification. She questioned the point of driveways
in Frank Gonzales' letter -driveways being too narrow and 3-car garages. He objected to the
speafic driveway minimum widths.
Chairman Bosch said it was a specific minimum width. That means a person could make it wider if they
wanted to. It's aminimum - not a maximum.Commissioner
Smith didn4 think the awning section was treated as completely as it could be in the commercial
area. In the lighting area it says there cant be any flashing lights. What about holiday lights?rt'
s not spelled out.Chairman
Bosch appreciated Commissioner Smith's concern about the membership of the Design Review
Board. He cautioned though not to make such stringent requirements for historic architecture experience.
It's makes it too tight when there are so few resources and you end up with a vacant position
vs. looking for something that has a bit more leeway that can be tested through the interview process
and considered by the City Council for appointment. You cant force someone mto the position against
their will. Sometimes contractors know more about historic structures than architects because they'
ve had to go in and put ft back together.Commissioner
Cathcart didnY have a problem with adding definitions. He thought the document should stand
the way it is. The comments made by Commissioner Smith should be made part of the Minutes and
recommendations that are forwarded to the City Council.11
Planning Commission Minutes Aprft 4, 1994
Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Negative Declaration1437-93 and find that the projeq will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.AYES: Cornrnissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Wafters NOES: None MOTION
CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to recommend to theCityCouncltoapproveZoneChange1166-93 and Ordinance Amendment 4-93, includingtheDraftZoningOrdinance, Title 17, dated f-abruary 7, 1994, including those changes dated March23, 1994, the Historic Preservation Standards for Old Towne Orange, draft dated March 23, 1994, with the corregions as indicated by the Planning Commission: number of historic buildings,
discussion regarding the historic
surveys, and two definitions.The Commission wanted to highlight those portions of the Minutes that referredtotheirconcernsaboutapproppriateCttyCouncilreview, informing the community, legal background andfullresearchontheCLOiCLGbeforetheCouncildeterminedtomoveaheadwiththatissue. Thereneedstobeanappropriatetimetablesetupforthatanditrequiresaspegfic, separate actionandshouldn`t be discarded without the proper research, nor moved ahead inappropriatelywithoutassuringthesafeguardsforthecommunity. With regard to the proposed amendments totheDesignStandards, the Commission highlighted to the City Council this was an extraordinary improvement overtheonethatiscurrentlyinplaceandencouragedit's adoption. Therefore, the Commissionpreferreditbemovedahead, but the whole Zoning Ordinance not be held up by turther
discussions in that regard.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Wafters
NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Godlewski stated they will make the changes to the documents asrequestedbythePlanningCommission. They could bring the corregions back to the Commission for finalreview. Staff wilt forward to the City Council the degsion of the Planning Commission and provide themwithallthedocumentation.The City Council, at that time, will decide whether to go to a public
hearing or study session.Chairman Bosch said the changes were so minimal that staff could inform theCommissionby
memo of thOSe COR8Ct10nS.
IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATION Eileen Herttelder, 720 East Culver, was tired of going to Anaheim and bouncingacrosstherailroadtracks.Will they ever get around to
doing something with them?Mr. Johnson responded the City has been trying for some time to get therailroadtoimprovetheircrossings. They've got some impprovements and will get additional improvements inthefuture. The one railroad that is a problem is the Southern Pacrfic Railroad. There's about 10 crossingsintheCity. New installations are antigpated
to begin this
summer.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn themeetingat
9:40 p.m.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Pruett, Wafters
NOES:
None