Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission May 18, 1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 4, 1992_ Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve the Minutes of May 4, 1992, with the following correction: On Page 15, second sentence, insert the word "of" -- "He's currently involved in the certificate program at U.C.I. in management o f hazardous material." Regarding the committee, the committee he is referring to is not the committee that established the ordinance. Rather, within the ordinance there is a local assessment committee and that is the committee he is referring to. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1965-92 -SMART SMR OF CALIFORNIA, INC. A request to allow the construction of a 90 foot high antenna mast to be used in conjunction with an unmanned radio dispatch facility. Subject property is located at the east end of Barkley Avenue cul-de- sac (addressed 800 W. Barkley Avenue, Suite S). 1 Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1992 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Sara Lewis, 1010 North Kraemer Place, Anaheim, said their system is a 6-County system that will be servicing over 150,000 users of the radio/dispatch market. She thanked staff for helping them in selecting a site location for their needs. This is an appropriate location in an industrial area. Commissioner Bosch noted this project was categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and given the necessary findings for a conditional use permit that there are similar uses in the vicinity although of a slightly different height, that all other aspects of the development standards for the zone in which the project is intended have been met, except for the conditional use permit which is within the Commission's power to grant. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1965-92 with conditions 1-4 as listed in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1966-92 -ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A request fore a waiver of parking enclosure requirements to allow all spaces to be provided in an open parking lot, rather than providing one enclosed garage per unit. Also requested is a 5 foot reduction in the vehicular stacking distance off Walnut Avenue; 30 feet is required and 25 feet is proposed (addressed 1515 East Walnut Avenue). 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1992 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The property is a rectangular shaped parcel under 1/2 acre in size. It is located on the north side of Walnut, between Tustin and Lincoln. The property is relatively flat, 80 feet wide and 263 feet deep. Currently on the site is an abandoned single story residential structure. The surrounding properties to the north and south are zoned R-1-6 and developed with single family residences. The adjacent property to the west is zoned R- 2-6-A, which is a single story overlay and it is developed with single story duplexes. The adjacent property to the east is also zoned R-2-6-A and is developed with nine single story apartment units. This property was the subject of a zone change and general plan amendment in 1990 where the zoning and general plan was established as R-2-6-A from the previous zoning of R-1-6, and the general plan designation change from low density to low medium density to facilitate this type of development. The applicant is proposing a 7-unit affordable housing project. Under the provisions of the City ordinance seven units are the allowable number of units to be developed on this property. The project will be owned and managed by the Orange H o u s i n g Development Corporation, which is anon-profit corporation based in the City of Orange and is created for the sole purpose of constructing and managing affordable housing units. The project is subsidized by the rental housing program, tax credit and the City of Orange Redevelopment Agency. The project will be kept as affordable housing in perpetuity. State law requires local agencies grant incentives for affordable housing developments. In this particular case, however, the only modification to development standards would be the elimination of enclosed garage spaces and the five foot setback for the driveway throat. Under state law, it states that the housing units for very low income and lower income households, as is proposed, the City must either grant a density bonus of at least 25% in the number of units, which is not being requested, or make a written finding that additional concessions and incentives are not required to provide affordable housing costs, or to provide other incentives of equivalent financial value based on land cost per dwelling unit. State law also requires the units be kept affordable for at least 30 years. The applicant is proposing to keep the project affordable in perpetuity. 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1992 Annlicant Linda Boone, Executive Director of the Orange Housing Development Corporation, 217 East Chapman, is the developer of this project. The first project of the Orange Housing Development Corporation is a 22 unit project, which is on two sites. The first site was discussed a couple of weeks ago and that is the 15 elderly units at the corner of Pixley and Almond. This is the second part of the project and it is 7 units at 1515 East Walnut. They're not asking for a density bonus or zone change because they want to be a good neighbor and want to fit into the neighborhood. Their prime objective in designing this project was something that would be attractive and would be an asset to the neighborhood. To further that goal, they decided that two modifications would be needed. One was not to have the garages. They're not reducing the parking requirement -- just the garages. If the spaces were open, then they could be sure that cars were parked there and it would not be used for storage. The second consideration was they wanted each of the houses to have their own yard. They requested a 25 foot setback off the street instead of 30 feet to provide large yards. Orange Housing Development Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors (12 persons) who live or work in the City of Orange. They only operate in the City of Orange. Management is something they pride themselves on. These units will be well managed. They have a great deal of control over the tenants because they have no place else to go. Those speaking in favor Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, has been begging the City since 1965 for open parking. She`s overjoyed by this request. Those speaking in opposition Terry Braidhoft, 1512 East Orangegrove, was concerned about this type of development in this neighborhood. He felt it would impact the neighborhood in a detrimental way. One of his concerns was that the lack of garages would cause an appearance of the property to deteriorate. Garages should be required to maintain both the character of the neighborhood and the quality appearance of the structures. 4 Planning Commission Mintues May 18, 1992 Murl Redwine, 5 81 North Lincoln, questioned the size of the units. How many people would be living in those dwellings? What is the traffic count on Walnut? Everyone should have a garage. How much will the rent be? He felt this was not a good business deal. Rebuttal Ms. Boone responded the units will rent for $419 a month. The rents will not be subsidized in the sense that families will have to pay the entire amount themselves plus their own utilities. The garages fit on the site and they could go ahead and do the project with garages. There are no age restrictions for these units; the units will be rented to low income tenants. Their main concern is policing the units; afull- time resident manager will be on-site either at the Pixley/Almond location or this location and will manage both projects. Restriction on number of occupants will be stated in the lease agreement. They can only have so many people in those units and only collect so much income or they violate the grant they received and they would risk having to pay that back. There is no incentive to circumvent the progress so that it doesn't work. If a lease is signed correctly and negotiated up front of evicting people that habitually overcrowd their unit, there will be no problems. The deed restrictions are on the property for 5 S years. The economic value of the property is based on 419 per month. Commissioner Bosch asked if they had explored having any 2-bedroom units rather than x113-bedroom units. Ms. Boone said the reason they elected to go with 3-bedroom units was that was what it took to qualify for the 1.8 million dollars in grant monies they requested. Commissioner Scott asked to have the eviction process explained. Ms. Boone explained they were required to make some kind of notification first as a warning. Usually the first warning is verbal. Then the second warning is written. After that, an eviction notice is issued. The time span depends on the frequency of the abuse of the tenants. S Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1992 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy touched on the traffic generated on the property. It was noted in the staff report, the estimation of the trip generation rates, will not significantly contribute (it's about 8 daily trips per unit). Based on the results, it was discussed as part of the evaluation. The traffic scenario was part of that evaluation. Commissioner Bosch was a strong supporter of the concept and understands restrictions will be placed on the leases, but he had a problem with how the site has to develop because of the extreme narrowness and depth of the site. It's not an over empowering number of units for the site. It can meet parking and garages, but because of the narrowness requiring single loaded parking and the depth of the parking on the site, it seems to be a very crowed living environment in terms of separation of the units. There is too much building for this configuration of land. A lower building density would be better on this site, even though the number of units is appropriate. Commissioner Scott was hesitant about whether or not state laws would supersede the lease. He hopes the state will back up the lease that more than one family cannot live in the unit(s). Mr. Herrick responded state law does set occupancy limits that are considerably higher than what has been discussed. But those are occupancy limits that pre-empt action by other governmental entities. They have not done away with the private right of contract to set lease limits. He was personally involved with the Housing Authority in Upland that had considerable success in evicting habitual overcrowders. The owner of the property can enforce the lease. Commissioner Master asked if the City has legally reviewed past leases? Mr. Herrick was not aware of it.) Mr. Godlewski responded the City has reviewed on a number of occasions lease agreements with industrial property owners and there would be nothing to preclude the Commission from putting that type of condition in asking to review the lease to make sure it conforms to what is being purported in the staff report. 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1992 Chairman Cathcart was concerned about the minimal landscaped areas and areas for children to play; however, all considerations must be weighed and this is not an easy decision for the Commission. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission discussed whether or not this project would be precedent setting regarding unenclosed parking. Mr. Herrick said conditional use permits are site specific and the Commission has discretionary approval; therefore, the precedential value is dimensioned. Mr. Godlewski said this is the first project that has come before the Commission from the Orange Housing Development Corporation, but the Commission has had projects before -- one on Almond where the Commission granted a 25% bonus in number of units on the property. That was an affordable housing project and the concession there was additional density. The projects do come before the Commission periodically and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Bosch clarified this was a project that could be built on the site by merely pulling a building permit were it not for the driveway throat and the proposal to eliminate the garages. The site is zoned and limited to single story apartments regardless. What rights does the City and Commission have to review the potential impact of those reductions thus requiring a conditional use permit upon the context of the neighborhood and the normal findings for a C.U.P., based with the requirement for state law that the City must grant certain concessions? Mr. Herrick said the statute requires the City grant at least two concessions against the development standards, but it does not specify that it has to be any particular one. There is some discretion as to what the Commission can give as long as they are equal to the value of the density bonus. The other is that the City could make findings with respect to those impacts that would preclude granting certain types of concessions against development standards. Those findings would have to be made based on substantial evidence of record and it would have to show quite clearly that the decision was a rational one. 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1966-92 subject to conditions 1-19 as listed in the staff report, adding condition 20 that the lease contract be reviewed by the City Attorney for consistency prior to issuance of building permits. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADTOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a joint study session Tuesday, May 26, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the capital improvement projects, followed by a Commission study session on the southwest quadrant of Old Towne re-zoning request at 6:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. sld 8