Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission June 7, 1993 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None 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 IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 17. 1993 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of May 17, 1993, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-93 - EL ARCA COMUNIDAD CRISTIANA (THE ARK CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP) A request to establish a church with administrative offices and conference/counseling capability in an existing lease space in an industrial multi-tenant development. Subject property is located on the southwest corner of Batavia Street and Struck Avenue, addressed 1040 North Batavia, Suite E. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The applicant requested a continuance to the June 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to accept the applicant's request to continue Conditional Use Permit 2015-93 to June 21, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING June 7, 1993 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-93 -EVAN BELL (IRV BEAVER MOTORCYCLES) A request to expand an existing motorcycle sales and service dealership located in an industrial district. Subject property is located at 607 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The issues before the Commission include the ability to expand the motorcycle sales and service dealership, thus reducing the parking stall size and vehicular backing distance (1.2 feet). The public hearing was opened. Applicant John Hamilton, 450 East Chapman Avenue, is the architect for the project. Ninety'-nine percent of the vehicles that will be parked in the proposed area will be motorcycles. Their length is approximately 6-7 feet. He has never seen a car in the back space of the building. They propose to put in a metal building and it will be plan check approved. It is primarily for the warehousing and storage of motorcycles. Evan Bell, 607 West Katella Avenue, said the building will also be used for parking the motorcycles that need service. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2014-93 with condition 1, noting the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-93 -RICHARD JOHNSON A request to allow a billiard facility with an associated restaurant and on-sale beer and wine sales upon property located in the M-2 (Industrial) zone. Subject property is located at 1096 North Main Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. The staff report was presented by Chris Carnes of the Planning staff. The applicant is proposing to open a combination billiard and restaurant establishment in a vacant industrial building. The building was originally developed for industrial purposes and was converted to a gym a few years ago. The proposed facility will have 29 billiard tables, approximately 2,500 square feet of restaurant use, and shall include the sale of 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 alcoholic beverages. The C.U.P. application is to allow a billiard or commercial recreational use in the M-2 zone and to allow on-site sale of beer and wine. The applicant has designed the project to avoid impacting neighboring properties. The main entrance (only entrance) to the facility shall be the east side of the building, which is away from the recreational vehicle facility located west of the site. The existing doors on the west side of the building shall be permanently closed. The facility is proposed to be restricted to persons 21 years and older. Commissioner Smith noted it was mentioned in the staff report (Page 2) the project was limited to persons 21 years of age and older, but conditions 8 and 9 specifically refer to disallowing any persons under age 18. The conditions need to be amended or deleted. Mr. Carnes responded those conditions came from the Police Department, and were sent over to Planning staff prior to staff finding out the project was restricted to people 21 years and older. The conditions can be deleted. Commissioner Bosch preferred to change the minimum age to 21 rather than eliminating the conditions because even if the applicant's proposal is to limit the age to 21 and older, there's nothing embodied in the approval to keep that intact (if the conditions were eliminated). The public hearing was opened. Applicant Danny Kykendal, 1418 Evergreen, Fullerton, plans on having a very nice billiard facility with pool tournaments -- a very upstanding operation. The recreational vehicle park is approximately 300 feet away from the entrance to the building. Most of the parking will be on Main Street; very little parking will be back on the side. Employees will be parking in the back. He's been in billiards for 20 years; his partner has been in the business 25 years. They don't want kids under 21 or rowdy behavior in their facility. Commissioner Walters noted there appeared to be a difference in the bathroom facilities between the mens and ladies rooms. He assumed the large stall in the mens room was for handicap accessibility. Mr. Kykendal said both bathrooms will be handicapped and are equal in size. Commissioner Smith said the City approved a billiard proposal a couple of weeks ago where they implemented a six month monitoring review of the facility. This is not present in this proposal and she suggested adding a similar condition. She asked the applicant if he were willing to accept that as a condition? (Yes.) She also wanted to know the process to determine entrance into the facility to assure that no one under 21 is there playing pool? Mr. Kykendal said there would always be someone at the door checking I.D. Commissioner Smith proposed a condition to check I.D. (The applicant concurred.) Commissioner Bosch said there were a variety of exit only doors. He would require a condition to alarming those from the inside. His concern was the doors could stand open and cause a problem out on Struck. (The applicant concurred.) 3 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor June 7, 1993 Richard Johnson, 1630 Antigo Way, Newport Beach, is Danny's partner. He opened his first billiard business in 1969. All of his businesses were clean quality, trouble free operations and Danny K's will be operated in the same manner. Those speaking in opposition E. H. Welton, 489 Greengrove, is the owner of Orangeland Recreation Vehicle Park next door to the project in question. He was not necessarily opposed, but very concerned about the proposed use. The people in his park are older, quiet and go to bed early. He is of the age where billiard parlors have a bad name to them as they are noisy and on the rowdy side. He was concerned about noise, trash and the late hours that might be associated with the project. Commissioner Cathcart assured Mr. Welton the City did not want this to be a detriment or to impact him in a harmful way. The Commission shared his concerns. Commissioner Smith encouraged Mr. Welton and others to contact the Police Department or City officials to file concerns or problems about the use if it should get out of hand. She asked if he had given any consideration to the fact that the facility might enhance his business? (Yes, but he still feels better if it were not there.) Rebuttal Mr. Kykendal understood the objections because they don't want to have a problem either with their own customers. On busy nights, there will be someone in the parking lot monitoring it. He hopes they can work out the concerns. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith wanted to include as a condition that the site be reviewed during the first six months of operation -- nothing more lenient or more strict than what was imposed at the other billiard facility. Commissioner Bosch suggested replacing condition 8 with the condition relative to the six month review; then look at condition 9 for modification relative to the 21 age limit, prohibiting admission of anyone under the age of 21 at any time. Commissioner Smith would also like to see a new condition 16 that would require a specific process to check age identification of people who enter the building at the entrance. Commissioner Bosch proposed adding a new condition 17 requiring that all exit doors, other than the main entrance, shall be alarmed at the inside so as to discourage unauthorized use during business hours. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2016-93 with the conditions listed in the staff report and as amended/added by previous discussion, noting that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters MOTION CARRIEDNOES: None IN RE: NEW HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1932-91 AND MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14593 -PACIFIC RIDGE PARTNERS A request to modify the site plan approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 and to revise the conditions of approval for both Tentative Tract Map 14593 and Conditional Use Permit 1932-91. The current proposal is to redesign the westerly 21.6 acres of a 36 acre site as a Planned Unit Development, to provide single family detached housing on individual lots a minimum of 3,600 square feet in size, and a common recreation facility. This proposal retains the condominium and apartment development originally approved on the easterly portion of the site plan. Subject property is a portion of the Southridge Planned Community, located east of Meats Avenue, north of Cerro Villa Drive, south of the City of Anaheim, and west of the proposed connection of Loma Street/Imperial Highway. The area of the development subject to this request is on the south side of the planned extension of Via Escola, easterly of its current terminus. NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have been evaluated under previously certified Environmental Impact Report #854. Commissioner Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a possible potential conflict of interest. Joan Wolff of the Planning staff presented the staff report as there was opposition to this project. The project is an application for a planned unit development. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for a P.U.D. The intent is to replace a previously approved condominium development with detached single family housing in an area that has been designated for low medium density residential development. This category allows density at a rate of 6-15 units per acre. The approved project is shown on the map behind the Commissioners. It is a tract map containing four lots and 239 condominium units -- a combination of townhomes and stacked flats. The proposed project consists of 149 single family detached units, each on their own individual lots, a minimum of 3,600 square feet in size on the easterly portion, and 4,250 square feet in size on the westerly portion. The homes are relatively small m size compared to new single family homes that are being built these days. Houses range in size from 1,375 square feet to 1,945 square feet. The easterly portion of the development will have attached two car garages, while the westerly portion will have attached three car garages. There is a common recreation facility located at the primary entry drive that will be shared by all of the units. She believed there was a typographical error in the staff report where it was stated the common area was 1,400 square feet in size; it's approximately 14,000 square feet. (The applicant has the exact square footage of the recreation facility.) Staff's main concern with this project is the fact that the overall Southridge Development has a development cap of 1,000 units; the plan has been modified over time such that only 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 597 units are planned for 181 of the total 196 developable acres. This means that 403 units could potentially be built over the remaining 15 acres at a density of approximately 27 units per acre. This is not proposed; what is proposed is that the final two lots would remain as shown on the approved site plan. But there is a possibility that it could come back to the Planning Commission/City Council for review of a revised site plan. Because the project is proposed as a planned unit development, additional findings will need to be made by the Planning Commission. Such findings must indicate that the project creates a living environment equal to or better than what might be accomplished under traditional development practices. Staff recommends to revise conditions 5 and 56 and these conditions are a result of comments and discussions between staff and the applicant earlier in the day. To summarize them, it establishes setback standards for lots 1 and 2 of Tract 14593. And changing from condition 5, the rear yard setback for the primary building such that there would be a 15 foot minimum rear yard setback for two story construction, which would include second story decks; however, a 10 foot minimum setback would be allowed for single story room additions and covered patios. Additionally, there would be some standards added for detached accessory structures, creating a minimum separation from the main building and detached structure of 6 feet. Minimum front yard and exterior side yards -- the same as for the main buildings, but it allows detached accessory buildings to abut the rear and side property lines, provided they are in accordance with the Urnform Building Code. Another condition that is recommended for modification is condition 56, which has to do with the construction of water service facilities. This modifies the condition so that rather than as currently worded, it requires construction of a pump station prior to building permits being issued on the second 500 units encompassed within the boundaries of Tentative Tract Map 12082. This is being revised to be m accordance with the original agreement that was adopted several years ago. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Scott Stowell, 1565 West MacArthur Blvd., Costa Mesa, represented the managing partner of Pacific Ridge Partners. He explained the partnership structure between Southridge Development and Standard Pacific, who is the managing partner. They are proposing a revision to the conditional use permit for Southridge. Their partnership includes Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Tract 14593. Lot 4 (apartment site) is outside of the partnership. Southridge has retained that and will be building the apartments themselves. When the partnership was formed, they took an assessment of the approval and the market place. They have determined and convinced their partner that a townhome project isn't the right product today. The first order of business is to ask for a revision to a planned unit development. The market has changed. Townhomes can't compete with lower footage, lowered priced single family housing. The recession has driven many builders to start downsizing the sizes of their homes and bringing prices in line with incomes and affordability. It is clear to them most of the buyers, particularly families, would prefer to live in a single family home rather than a condominium or townhome. They're positive about the project; there are no constraints, financing is in place and they are prepared to move forward. A grading plan has been submitted to the City and they can begin at the end of the month provided they get the approvals in place. This proj000 sill The ~dfeel hey are bring ng s ngle fam8y ~o~sing into the prpce ed m the low $200, Y 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 ranges where the consumer can afford to buy a home. The intent of the planned unit development is to provide a better plan. A huge recreation area (16,300 square feet) will be shared by 149 homes. They have provided a good circulation system, landscaped islands at the knuckles to provide a sense of community, they have taken 15 feet along the entire edge of Via Escola and have increased the frontage of the landscaped pallet in that area. In terms of livability, the front and rear yards are large enough to be compatible with the lots. They understand the City has had much discussion with regard to small lot development. Their proposal is a small lot planned unit development, but it's a consideration as an alternative to condominium ownership. This project is a downzone to an approved condominium plan. They have convinced their partner not to go forward with an assessment district to put Via Escola and Loma in. They prefer not to form the district and to make that a project cost, thereby not burdening future homeowners or the City. They are proposing landscaped maintenance districts for all of the maintenance along Via Escola to have consistent maintenance of that area. The project is next to a park, which they will improve. Children will not have to cross major streets to get to the park. He brought up some issues regarding the conditions of approval. He was concerned about patio covers having a 10 foot rear yard setback. (condition 5.) On some of the lots, homeowners will be limited to constructing a patio cover that is only 5 feet (it won't work). The depth of the patio cover is being limited. In the County those type of structures can go a little bit closer to those property lines. He requested the Commission to consider a 5 foot minimum setback for patio covers. He agreed that room additions should be limited to 10 feet, but patio covers should be allowed to encroach further. Condition 30 needs to include a landscape maintenance district, in addition to the homeowners' association. On condition 45, Mr. Tracy, their partner, asked Mr. Stowell to read for the record a response to that condition. "He is accepting condition 45 for now, but that he may be back and asking for relief from that condition depending upon the outcome of certain agreements that he's trying to enter into with Woodcrest Development, and because of the fact that the construction of Serrano is not yet commenced." Commissioner Bosch understood the condition carries over from previous approval on this parcel. It's fine that the City has his statement for the record, but it doesn't impact the proposed condition. Mr. Johnson stated the City also has an agreement where the specific amount is locked in and it would appear that with possibly the default of the Woodcrest property, Mr. Tracy believes that agreement is in default. Maybe it is, but he didn't know. Mr. Stowell thought part of the concern was that they were funding a road improvement that may not occur for many years and perhaps that money is better used for Loma or Via Escola, which is infrastructure that their partnership will be putting in place. Commissioner Smith was shown a plan that showed the back yard setbacks to be anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. What is the reason for now asking fora 15 foot back yard setback, which is the reduction of 10 feet on some properties? Mr. Stowell replied in most cases that is true. There may be at the ends of the cul de sacs where the lot depth may not be 85 feet. Because the unit is set back further and is at the end of the cul de sac on a pie shaped lot, to meet the five yard setbacks it gets pushed further into the lot. There may be one or two lots where it becomes an issue. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Commissioner Smith asked if he were asking for the setbacks only on the pie shaped lots? (Sure, they would be willing to consider that.) Commissioner Bosch's perception, based on market realities, is that of a self imposed problem. It would be a nightmare to police in this manner, but maybe it could be done relative to a zoning administrator action. His concern carries on further about the mass and bulk of housing and square footage of lot coverage. Then there is the ability within the planned community to add on and take away a chunk of that open space that is so essential to the livability and marketability of the units. Mr. Stowell said from their perspective they are market driven and it's their experience that the less they constrain a homeowner, the more marketable the home and lot is. He shared his own personal experience of living at the end of a cul de sac. Many homeowners like large patio living types of conditions. Commissioner Bosch would differentiate between the patio cover and the potential building addition. A patio cover retains the outdoor space, has less physical impact typically on a neighbor in close proximity vs. a one or two story building addition in that same space. Mr. Stowell agreed room additions should be limited to 10 feet. Commissioner Bosch spoke to the issue of Via Escola. It's a concern to the City. He understands there is a portion of the future right-of-way of Via Escola and the future intersection with Loma (that's under someone else's control). Mr. Stowell said the right-of-way of Via Escola is part of their partnership. It's only Lot 4 that would be excluded. The right-of-way to Loma and then from Loma to existing Imperial is part of their partnership. Their agreements require they put that infrastructure in at the time they pull the 500th permit. They will get that road in earlier if they think the market is asking for it. Commissioner Bosch's concern is relative to safety and accessibility. There's only one way out. He looked for the applicant's assistance in finding a way to make that a more positive relationship to the length and potential hazards than to specific housing units. Commissioner Bosch continued, relative to the previously approved overall density and number of units for the entire planned community and now with the reduction in units proposed at this location because of current market demand, raises the potential if there's no other closure then the partnership might come in and Standard Pacific, in it's separate apartment development, request modification of the plans on Lots 3 and 4 to relatively significantly increase a density to get up to the maximum units overall. His concern is that typically in looking at a planned community development one looks at the integral development -- that's the whole purpose of it -- relative to balance of housing types, stocks, densities, locations and the relationship to infrastructure and the public accommodation such as parks, greenbelts and the like. Yet the constant shifting due to market forces raises a specter that one ends up with an animal entirely different at the end. That says that something earlier should not have been allowed. He appreciates the desire to maintain flexibility, but hopes the applicant sees his point in terms of the potential radical change to the living environment in the remaining parcels. He understands the desire not to link a change in type and density at this point to the remainder of the process, but he can't see how one can separate the two. 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Mr. Stowell understands his concern. Lot 3 is part of the partnership and is currently planned for an 18 to the acre condominium. They are not proposing any change to that; they will build that. That would leave Lot 4 as the lot for the potential change. He didn't know what current opportunity staff has to re-visit Lot 4 in the future, but he does know the partner and knows what the plans are. However, he can't speak for him regarding Lot 4. He does know the partner is working on a corner of that Edison easement area. The Edison company is realigning their power lines. Southridge is trying to get the County to trade that open space for some other open space they own. If he were able to get that 3 acres of land and add it to Lot 4, he thought the partner would take the available density and put it in there, but not force the density of 27 units per acre on Lot 4. Perhaps a density cap could be considered. Mr. Stowell said Lot 4 is part of the conditional use permit -the revision they are proposing. Although it is outside of the partnership, it is part in parcel with the applrcation. Ms. Wolff stated the application was to modify the conditional use permit. Specifically, the two lots, but once is has been opened, she believed the Commission could address anything within the bounds of that conditional use permit. Lot 4 has been planned and approved at 22.3 units per acre. Mr. Stowell said they were not proposing to make any changes to 3 or 4. Southridge always has the right to come back with a future revision. He appreciates the Commission's concern, but did not know how to resolve it completely. He could make commitments for Lots 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Walters' concern was how he could be assured of not creating a precedent for lower lot size in the minds of the Irvine Company in East Orange. That's the only danger he sees. He doesn't have a problem with the project. He wanted to be careful in whatever wording was used to carry a stipulation that this was not to be treated as allowing R-1's to be created in size less than 6,000 square feet. Mr. Stowell understood the concern about precedent setting relative to General Plan land. He stated their proposal is a revision to an already approved condominium project, which is a planned unit development consistent with the zoning in every regard. It meets the intent of a planned unit development. It's important to understand it rs a revision to a condominium; it is not a request or proposal for R-1 residential small lot subdivision. This will be a private community with private streets and a homeowners' association. Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was not as excited abut this project as the applicant. He believed it was a dangerous proposal and it should be denied. He warned the Commission when they approved the Inner American single family detached project they were opening Pandora's Box. Mr. Stowell lifted the lid. The City now has 3,600 square foot lots. The basic building block of the City of Orange is being changed when this project is approved. It took five years fighting with the Irvine Company over density. They've already told the City they want more density. When they see this map, they will smile like atiger -- this is what they've been waiting for. He has never liked planned unit developments and he thinks the City has made a mistake by allowing P.U.D.'s. This is a dense proposal and it is worse than what the Irvine Company built in Santiago Hills. Is this what the City of Orange wants because of a market driven trend? Smaller lots are basically non-conforming. The Irvine Company 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 will be back with their request for medium density development. How long will it take to finish the connection road? He believes the City will end up with a road going to nowhere. He doesn't think Orange wants to become a city of small lots and that is precisely what is happening with this project. He prefers the original approval because the condominiums do not pose a danger to the future development of the East Orange area or any other development. Rebuttal Mr. Stowell failed to see the danger of their proposal. He didn't understand what Mr. Bennyhoff was talking about. There is a big difference about small lots and those that are acceptable in the City and what the City wants and doesn't want. This plan is a good plan; it stands on its own merits. It meets the demands of the market place, which is really important. The City needs to provide housing for the residents of the City and they've got to provide affordable housing. That's a problem in the industry. They work hard with densities to try to deal with the realities of the land economics which builders are facing. He appreciates someone who lives in Orange Park Acres and he loves the large acre lot he lives in, but that's not for all of us. He can't afford, as a builder- developer to live in Mr. Bennyhoff's home. He has to live in a 4,000 square foot home. That's a real important issue that we can't lose sight of. Affordable housing is needed in Orange. He felt it was an elitist position to take regarding the large lots because most people cannot afford a 6,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Walters asked what was happening with Lots C and D? Were they going to be owned by the City or be owned by the homeowners' association? What is the legal status of those lots? Mr. Stowell responded Lots C and D, as well as Lots E and G will be owned by those associations in fee. Edison will continue to have an easement over that portion of the land. Commissioner Smith recalled Section A is designated as open space. She asked if it were a park site? (Yes.) What is the proportion in the development of 3,650 and 4,250 square foot lots? Mr. Stowell said Lot 1 was the large one. There are 65 lots there. Previously there were 97 condominiums approved. On Lot 2 there were 142, 15 to the acre condominiums approved and they have 84 of the smaller lots. The minimum lot size is 45 x 80. He did not have the numbers worked out as to how many were under 4,000 square feet and how many were over 4,000. The largest lot would be a 6,000 square foot lot, but the majority of them would be plus or minus 100-200 feet. Ms. Wolff did not have the information Commissioner Smith was asking for. Staff has been given a typical dimension for each of the two lot sizes. In looking at it, it seems like more of the lots are larger than the minimum, but it has never been calculated out as to what the individual lot sizes are. Commissioner Smith was trying to get a sense of what the Commission was approving a project that was predominantly substandard sized lots or was it traditionally sized lots with a few sprinkled in? 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Mr. Stowell didn't think there were any substandard lots; it depends on what the definition was for a substandard lot. They are proposing lots that were smaller than the traditional R-1 6,000 square foot size. They are providing minimums of 20 foot rear yards up to 25 foot rear yards, private space for the family -- that's greater than what they would get under the current proposal. It is a plan that is consistent with the zoning. They are not asking for any variances. Commissioner Bosch has some basic concerns that have not gone away. He shared the concern about not having more indepth information relative to the average or mean lot size because that has assisted them in the past to identify the impacts on the typical dwelling units. Yes, it would be true that what is proposed is not substandard in view of the planned community zoning currently in effect for the site. But, the Commission looks at the City as a whole as well as each district of the City in that regard. It would be helpful to have that information to look at the living environment. He had a deep concern over building additions and its impacts upon the current zoning standards for the planned community. And, it would relate primarily to the minimum lot size as well as the exotic lot on the cul de sac. The Commission was being asked whether these minimal areas are adequate to support the market place size of home the applicant suggests placing on them, yet allowing freedom for a homeowner to come in and add on substantially to a point not defined by the house plans. That can have a radically different impact on outdoor space available, impact to the neighbors and the number of people who might be dwelling in the houses. All of these issues relate to lot size. The applicant is setting up the conditions of the problems by the type of housing stock being asked to be placed on the lots and he thought in return for that freedom, there would have to be some types of restrictions to assure the minimal living environment proposed isn't destroyed. He had an overall concern about the density and the layout per lot in the planned community. He's concerned that yes the lots are being reduced (number of dwelling units) in a market that will never sell the product, and yet forcing some future which could be damaging to the overall community and the on-going property values for the purchasers by forcing that density downstream. He would like the applicant to address the street situation of Via Escola and Loma. Mr. Stowell was not prepared to address lot sizes. Regarding the building addition to lots -- staff has proposed a condition that requires a 10 foot minimum for room additions and he requested consideration to allow open patio covers to encroach further into the set backs. The condition as it exists is OK except for his request to allow patio covers to encroach a little further. Coverage ratios can be discussed and included in the CC&R's. Commissioner Walters personally was not too concerned as to the precise lot size. The basic issue is the 6,000 square foot lots. He didn't have a problem with seeing a conversion from condominiums to this type of single family dwellings. He thought there might be a way to put in a limit as to the density permitted on Lots 3 and 4. Is there some legal way by which the homeowners of a 4,000 square foot lot in this project could be rated for additional square footage to the property owners' holdings equating 6,000 square foot lots? Mr. Herrick explained traditionally the method of ownership of common areas for both condominiums and projects that have common landscaped areas is the deed indicating the lot or air space and then an undivided percentage interest in the common areas. Whether or not the Commission wishes to consider the lot space would be a policy question. 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Commissioner Walters asked if the homeowners' association could take care of the open space property, but the individual space in the lot be more segregated and owned by the individual homeowners? Mr. Herrick responded it would be somewhat more cumbersome administratively. That would be an unusual approach on how it would be structured. You would end up with a checkered board effect in the open space area on the recorder's maps and the CC&R's would be a little more complex. Commissioner Walters was suggesting some creative imagination to create the effect of having a 6,000 square foot lot owned by each homeowner. Failing to do that, the City will have a problem with other developers. Commissioner Bosch would like a response to the actual status and phasing of Via Escola and Loma Streets. Mr. Stowell said they were currently conditioned that they could not pull the 501st building permit without the connection being put into place. Belmont represents roughly 300 units. They could only pull 200 building permits before the road must be completely connected. Edison is proceeding with the Loma construction all the way up to their property line. Plans have been approved and they have budgeted for the construction of that link and it is proceeding. It will be in place for them to connect to it. Mr. Bennyhoff took offense to the applicant's rebuttal and he was offended. It was the first time in 15 years of being called an elitist for living in Orange Park Acres. He has never proposed 1 acre or 1/2 acre homes, but has fought hard to get 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. Mr. Stowell apologized to Mr. Bennyhoff. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters didn't see a problem in capping development on Lots 3 and 4. The points Mr. Bennyhoff brings out are well taken so far as the possible misinterpretation by the Irvine Company and others in East Orange that the 6,000 square foot lot rule is no longer in existence. Although on the other hand, he concurred with the developer that this new proposal has more appeal than the condominiums. He hoped there was a way to find a legal way for the homeowners to participate in a scheme that allows them to own 6,000 square feet to counter any misunderstanding that might occur with the other developments. He's not as concerned with the road at this point. With the economy loosening up he believes the project will be constructed quickly, sold fairly quickly and what you've got is a widening soon to occur on Santiago Canyon Road and he understands the widening on Loma itself, including the bridge. He suspected if there were an ultimate time limit, which could be agreed to voluntarily by the contractor (5 years), perhaps that would put that fear to rest. Commissioner Smith's record shows a strong belief in a minimum 6,000 square foot lot for single family development. This project with a smaller sized lot with a single family home on it is an improvement to her thinking and it definitely is an improvement over the planned unit development of condominiums. She would agree with Mr. Bennyhoff's statements down the line on everything he said except that she prefers a single family development over condominiums. She finds herself in a dilemma because even though 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 she supports the concept of the 6,000 square foot standard lots, her children cannot afford to buy that size single family home in Orange. If she intends to have her children live in Orange, then this project presents an affordable single family home, both for young families and also for retired families. She's extremely concerned about setting a precedent for future developers. She's intrigued by Commissioner Walters' proposal. That is an Edison Company easement with the transmission lines. She and her husband are stock holders in the Edison Company (her husband has been employed with Edison for the last 25 years); there would probably be a conflict of interest in her voting on anything regarding that property. Mr. Herrick responded with respect to stock ownership in major corporations, there are two rules to look at -- the amount of income derived from dividends (that is subject to the normal $250 per annum situation); the other is the ownership interest (a sliding scale). He would need to know the percentage of ownership and number of shares. He suspected Commissioner Smith was not close to a conflict on the stock ownership issue. Commissioner Smith said there was an important piece of information she did not have regarding the number of lots of specific size. It seems to loom as the big issue at this point. She had some concerns about reducing the back yard size to a 15 foot set back because it increases the bulk and mass of the house on an already small lot and it takes away open space from the family. She would be inclined to look favorably on the patio covers, but less inclined to accept the room addition, back to a 10 foot set back of the yard. She needed more information and was not personally prepared to vote on this project at this hearing. Commissioner Bosch threw in a few different thoughts. He sees a great difference between this project and the Inner American proposal and the differences are important in terms of finding a way to make this work. He didn't think the two were a reasonable parallel because the Inner American proposal was for the last developable multi-family residential lot on a larger planned community and it didn't propose to lower the density substantially, but it changed the housing type. And, although it did in the strict definition perhaps create lots, it created court yard homes or cluster of homes onto an auto court that are incapable of being added onto by the structure of the planned community, by the approved architectural plans and by everything that went with it. It's a final product, just as a condominium development would be a final product. You can't go out and add onto that. It also provides a housing type of a size and configuration where one would not anticipate seeing large extended families who wouldn't be crowding into the unit, overall, he thought, create a better physical environment for that piece of land. The proposed project is something else. There is an artificial construct that is applied to this specific development type. It's part of a planned community, but they're individual lots with free-standing houses on them. The problem becomes a perception. What would greatly help is some good brain work in identifying how the City can strictly construct this type of project legally as not being that precedent. He wouldn't add his voice to the concept of trying to sub-parcelize adjacent open space whether it be an Edison easement or a set aside for open space as in fee ownership that is tied to individual lots. That would be a nightmare in terms of governments over the years and a potential precedent that could set for misuse elsewhere despite how well it might solve an appearance of lot size problems. The solution lies in where the applicant doesn't want to be caught with having to help solve the problem of the potential precedent it sets, but needs to be. With some minor physical problems, there is a basically decent development here. This, however, sets the perception of a small lot given the minor 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 nature of the shared open space facilities that someone is going to apply elsewhere without the adjacent open space. It needs to be solved in a way that gives something that is marketable, meets the current need and doesn't cause someone to come back later and take advantage of a precedent to destroy other portions of the community. How do we get there? That's the key thing that is desperately needed regarding this application to give some assurances, coupled with the necessary tie to the overall development. There is a maximum set. He needs stipulations and assurances that are iron clad built into the project to assure that the easterly end of the planned community is not overburdened with something that would be a negative environment with negative impacts on the pre-approved developments adjacent to that. He concurred with Commissioner Smith's thoughts relative to building addition vs. patio covers. You can't have it both ways -- it's either a planned community, technically a condominium of detached units on larger than unit footprint lots or it's not -- which one is it? The standards ought to still stick with those that went with the planned community that went with the idea of closer, more clustered housing that the developer originally came in with. He thinks the market understands that and can live with that. He would like to see some structuring of condition 5 and related ones that limit overbuilding by future additions to this, or allow for that overbuilding by reducing the size of the product that goes in initially and set some good standards to make it work. He understands the street problem. He anticipates these will move quite rapidly and get over the 500th permit within a relatively short time. How do we resolve the perception problem of small individual lots? Mr. Stowell suggested a continuance to try and work through some of the issues. He thinks there are solutions (i.e., restricting room additions through the CC&R's} to try and deal with the density issue, and ultimate time frames for Via Escola could be addressed. He can prepare a list of the lot sizes and give the Commission additional information they are needing in order for them to make their decision. The applicant would like a couple of weeks to prepare the additional information. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue the modification to Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 and modification of Tentative Tract Map 14593 until the regular meeting of Wednesday, July 7, 1993 with the concurrence of the applicant for the reasons stated. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5-93 -CITY OF ORANGE A request to amend the Housing Element of the City of Orange General Plan. NOTE: A previous Environmental Impact Report was certified on August 22, 1989. This proposed amendment is within the scope of the program approved in August of 1989 and is adequately described for the purposes of CEQA. 14 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Jere Murphy, Advanced Planning Manager, reviewed the proposed Housing Element with the Commission. He recognized the work done by Mary Ann Chamberlain, who did much of the writing and changes, along with Connie Belands and Karen Warner, who prepared the section on the housing units at risk (Casa Ramon project). Karen oversaw the project and did the initial interfacing with the Department of Housing & Community Development. Mary Ellen Laster from the Redevelopment Agency also participated in reviewing the Housing Element, particularly from the standpoint of housing programs that the Agency is responsible for. The new primary areas are the ones of concern mentioned by the HCD office with regard to increased density, allowable through the General Plan. Through discussions, staff has included in the proposed Housing Element to add higher density residential or at least consider proposing adding higher density for the commercial areas of The City shopping center, Town & Country and to provide higher density residential as part of The Depot Specific Plan. The staff also committed to identifying a higher density residential category in the General Plan at a future point in time, particularly looking for the sites within the community that might allow for a higher density (24-36 units per acre). Staff sees that as a long-term goal -- not ashort-term goal. Staff is also working an affordable housing plan trying to address the issue of providing affordable housing, particularly with the new Irvine property to the East. The Bonus Density Program is also of interest to the HCD staff. Commissioner Bosch appreciates the fine job that has been done by staff and the perseverance in dealing with the State on this. Commissioner Smith asked what the word "moderate" meant on Page 29, Paragraph 2? Does that refer to specific density? Mr. Murphy replied no. They are trying to balance economics and historic preservation and still allow for a certain amount of development in the area, not curtailing development entirely, but still attempting to preserve the historically significant structures within the area. Commissioner Smith assumes the entire document addresses the State's question about what the City of Orange is doing about affordable housing in the area. Everything is a proposal and nothing is binding -- it's a General Plan. Mr. Murphy explained this was a goal setting document and is part of the General Plan. Commissioner Smith asked why are not other vacant school sites in Orange included? Mr. Murphy said they tried to stay away from controversial sites. Peralta is a sensitive school site. A lot of discussion has occurred there and rather to speculate, staff thought it would be better to talk about sites they knew the school district was attempting to sell off. Commissioner Smith had a suggestion for a change of term for site identification. Only newcomers call the Orange Plaza a traffic circle (Page 25 and 29). She suggested they refer to it as the "Orange Plaza (Chapman/Glassell traffic circle)". Commissioner Walters referred to Page 3 (State's letter to the City) and the issue of occupancy rules and regulations. He wanted staff's interpretation of what that meant? 15 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Mr. Murphy's assumption was that the State was talking about not eliminating affordable housing through over enforcement of technical code requirements. Ms. Chamberlain explained the State knew the City was in the process at one time of approving an occupancy ordinance. They were very unhappy about that ordinance. When the City didn't adopt the ordinance, there was relief. They really don't want the City to pass an occupancy ordinance, but would rather the City use a more civilized manner. The State also has documents showing approximately 20% of the City's multi- family housing is overcrowded. The State is aware of what is going on. Their thought of providing low income housing is to increase densities allowed. Mr. Herrick was in contact with the Legal staff of the State who indicated that any city that adopted an occupancy regulation that was different from the State standard would not have an approved Housing Element, and that the Department was perfectly willing to throw its Legal staff into any court cases involving cities that undertook programs they felt were designed to discriminate against low cost housing. Staff will continue to work on the affordable housing plan and the inclusionary ordinance for the City which they hope to bring back to the Commission by the first of next year with some answers. Commissioner Smith commended staff on the sections that were written about the older neighborhoods; they were sensitively written. Under the community participation meetings she was rather surprised to see that the last meeting was held in 1987. She hoped if further work was done on this, there could be some current community participation meetings. Citizen input often brings good ideas about what is currently feasible and what is going on in the community. It was noted that certified E.I.R. 3-89 was identified as covering the environmental qualifications and mitigation measures necessary for the project so that no further environmental review is required. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to adopt General Plan Amendment 5-93, amending the City of Orange General Plan by modifying the Housing Element. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14549 - SOUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Revision of an approved tentative tract map in accordance with the conditions of approval. This project was originally proposed with 105 lots, each a minimum 5,000 square feet in size. As conditions of approval, the City Council required that the map be revised as follows: 1. That all lots have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. 2. That all lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet. 3. That the final tentative tract map design and site plan review shall be by the Planing Commission and additional comments may be imposed at that time. 16 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 This project is part of the Southridge Planned Community, and is located on the north side of the planned extension of Via Escola, east of the existing Belmont Estates development, and west of the planned connection of Imperial Highway/Coma Street. The Planning Commission is asked to review the revised map to assure that the revised project is consistent with the approval granted. Commissioner Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Bosch had one concern on the cul de sac at Street G -- the on-street parking. He didn't know if a study were made on the risks and values and the marketability of reducing a certain number of the driveways to the throat of two and widening to three where there are deeper set backs, and whether that would produce any more parking. He's concerned that there are nine houses that eventually have a couple of on-street parking spaces in front of them. Mr. Godlewski said staff hasn't done a particular analysis on that cul de sac. Staff has had very little contact from the tracts complaining about what they purchased. They have talked to people in the East Orange area on other issues and every time we bring up a concern, they almost always respond they like their neighborhood; they like where it is. There have been no negative comments. There is more impact on that cul de sac than normally seen. Commissioner Walters spoke from personal experience of living in a cul de sac. One of the motivation's of the homeowner is to keep your car parked in the driveway because if the cars are parked in the cul de sac, the neighbors have a difficult time turning around. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Tentative Tract Map 14549 and Administrative Adjustment 91-26 with conditions 1-41 of the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -CITY OF ORANGE The Planning Commission is asked to make a finding that the City's proposed Seven Year Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. Jere Murphy was asked to make a brief presentation on behalf of Scott Morgan from the City Manager's office. The Commission received a memo dated June 7 that identifies five projects that do not conform with the General Plan and the recommendation is that the Commission make a finding that all the other projects do conform to the General Plan and that the General Plan must be amended before monies are expended on the five projects. 17 Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to find that the Capital Improvement Program, as presented, is in conformance with the General Plan except for those projects listed in the June 7 memo, which would require a General Plan amendment before funds are expended. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Mr. Godlewski informed the Commissioner there may be a problem with the. July 19 regularly scheduled meeting. There will be two Commissioners absent at that meeting. As of this date, staff has received one request for consideration at that hearing. That item may or may not be ready to go at that time, based on what the applicant has submitted so far. There is the potential for a cancelled meeting and the Commission's consideration was appreciated. The Commission felt it would be prudent to cancel the July 19 meeting based on staff's concern. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to cancel the July 19 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was opposed to the Edison easement as open space. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart sld MOTION CARRIED 18