Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None April 5, 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Murphy was recently appointed to fill a vacancy on the City Council; the Commission applauds and congratulates his movement to that position. Vice-Chairman Bosch will chair the Planning Commission meetings. IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 15. 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of March 15, 1993 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-93 -DOUG MANISTA A request to allow an automotive retail accessory and service facility in the C-1 (Limited Business) zone. Subject property is located at 4935 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1423-93 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the March 15, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) Staff has received a number of correspondence and petitions from neighbors and residents in the area, which have been included in the Commissioners packets. Phone calls have also been received from a number of people concerning their feelings on the project. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition. The site is currently developed with a single family residence and detached garage. It is on the north side of Chapman Avenue, between Rancho Santiago Boulevard and Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 The site has approximately 84 feet of frontage on Chapman Avenue. The surrounding and adjacent land uses include commercial use to the west, apre-school to the east, which are both zoned C-1; north are single family residences under the County's jurisdiction; and south, across Chapman Avenue, are tennis courts associated with the multi-family development in the R-2-6 zone. The applicant proposes to demolish the structures and construct an automotive retail accessory service facility. The proposed building will contain seven service bays, which will be used for light auto repair such as oil changes, tune ups, air conditioning service and tire and brake installations. The primary issue before the Planning Commission is whether the proposed facility is compatible with existing and planned land use in the immediate vicinity. The project site is located in a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Adjacent land uses are consistent with the General Plan Land Use goals for the area and appear to be stable. They seem likely to continue without significant change in the near future. Typical of automotive service facilities the greatest potential impact to adjacent properties is from noise associated with repair work, air emissions and odors. The residential uses to the north and pre-school to the east are especially sensitive to these types of impacts. The staff report includes a number of conditions should the Planning Commission choose to approve the project. Commissioner Bosch explained the public hearing process to those in the audience; the Commission asked that if many people wished to speak to try and keep the comments brief and to the point, without repetition. Everyone's cooperation was appreciated in being fair to those who speak in a position opposing theirs so that all may be heard in order for the Commission to consider all the evidence. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Gregory Bennett, 12821 Newport Avenue, Tustin, represented Doug Manista as his architect. He handed the Commission a packet of documents, which included a map of the contextural area showing a group of neighbors, commercial owners and tenants that are in support of their project. Both of the residential neighbors who are physically tangent to the project signed a petition in favor of the development. One of the issues associated with the project is traffic. Their project will increase traffic over the current use, which is anon-compliance single family dwelling. They will probably generate between 100 and 150 cars per day. But it that were compared to an average retail facility, which would be a compatible use on the site, it would generate an average of 300 to 1,000 trips per day on the average square footage. Their traffic is a small component in comparison to other retail uses; they have mitigated as many concerns as they could. The dual access on Chapman and Rancho Santiago, through the Circle K property will remove and help mitigate some of those concerns. They met with the neighbors on a couple of occasions. They met with seven people; 4 people were opposed and 3 people were in support. The primary concerns were noise and traffic. They explained the issues and how they plan to mitigate them. The pre-school, who would be substantially impacted by noise, is in support of their project. The pre-school felt the monitored location would help mitigate their concerns with the loitering that occurs at Circle K. The school had many concerns and their concerns were met with a six foot barricade, sufficient landscaping with ever green trees, a five foot setback on the southeast corner to allow for visual access to Chapman when exiting the property; the color scheme was compatible and they fully support the project. Staff and the Design Review Board support the architecture and landscaping of the proposed site. The site, 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 because of its narrowness on Chapman, does not lend itself to very many other uses. It currently has a drainage problem to the north. The development will help mitigate that. The conditions of approval are fairly restrictive, but they don't have a problem with them. It's a good economic mix that is a good land use for the site. It's a good piece of architecture infill. Doug Manista, 3365 South Bristol, Santa Ana, is a small business owner. This project represents a large investment in the local economy. The proposed project will employ 10 to 15 full-time and part-time employees from entry level to management positions. He sponsors little league, soccer teams and red ribbon week. They are routinely involved in community sport programs in the area. He wants to be a good neighbor and will attempt to work cooperatively with the neighbors. His neighbors support the design of the project from both a land use and architectural standpoint. The staff report lists several conditions to help mitigate the concerns of traffic and noise. He asked for a favorable consideration of his project. Commissioner Cathcart brought to staff's attention a correction was needed on Page 6 of the staff report, condition 4 -- the reciprocal rights with the abutting property to the west" rather than the east. Commissioner Smith wanted to know what kinds of automotive services would be provided? Mr. Manista said it would include the installation of shock absorbers and tires, light oil changes, tube and tunes, but there would be no alarm systems or radios. Those speakina in favor Tim Briley, 3365 South Bristol, Santa Ana, would be the proposed manager on the site. This will be a professionally run business and it will be a benefit to the neighborhood. They will do their best to support the community. Don Peak, 150 South Waterwheel, has known Doug for almost 30 years. He has seen many changes to Chapman Avenue and Crawford Canyon Road since 1966. Most of the changes are really great; there are some things that are not so great. This proposed use will not create problems of loitering. Those speakina in opposition John Delgado, 18971 Pearl Street, lives in EI Modena and was concerned about the square footage of the facility and hours of operation. Pneumatic equipment will be used which is loud and will create noise problems. This is not the same use as Pep Boys because they are going to service vehicles. The business should not be approved in the C-1 zone. It is a good use, but not in this location. Traffic was another problem to consider. Ruby Maldonado Kobayashi, 321 Prospect Park South, Tustin, represented her parents who live at 92101 East Center Street. A petition of 100 people object to this repair shop at the proposed site. It is inconsistent with existing land uses, which will be negatively impacted. The safety of the children will also be jeopardized as they will be exposed on a daily basis to the hazards at the repair shop. 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Steve Weitz, 4900 East Chapman Avenue #103, was opposed to the project. His bedroom window directly faces the proposed facility. He is sensitive to noise and will be impacted greatly. Jeff Gray, 19091 East Center, was opposed to the project because of the traffic flow and peak hours. Traffic accidents average two a month at the intersection. Rebuttal Mr. Bennett responded to the hours of operation. The hours have been limited as suggested in the conditions of approval. There will be no stereo installations. The compressors do create noise, but they will be constructed internally inside a block building on pads to isolate the noise internally. The sounds discussed in the staff report are 55 dB(A). The average dB(A) during peak traffic times on Chapman Avenue have been recorded to be as high as 75 dB(A). Even though there are 100 people in opposition, there are as many as 300 people in support of the project. The current land use is commercial; it is not residential. There are substantial setbacks on the property to help mitigate many of the concerns. They don't have peak business times like the school. It is spread over a greater amount of time. The proposed project will be a better neighbor to the school than what is there now. Commissioner Smith asked how many meetings the applicant had with the community? Mr. Bennett said they had two meetings in his office and had about five phone calls. Because of the neighbors' concern about the trash enclosure, it was moved to help mitigate that concern. Commissioner Walters asked if the school were present at the meetings? Mr. Bennett responded no. Dr. Edwards was out of the country; however, he did come in later to review the plans and was in support of the project. He could not attend tonight's meeting either. Millie's husband, the school operator, attended both meetings. Commissioner Bosch asked about the operation and sales -- what proportion of the business would be characterized as engine tune ups and repairs? Mr. Manista explained there would be no engine rebuilding at the facility. He's a quick service, one day, operation. He will not be doing any tune ups on scopes. He does not get into the mechanical part of the vehicle. There will not be any smog certifications. Commissioner Bosch had a couple of concerns relative to the site layout; the fit within the community and the appropriateness for that, and the site design which demonstrates to some extent that appropriateness. There are two very significant sight line problems, particularly given that there is through traffic that will occur during open business hours. The first sight line problem is at the first service bay behind the retail portion of the building where there is zero clearance and no cut off for anyone backing a vehicle out of that service bay into the northbound portion of the drive aisle. That's a clear vehicular conflict. The second is the trash bin immediately south of the reciprocal parking drive. It doesn't provide what appears to be adequate sight line cut off so that people coming through from Circle K eastbound onto the property and making a relatively tight radius turn will not be able to see on coming or backing traffic. Can these issues be mitigated? 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Mr. Bennett said there was no setback; it was a 25 foot back up lane with a 35 foot bay. He felt there was adequate maneuvering inside the bay. There is sufficient room for two cars to be on the property before they would start to block up into Chapman. Commissioner Bosch did not like to see people hurt and explained the problem again. There is no sight line or clearance around the corner of the building since the building's west wall is immediately against the side of the drive. That's a conflict in terms of visibility. The second is a similar problem at the corner for vehicles entering the site from the Circle K and turning south to drive around the trash enclosure. There will be a liability problem. Mr. Bennett said they could tighten up the parking on the west side to allow for a greater radius in order to make that right turn at the trash enclosure. Employees drive the cars in and out of the service bays; he did not understand the concern. Commissioner Bosch was also concerned about the reciprocal parking agreement. He was worried about the traffic from Circle K coming through and it's impacts on the proposed operation. He was also worried about the safety of the wrought iron gate and the potential for trash and mischief. Mr. Bennett said it was a reciprocal access agreement and not a reciprocal parking agreement. It's not that they can share each other's parking. The closure of the gate will be sufficient. What currently happens is loitering occurs on the outside of Circle K because there is no monitored lot. Circle K will benefit from a safety standpoint and they will benefit from dual exiting. He doesn't see that as a negative, but only as a positive benefit to both parties. Commissioner Bosch said the applicant indicated there would be no stereo installations or smog certifications. And, the air compressor and pneumatic/hydraulic equipment be contained in a sound proofed concrete/masonry room (internally within the block building) in a room separated from the remainder of the service bays (for a contained noise when the service doors were open)? Would they be willing to stipulate to that as a condition of approval? (Yes.) The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith thought this was a nice design and standing alone, it's a nice looking project. She had trouble though with the neighborhood mix of the location of this particular use. She was not sure this was the best project for this particular neighborhood. She had concerns about the pneumatic equipment and personally could think of nothing worse than the sound of the machines on Sundays. If the sound could be mitigated and the sound was buffered, she would change her opinion. Although there is a petition of 300 in favor of the project, there are approximately 10 different cities represented in that petition. Many of the signatures are not from the immediate neighborhood. The two biggest concerns are the problems with allowing an auto use in the C-1 zone and about the precedent it sets for auto use in C-1 zones for other areas of the city. In some areas it would fit, but not in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Walters was impressed with the applicant's support that he has from the immediate adjacent owners. They are the ones, in his opinion, that have the most impact. If the mitigations were included with the proposal, he would tend to think this 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 was an acceptable use. It's a difficult, narrow lot that is not conducive to a lot of other retail or professional uses. Commissioner Cathcart said everyone who spoke was concerned about noise and traffic and about whether or not the use is more detrimental than what is there now. The C-1 zone allows a lot of uses that would be more intense than what is proposed. If noise and traffic trips could be mitigated, the use would be beneficial. The traffic concerns should be brought to the attention of the Traffic Division and Police Department. There is a problem out there now and it should be addressed. Safety is an important factor; a use such as is proposed would be beneficial. The internal circulation problem with the first bay is a concern. He would also like to feel more comfortable that the ambient noise will be less than what is currently on Chapman. Perhaps an acoustical engineering test would provide some engineering data on the noise and mitigation measures. He's convinced the traffic will be mitigated, but he's not convinced the noise level is going to mitigate it enough by the condition of putting the compressor in an enclosed sound proof building. Commissioner Bosch said the Planning Commission and City Council were extremely concerned about setting a precedent and the approval of the Pep Boys concept was based to a great extent on extremely specific conditions relative to that site. He has concerns about the gated closure and if the project is recommended for approval he would ask for a condition or an indication in the approval that the gate be an option of the developer rather than a requirement of the C.U.P. He believes it will be a nuisance and the elimination of the gate will help alleviate some traffic problems. Perhaps there are sound studies available from Pep Boys or other studies staff could share with the applicant. The sight lines are a critical concern. People will use the short cut to get to Circle K; he doesn't want to see any of the children get hurt. There's room for minor modifications that could take care of that problem at the first service bay. He was concerned about the number of related auto uses already on the street. With mitigations in place, this could be a site where such a use might be less intensive than both that are granted by permit under the current zones. Would the applicant consider coming back to the Commission with some acoustical information and a revision to the sight line? He clarified his thoughts about the wrought iron gate: Giving the applicant the option to eliminate the gate upon further consideration, let them do away with it rather than having it as a violation of the C.U.P. Mr. Bennett concurred a continuance would be the best solution. He said there are studies that could give noise statistics, but it should be deferred until their facility is operational. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2004-93 to their meeting of April 19, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING April 5, 1993 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-93 -ORLANDO BARELA, PASTOR -HOUSE OF FAITH A request to establish a church within an existing multiple tenant industrial complex, and to permit the joint use of parking facilities within the complex. Subject property is located at 1024 North Lemon Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Pastor Orlando Barela, 910 North Hart, has lived in Orange for almost 15 years. He came as a "reject" from another city because of his parole conditions. Drugs, gang activity and violence have gotten out of hand. They started their church three years ago and work with people who are ex-gang members or ex-drug addicts. They have been working with the Pearl Street and OVC (off of Cypress Street and the Wilson Street Apartments) gangs and trying to share with them there is a better way of life. They are a family church and have been working closely with the community, including supporting Mary's Kitchen. Their outreach ministry is very positive; they need to relocate their buildings and they are asking for favorable consideration of the conditional use permit. He has read the staff report and conditions of approval and did not have a problem with them. Commissioner Smith asked how old the church is and about how many members they have? Pastor Barela said they will be three years old in August and have between 150-175 members. Commissioner Smith asked if there was a particular program they use in working with gang members? Pastor Barela said they have been working with the "DATE" program from the school district. He also took some courses working with "At Risk" youth. They also deal with men's and women's training centers. Those speaking in favor Ray Zamora, 4701 Sunswept, Santa Ana, was impressed with the church and their love for the city and their community outreach. Brenda Molina, 18662 East Pearl #B, read encouraging words and shared her experience since joining House of Faith. John Montano, 264 South Park Street, said the families in the neighborhood welcome this church without opposition. The church will benefit the area and community. 7 Planning Commission Minutes Closing statements April 5, 1993 Pastor Barela got a phone call from the mobile home park across the street from the proposed location. They wanted to know what the church was going to do in the area because of a lot of crime. The church wants to be their friend and will send them a letter offering help and assistance if needed. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch thought the staff report was a fine one, but he addressed concerns about difficulty of administering parking where there is shared parking in a complex. The Commission has seen other similar uses and he asked staff if there have been complaints or concerns about the shared parking at previously approved churches in industrial areas? To Mr. Godlewski's knowledge, there have not been any complaints or concerns. Commissioner Bosch knew the Environmental Review Board was concerned about the trend toward church locations in light industrial areas vs. what was considered to be more appropriately zoned properties in residential areas. In his opinion, this was a natural outcome of several factors, one of which is the impact of parking in residential neighborhoods, as well as the trend of placing churches in industrial type zones rather than in residential or commercial properties. He was concerned with condition 2 and the wording of "church activities". He would like to change "activities" to "assembly uses" or some other use because activities include the office and administrative uses. Commissioner Cathcart lives within five blocks of the proposed church location and wishes them well. He hopes they can make an impact on a lot of the illegals that have infiltrated the area. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of C.E.Q.A. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2008-93 with conditions 1 and 2, amending condition 2 by changing the word "activities" to "assembly uses". AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-93 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment adding provisions to Orange Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning Ordinance to establish the procedure for granting density bonuses and additional concessions as incentives for the development of affordable housing, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1412-93 has been prepared for this project. 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Barbara Gander, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Since 1979 State law has included provisions whereby a developer who volunteers to build affordable housing is, as an incentive, granted an increase in density beyond that permitted by the General Plan in order to offset the construction costs. This is termed, "granting a density bonus." More recent, density bonus legislation requires that local jurisdictions adopt and implement an ordinance to provide for the granting of density bonuses and additional concessions as incentives for the development of affordable housing. This amendment has been proposed in order to comply with the State law requirements. This ordinance details the mandatory State requirements which include foremost that local government shall grant a density bonus of at least 25%, and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a developer of a housing development agreeing to construct at least 10% of the units for very low income households; or 20% of the units for lower income households; or 50% of the units for senior citizens. The developer must demonstrate that the added incentive is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. The State requirements include restrictions as to how long the units shall remain affordable, based on the type of concessions granted. There are also some eligibility requirements that the State imposes; it must be a housing development of 5 or more units in order for them to utilize the ordinance. Not included in the State statutes is how the local jurisdictions shall implement the density bonus law. This ordinance sets up a procedure to determine the type of review process, who will review the applications and what will be required with each density bonus application. The proposed ordinance addresses and is consistent with State law. Commissioner Walters understood the density bonus was available to developers who were going to make the project at least 50% available for senior citizens. He asked if they needed to make it a requirement that it needs to be a project that is otherwise designated exclusively for senior citizens (100%)? Ms. Gander said that would be more restrictive than the State density bonus law; it cannot be done. Commissioner Walters has seen some real abuse of this ordinance. Ms. Gander explained the Commission has the option when reviewing a density bonus or senior housing project to look at the types of incentives being requested. Most senior housing developments are built with a higher density than 25%. Commissioner Bosch had a couple of questions on the text of the proposed ordinance. Under Section 17.37.100 -Purpose and Intent -- it indicates the purpose is to encourage the development of affordable housing by contributing to the economic feasibility of its development. Could there be another word added to make the intent more clear? Section 17.37.300 and .400 -- .400, second line, refers to a "qualifying housing development project". It would help to insert in the first line of 17.37.300 to state, "This Section shall apply to a "qualified housing development", which is defined as the new construction of... so as not to have a problem. He was also concerned in the Development Incentives, Section .400 on the incentives that may be requested. The intent is that these would be incentives only where the current Development Standards exceed minimum State building code requirements. (Correct.) Was he correct on #2 where this would allow for mixed use in conjunction with the housing development upon properties zoned for commercial, office, or industrial use and under the remainder of the current ordinance this would apply only to senior housing? 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Ms. Gander said they currently allow development in the C-1 and C-2 zones via a conditional use permit as an option. On #3 an incentive is a regulatory incentive or concession resulting in identifiable cost reductions such as, a reduction or waiver of planning review fees, development fees, or building plan check and permit fees. This will be reviewed by the City Council with regard to policy and ordinance. (Right.) He prefers to see reimbursement if the project is completed, rather than a waiver of the fees upon application. He requested minor modifications that if the incentive was granted, then it be on a reimbursement basis upon project completion. Item 4, same paragraph, states an incentive is to allow for a density bonus greater than 5% or more than one regulatory incentives provided a higher percentage of units are designated as affordable. There is no limit set on the number of regulatory incentives or the percentage. What are staff's comments or thoughts? Ms. Gander said the limit is set on making the project economically feasible. If it is determined through the application process that the developer is requesting too many incentives, then it would be more than economically feasible for them to develop affordable housing. Staff would then suggest eliminating certain incentives. Under the application procedure, there is a clause where the City may require an independent appraisal or financial analysis of the project without the density bonus and without the concessions and then with to make the determination as to when the breaking point is. Commissioner Cathcart wanted clarification from Mr. Herrick regarding Linda Boone's correspondence. She is with the Orange Housing Development Corporation and her letter is dated April 1, 1993. Mr. Herrick said in Ms. Boone's letter she expressed some concern regarding Subsection 700 (a) and 700 (c) and suggested a potential solution to that problem. The solution she suggests would not be legally supported; it would be an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. But, they could provide for a provision that would state something to the effect that in the place of the provision of those two subsections the project applicant could propose terms and conditions designed to achieve the same result as those two subsections in terms of enforceability, which would then be subject to the review and approval process of the conditional use permit procedure rather than just an administrative waiver, which would be unlawful. Commissioner Cathcart would like Mr. Herrick to put what he said in layman's terms; then staff could take that and insert it in the document, along with the other minor adjustments. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-93 for two weeks for staff to incorporate Mr. Herrick's wording and proposed modifications. Action will be taken at the April 19, 1993 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 10 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING April 5, 1993 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-93, ZONE CHANGE 1159-93 -CITY OF ORANGE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS A request to change the zoning for 29 parcels from R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) to R-2-6 (Residential Duplex, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). This request also requires a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site from Low Density Residential (2-6 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-15 dwelling units per acre). The subject property is 29 parcels that total 8.71 acres in area and that are located primarily along the south side of Culver Avenue, north of Chalynn Circle, west of Cambridge Street and east of Shaffer Street. Properties are addressed as follows: 504 to 816 East Culver Avenue (even #'s south side of the street), 406 to 444 South Cambridge Street (even #'s west side of the street), 425 to 447 South Shaffer Street (odd #'s eastside of the street) and the 400 block of south Pine Street, parcels 2 and 3 (810 East Culver Subdivision). NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1425-93 has been prepared for this project. Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, presented the staff report. The area of concern is "Area E" and covers 29 parcels totaling approximately 8.7 acres of land. The proposal by Mr. Zehner and 19 property owners of 23 parcels is for a zone change from R-1-6 to R-2-6 for the 29 parcels without the R-C-D overlay. There are other zoning classifications that the Planning Commission might consider and the advertisement for this meeting included that statement. In addition to the zone change request, there would be a general plan amendment required to redesignate the area from low-density residential to low-medium density residential, which would be in conformance with the R-2 zoning. Originally a petition by the owners was presented to the City Council in March, 1992. City Council referred this matter to the Community Development Department and requested the planners review the request and make a recommendation regarding the zone change. The City Council also made a commitment at that time to handle this zone change request in a similar manner to that of the request from the southwest quadrant of Old Towne. There were five workshops held between June and August of last year, covering the four areas of the southwest quadrant as well as this area. The workshop on East Culver was held August 10, 1992. On May 13, 1992 the City Council and Planning Commission received an update on the City's historic building survey and a status report on the City's preservation planning program. In addition, during the public workshops staff prepared reports on two specific areas as requested by the Planning Commission. One, on the actual build out of units on a typical lot within Old Towne; and a second on the economics of preservation and various development scenarios related to the Old Towne area. Those reports were attached to the staff report for this meeting. On February 9, 1993 the City Council reviewed the reports from the Planning Commission from the public workshops, concurred with the Commission's recommendation to hold public hearings on sub areas B" through "E"; and that sub area "E" should be separated from the other three and held first because of the difference and nature of the request. Zoning to the west and to the south are R-2; to the northeast and east are R-1; there is a mixed use on the lots on the north side of Culver Avenue in the general area -both single family and duplex development. Of the existing 29 parcels, 25 are residential in use; 4 are vacant. Of the 25 developed parcels in the study area, 21 or 84% are owner-occupied properties. Of the 26 structures in the study area, 18 or 69% are contributing historic structures; 7 are 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 non-historic. Of the 16 structures on Culver Avenue, 15 are historic structures. Twelve or 66% of the historic structures on the block have retained a high degree of their original architectural features. In terms of the bulk, mass and density, 9 of the 29 parcels have lot areas less than 6,000 square foot minimum of the zone. The majority of the smaller lots are on either Cambridge or Shaffer as opposed to Culver. The average Culver Avenue parcel is 19,866 square feet in size (66' x 310'). The largest parcel in the study area is slightly over an acre in size at 46,354 square feet. Of the 26 structures in the study area, 19 are single story in height; 5 are 1 1 /2 stories; and one is a two-story building. Staff has attempted to define the 1 1/2 story building, which is an architectural definition based on a second story being contained within the established roof line and where room heights within that 1 /2 story conform to the building code requirements established for habitable space. The 1 1/2 story buildings have two floors of habitable rooms, but appear as a one story structure from an architectural standpoint. Under the R-1-6 zoning, the average lot on Culver of 19,866 square feet would support approximately three units. The build out of the area on Culver under the existing R-1-6 zone would be 58 units, for an increase of 123% (that's for the entire area; not dust for Culver Avenue). Other zoning alternatives available to the Commission which address building height, mass and the number of dwelling units would include the R-C-D suffix. It would require the review of all 2 story structures through the conditional use permit process. The A suffix limits the height of buildings to 1 story or 20 feet, whichever is less. The staff report identified several development proposals that have occurred over recent years. Actions on those development proposals which were primarily in the form of lot splits basically are consistent with the existing R-1 zoning and support the R-1 zoning on the property. With regard to infrastructure, the Public Works Department has estimated the current infrastructure system in place is adequate to support existing development densities under the R-1 zoning except for sewer capacity. Anew sewer planned for the area to accommodate the R-1 zone will accommodate either R-1 or R-2 densities. Traffic counts related to the existing development generates approximately 260 trips; approximately 580 trips for the build out of the R-1 zone, and approximately 960 trips for the R-2 proposed zoning. The existing street system, in staff's opinion, would accommodate the increased average daily trips in the area. The one negative factor presently occurring in the area is the possibility of not widening LaVeta Avenue between Shaffer and Glassell. The City Attorney's office has received a letter from an attorney with the Hamilton and Samuels firm with regard to historic preservation issues and the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff is attempting to respond to that letter and anticipates the possible need to look at an overall environmental assessment for the Old Towne area in addressing historic and CEQA issues. The Planning Commission has received a letter from Mrs. Shannon Tucker that addresses several issues, three of which are the utilities/sewer, traffic and tentative impact questions in terms of the overall impact from development as well as from a historic standpoint. In developing a recommendation, staff has considered all of the above issues including the workshop held last August relating to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Historic Preservation Element, as well as the previous land use decisions that have occurred within the study area. Staff's recommendation is to retain the existing low density General Plan designation and the R-1-6 zoning for the area because it is consistent with prior decisions by the Planning Commission and City Council; the existing zoning is consistent with and reflects current land use patterns within the study area; the zoning combined with the large parcels on Culver Avenue will allow for an additional development of 32 units; that the historic and single family character of the unique neighborhood may be impacted by a potential increase in density under the R-2-6 zoning; and that the existing zoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land use in the area. 12 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Commissioner Cathcart questioned the period of time it took staff to prepare the Negative Declaration. It also bothered him that the staff report states the infrastructure sewer capacity) is inadequate. That is an impact that should be addressed in the Negative Declaration. The staff report also infers LaVeta is going to be widened; LaVeta is not going to be widened east of Glassell at this time. There is an impact on traffic that has not been addressed in the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Bosch added as part of the public hearing the testimony adds to the information with regard to the environmental impact report and they can modify or add to the information contained therein, unless it is so overwhelming a change that it requires a reassessment. The public hearing was opened. Public comments Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver Avenue, was the gentleman who circulated the petition and submitted it to the City. He read the reasons for the re-zoning -- to bring their area into parity with other properties. Visual aids were used to show the property owners who wanted to be re-zoned. He believes there is no such thing as a story and a half residence. It is considered as a 2 story home. The homes all have driveway access. There are 19 property owners; they own 23 of the 29 properties and control 6.8 acres. Most recently 810 East Culver was split into two lots. The existing zoning is not consistent with the surrounding land use pattern. He pointed out duplex properties in the area. He understands the R-C-D zone is to keep people from building in single story residential areas. It would be illogical to have a R-C-D overlay zone in place. He is on the LaVeta widening committee and he thinks it will be widened at least to three lanes because the City will lose Measure M funds if they don't widen the street. He read the environmental analysis as it related to the Negative Declaration. He was in favor of building second units for senior citizens. Commissioner Walters asked what Mr. Zehner had to back up his contention or assumption that the additional homes would end up being for senior citizens as opposed to the general population or children? Mr. Zehner explained most of the residents are approaching senior citizen age. If you talked with the residents, they want to build second units for either senior citizens or their children. Most owners are not going to move. Commissioner Bosch had a couple of questions. Mr. Zehner spoke of a desire to build two duplexes. Did he mean four dwelling units? (Yes.) And then, moving existing houses from LaVeta which may be somewhat larger in size that would be allowed under either zone? (Yes.) Have you considered the potential for accessory dwelling units with regard to senior housing for owner-occupants? (Yes.) Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver, favored the zone change. Why should their area be zoned any different? Duplexes and apartments are two different concepts. A duplex owner is on a more personal, closer basis with the occupant. Pride of ownership will be a benefit to the City and surrounding area. Their island should be zoned R-2 as the other areas. 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Ken Brimlow, 652 East Culver, spoke in favor of the re-zoning. He has 6 children and 15 grandchildren and all of his children would like to live at that location. He would feel slighted and put upon if they were held in that mode of not being able to have parity with the rest of the neighborhood. Mike Keller, 632 East Culver, said it was not fair to not be re-zoned. Their homes are well maintained and the owners take pride in their neighborhood. The lots are quite large. The need for more housing is evident. Wil Chambers, 242 South Olive, owns a duplex on 400 South Center. He keeps coming up with Mr. Murphy saying this is zoned in accordance with everything around it. He would like for Mr. Murphy to explain that blue dot. Who is right and who is wrong? Mr. Murphy used the map behind the Commission chair which identified the R-2 zoning to the south, west, and northwest; and the R-1 zoning to the north and to the east. The staff's comment is based not only on the zoning of the area, but the existing uses that presently occur on those lots. The R-2-6 R-C-D zoning to the north contains primarily single family homes facing onto Culver Avenue at the present time. There is a mixture of single family and duplex units in that block, which thereby gives the appearance of basically a single family area. The area is split between R-2 and R-1 zoning with a combination of single family homes and R-2 duplex development. Herb Runnells, 816 East Culver, would like to sub divide his property so that his children could also live in the area. T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman Avenue, said the people are only asking for what is equal to what they are surrounded by. He was down zoned from R-4 to R-2 over on Olive Street and he had a little over 6,000 square feet. These lots are much larger and there is no reason to have such a large back yard. Howard Arnold, 526 East Culver, split two lots in 1989 and won't be doing anything with them. He would like to be brought up into parity with the people around him. Paul Brimlow, 652 East Culver, would like the same rights and privileges of using their land in the future as other neighbors. Matt Runnells, 816 East Culver, would like to continue living in the same area for as long as possible. Ruth Frendle, 1310 North Braeburn Street, Anaheim, would appreciate the liberty for her parents to be able to build on their property. Duncan Clark, 205 North Pine, said people need to have their property rights. In 1910 two duplexes were built on Culver Avenue. Those duplexes are still standing. One of them is at 415 and 417 East Culver. The other one is at the northeast corner of Center and Culver. These units may be as old as 1906. The area was set up by the old timers for duplexes. Those speaking in opposition Debbie Siegler, 171 North Shaffer, said this was an issue of intensity. Under existing zoning another home could be built on these properties in addition to the existing 14 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 residence. A dangerous precedent will be set if the zoning were increased in order for more units to be built. Peter Ricci, 618 East Culver, read Greg Ray's statement for the record. He lives at 546 East Culver. He focused on two important issues -- time and money. The process has taken too much time. A year's delay has pitted neighbor against neighbor, creating real animosity. Patty Ricci, 618 East Culver, handed out a news article regarding over development. Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, thanked Ralph for describing her house as it was on the market in 1989. Her house is the story and a half. She has a huge lot and feels it would be a benefit to the neighborhood to have that kind of development continue. She commented on Chalynn Circle's tight and overcrowded neighborhood; it is the most run down area in their quadrant. Zoning is put in place to protect neighbors; it's not in place for the property owner. Dwain Raney, 368 South Cambridge, said his first year of life was at the corner of VanBibber and Shaffer, behind Ben Master's store. He's a long time resident. He spoke about the parking problems on Chalynn and the decline of property there. It's a hard job keeping property well maintained; renters don't care about the property. He foresees a lot of problems if the zoning were changed. Barbara Raney, 368 South Cambridge, likes big yards. It would be a crime to over burden the properties with duplexes. Rebuttal Mr. Zehner responded over 80% of the neighbors on Culver are in agreement and favor re-zoning; only four people on the block oppose the re-zoning and they are built out with the exception of two. He feels development is needed. Density does not cause crime, but poor management does. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters finds this an unusual issue to be debated by the people who live in Old Towne. Where he comes from, they have a 52 year tradition trying to keep density to an absolute minimum. They love their open space and even think one acre is a little tight so far as parameters are concerned. He noticed while walking through the area the lots, due to their shape, are quite deep and don't appear to be used for much other than the growing of weeds. He has some qualms about seeing density created beyond a certain point that it does lead to degradation of the area. If not this year, then 10 years down the road. He was interested to hear the comments of other Commissioners in order to formulate his opinion on the action to be taken. Commissioner Smith complimented Mr. Zehner and the 19 property owners for the excellent presentation and would like to say that she sees the number of pink and green squares, but she must keep in mind the other 110,000 people in the City of Orange as she makes her decision. Like Mr. Chapman and Mr. Glassell, she is not opposed to development. If they had not been in the development mode, there wouldn't be the City of Orange today. She was very much in favor of planned development, sensitive development and development that does not adversely impact the neighborhood 15 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 communities. There was mention of the property owners wanting parity and having what their neighbors have. They way she sees it, the owners already have more than their neighbors -- more property. In having more property, there is already the potential to build three units on the property. At the same time, some of the properties in the proposal don't have what others have because even with an R-2 zoning, the lots are too small to benefit and they will be unable to build two units if the lots are under 6,000 square feet. Although it may look like we're looking for equity here, there are some inequities just in the amount of property in the lots. She realizes in order to put those three units on big lots, of which there are several, it involves a lot split. Also the construction permits, etc. are going to cost a lot of money. The cost of the lot splits is something that is absorbed nicely into the development costs. There was talk about the properties not being used to the highest and best use. The language of highest and best use changes when operating in a historic resource district such as this particular community. This block contains a very high density of historic resources. According to the standards in a historic district, the highest and best use is not necessarily the highest and best use if it destroys the historic resource that is there. It then diminishes the value of the entire community. There has to be financial return on the property. Without financial return it is a taking. The financial return on the property does not have to be the highest. She hears reference to a community speaking and asking for an up zoning; at the same time, a community two blocks up the street voted 57% against a higher density of housing in an open space/green space area and another community down the street is asking for a down zoning of their property. She sees a few property owners asking for an up zoning; she doesn't believe it is the community. She respects the fact that as property owners they have the right to come before planning officials and ask for this. And, she's giving it her deepest consideration when she says that; however, she does have the record of recent past where a large number of the community opposed high density development just two blocks up the street. Other people referred to the nice, cozy neighborhood that is now enjoyed in these properties. She wondered if anyone has given thought to what would happen to that nice, cozy neighborhood with the addition of 58 units. The neighborhood look would change considerably and that there would be a great cost to all the residents there. She understood the purpose of the R-C-D zone is not to keep people from building a second story, but it is to allow the people on either side of them and around them to know they want to build a second story and to give input on that. She doesn't believe the R-C-D zone is put in place to prevent people from building, but rather to come up with the best design for that second story. Senior citizen housing must have a deed restriction that calls it to that use for 15 years. A lot of people won't buy property with deed restrictions. She's not convinced that these properties would be used for senior housing unless there were deed restrictions. We must be careful not to mix personal issues and personal concerns with what is best for the community. The most important point to her is that she could not vote in favor of this proposal without an E.I.R. In this historic area where there is 360% build out of properties, it would be impossible for her to vote in favor of the project without an adequate E.I.R. which would address the concerns of traffic, safety, crime, safety hazards, infrastructure, noise and most importantly the cumulative impact that this increased density would have on this neighborhood and district. She might be able to vote in favor of it if an E.I.R. were done and she could see that the impacts were mitigated. But she believes they would be remiss in approving a proposal as large as this without doing an adequate E.I.R. as is required by the law of the State of California and the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has addressed some information in the report, but she felt it was impossible to take that information in a staff report and compare it to the considerable work of an E.I.R. Therefore, the E.I.R. is of great concern to her. 16 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Commissioner Cathcart said this was another tough application to consider. He could not support this unless there was an E.I.R., because the infrastructure in the City is in bad shape. There hasn't been enough money for capital improvement projects for the last three years and there isn't any monies set aside in the future for capital improvement projects. That must be looked at while considering this application. He also felt the R-C-D overlay zone would be appropriate for the area. If he could be assured deed restrictions would be in place forever and could satisfy their concerns that the demolition ordinance really did have the teeth necessary to accomplish it even when their backs were turned, he could go along with it. If the design restrictions in Old Towne and in some of the other areas of the City were in place and with their backs turned, they still had teeth to be able to do what was needed, if he could be sure the senior citizens were the ones to benefit from the additional units, or affordable housing benefited from this for a long time, he could go along with this in a minute. The lots are large and beautiful. Commissioner Bosch said one of the concerns he had was the breadth of the proposal with regard to proposing to apply the zoning to lots that are substandard in the zone area now. And, then to perpetuate that problem by applying it to even higher density zones, that is not an appropriate application of a zoning ordinance. They use every opportunity they can to clear up discrepancies and to clear up mismatches in that regard. He agreed that very excellent development of the larger lots could occur on this. He supported the subdivision of the 810 parcel into three lots. It's wonderful to be able to afford such large lots. On a limited basis there is no tremendous negative traffic impact on the street. He's a little worried about how everyone would feel if 58 additional units existed and there were substantial traffic impacts. That might change some peoples' minds relative to the value of this. He felt very strongly for people who wanted to develop and maintain their family on the land. That's a special thing and shows how Orange is working to encourage a sense of community and preservation. He shares a concern about how to assure continuity of this over time. People don't live forever and people change their minds. What can be done to assure the quality of life will be retained? The City can't apply deed restrictions to a zone change and general plan amendment. He wishes another category could be looked at to get them into another position that takes care of the aspirations of the people who live here and still solves the concern of maintaining the original houses and community as well. He's not locked into the need to maintain the existence of every single house listed in the historic inventory of the City. You take out too many bites and you lose the context and the whole flavor is gone. That would be a disaster. Occasionally something has to come down or be modified to make it usable to improve it. He thinks the 1960's houses will become historic before long because it will be deemed the old homestead; a place where one grew up. He would like to see something that gets us some place in between and we don't have it yet. He's against re-zoning to a higher density lots that are non-conforming in the current zoning. That's not the right thing to do. He wants to see orderly development, he wants to see additional units granted. It would be delightful if someone wanted to build attached second and third units without subdividing the lot. The current zone does not allow that and the R-2-6 zone opens Pandora's box without some kind of control. He would like to look at ways to arrive at a different solution to help everyone, but he doesn't see it in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Cathcart thought when a specific problem comes up, it offers the City the opportunity to look forward and explore other opportunities. Since the City is in the process of looking at the new zoning ordinance, it's an excellent time for the City to be creative and to look into this. It's something that is going to have to be done. Not 17 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 everyone is going to be happy and it's too bad. The City would be remiss if it didn't start looking creatively at some of the issues coming up. He suggested rolling up their sleeves and find a solution that works. Commissioner Bosch added Chalynn Circle is the worst example in town. The key problem here is the depth of the lot and the negative impacts on lifestyles that can occur by jamming all those people up a small driveway. Parity is divided into 6,000 square foot lots first and then see which of those can logically and under the Development Standards support a second unit, that's what parity is. These lots are unique. The City is not suppose to create unique zoning solutions, but on the other hand there is a piece of land that is very rare in the City and needs to be addressed. None of the current zones do justice to the desires and aspirations of the people. Commissioner Walters thought staff could find a more equitable zoning as was done in the Orange Park Acres area. This is an unique area because of the deep lots. He would support an aggressive search to find a proper zoning that would address this particular unique area. There is no center street rolling through this large block area. It would behoove the City to find a suitable and perhaps very special zoning that would apply to this particular lot meeting the needs of the residents and also the general wishes of the community at large not to see a quick degradation of the area m the future. Commissioner Smith clarified there are ways for the property owners to exercise their property rights and to develop these properties through channels already in existence in the City. So that denial of the change in the general plan and zone change is not saying that building and development cannot occur here. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to not accept Negative Declaration 1425-93 and deny General Plan Amendment 3-93 and Zone Change 1159-93 without prejudice. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch said the cumulative impact issue relative to historic and overall density issues is something they need to face as a City regardless of this particular application. He requested staff to update them on any activity or awareness of legal decisions in that regard. He doesn't know if the legal definition of that threshold where a cumulative impact requires an overall E.I.R. What is the status of that? What is the status of revisions and zoning for Old Towne itself? What is the potential in that document in which the Commission has yet to see or work yet remaining to address the concerns of this hearing? Mr. Godlewski responded the cumulative impact on historic structures in Old Towne is something that staff is at the discussion stage. There has been some work done in terms of trying to figure out what kind of a program and how they're going to approach that document. They understand the need for that document and it's something that is at the early stages of getting into the project itself. The projects before the Commission now are taking precedent because they have been previously scheduled. As soon as those are completed, more staff time will be available to address the environmental impacts of cumulative impact. The Old Towne portion of the zoning ordinance -- the 18 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1993 Planning Commission has been given the majority of the zoning ordinance already and staff has made changes as discussed by the Commission at the last study session. Staff is incorporating the existing documents into the proposed new zoning ordinance. The existing documents refers to the Old Towne area. Staff is making very few changes; they want to get it into the format that is available for discussion. They expect to get that back to the Commission within the next few weeks to discuss at a study session. Commissioner Bosch thought the Negative Declaration was appropriately prepared in conformance with C. E.Q.A., yet on the other hand there was the cumulative impact to worry about. He would like to apply for a zoning that is different than either one before them. He's tired of overlay zones. He believes people should be able to walk into the counter and know what they can get and not have to worry about overlays and that there be design standards in place to take care of privacy intrusion upon neighbors' yards and to take care of proper bulk and mass. Time and money are factors~ssues in Old Towne. Commissioner Smith added she was sick and tired of this question. There is no other alternative in this case. She has great hope that the updated zoning development standard will help to mitigate some of the problems that are continually being confronted in neighborhoods with mixed uses. It's the extreme intensity of mixed use in the neighborhood which causes problems. She wished there was a middle ground. Commissioner Cathcart believed all their comments need to be included along with their motion to the City Council. Mr. Godlewski said this item will be forwarded to the City Council for their review. It will take two to three weeks before being placed on the Council Agenda. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Set dates for future public hearings for Old Towne rezoning: Area "B", Monday, May 17, 1993 Area "C", Monday, June 21, 1993 Area "D", Monday, July 19, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to set the above dates for public hearings to consider the Old Towne rezonings. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn to their next regularly scheduled meeting of April 19, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. sld 19