Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Senior Planner; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JUNE 7. 1993 June 21, 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of June 7, 1993, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED ITEM 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. Staff mentioned one letter was received from William Wells who opposed the project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Ed Elmasian, 4667 Challen, Riverside, was the pastor of the 6 year old church in which 10 countries were represented by the congregation. Their church has made a positive impact on the community and it is their challenge to reach the Hispanic community. He said there were many testimonies to be heard, but they want to be brief in their presentation. Their current site is being sold and they have found this place. Having their own place will be more effective in the community. Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor June 21, 1993 A church member residing at 17912 Esposia Circle in Huntington Beach gave his personal testimony in favor of this church. Mr. Servantez, 2252 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, was involved in crime related activities before joining the church. His life has changed for the better. Elaine, who resides at 1329 East Grace Place, Santa Ana, also gave her personal testimony in favor of the church. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart's only concern is that the operating hours of the church must not conflict with the business hours of the other industrial tenants and noted the use is limited to Saturdays, Sundays and evening hours after 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (Condition 1). Is the applicant aware of this and understand the condition? Yes.) Commissioner Walters thought two bathrooms with single toilet facilities were not sufficient for a growing congregation. Commissioner Bosch said the City would require conformance to the Uniform Plumbing Code when the applicant applies for an occupancy permit. Pastor Elmasian said they only need two now and as they grow, they will take care of the restroom facilities. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2015-93 with conditions 1 and 2 as per the staff report, 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 VARIANCE 1951-93 -HOME DEPOT A request to remodel and expand the gardening area of an existing home improvement center. The request is to allow the expansion without providing for the total number of code required parking spaces. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1430-93 has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Ms. Wolff commented the parking requirements for the use under the current code was discussed in the staff report. The project was originally approved under an earlier parking ordinance. The parking is deficient and the variance is required regardless of how the parking is tallied. The reading of the complete staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant June 21, 1993 Susan Quon, 911 Studebaker Road, Long Beach, was with MPR Architects representing Home Depot. They've reviewed the staff report and will comply with the requirements. The house plant enclosure is a new feature Home Depot is bringing to the West Coast. It is for the specific purpose of retailing live house plant nursery material. It's an extensive retailing program where there are demonstrations, interior gardens, pools, fountains and plants on display. Commissioner Bosch found the application addresses the potential effect on the business of the applicant (in items 1 and 2 of findings) rather than finding a hardship on the ordinance as applied to this particular parcel of land. The answers do not respond to the necessary finding; it responds to aself-imposed condition of existing buildings. Why does Home Depot want the variance? Ms. Quon responded Home Depot has had an opportunity to build a home improvement center in the City and it has been in place for a couple of years. They are now coming back to retrofit a site where a building is in place. They would like to continue the best services to the City and this might be an area they could excel in. Commissioner Bosch was looking for grounds in which Home Depot feels the Commission can act under State law finding they have a hardship on their property; that the application of the zoning ordinance now in place, which is less restrictive than that for parking that was in place when the original application was approved, would deny the occupant and owner of rights enjoyed by others in the City. Ms. Quon said she had an exhibit that demonstrates the amount of parking that is utilized on a Saturday and shared it with the Commissioners. The photo shows the area of the parking lot and the apparent use of the store. There is excess parking and Home Depot believes there is sufficient parking to allow the expansion to move forward. Those speaking in favor Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, supported Home Depot coming to Orange; it's one of her favorite places to shop. The parking lot is almost empty and she can't see why there should be any fuss about a little expansion. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart said the parking lot of Home Depot is the worst when it comes to direction, ingress/egress, and traffic congestion. He doesn't have a problem with the amount of parking being used or the expansion. He would, however, like them to redesign and restripe the parking lot. He has a problem with the way the parking lot is laid out. Commissioner Bosch agreed. It's the location of the main drive onto the private access road given a proper throat condition for safety from Katella, yet that means nothing aligns with it. He didn't have a problem with the application in terms of use or the use of parking on the site, but he wants to be sure they follow the legal requirements of the State with regard to the findings for a variance. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 Commissioner Smith commented with the deletion of 23 parking spaces the parking lot will be deficient 55 spaces. Ms. Wolff said that was correct. Under the current parking code, the reduction of 23 spaces will make it 55 spaces deficient because of the change in the ordinance. Under the current ordinance, the parking is already deficient. Commissioner Smith had concerns because of the precedent it sets for shopping centers with deficient parking spaces. Overall, she felt parking was deficient in residential and commercial areas. She wondered about allowing a building to expand without allowing adequate parking. What if Home Depot doesn't stay there? The City must be watchful of not creating those kind of circumstances (inadequate parking). Two other smaller uses have been allowed on the site and the parking potential has depleted that parking potential. Commissioner Cathcart was concerned about that as well until he read through the parking engineering study that Home Depot paid for. It says the study confirms the reduction of 55 parking spaces from the code required minimum of 594 spaces, down to 539 spaces, and a proposed parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, will not have an adverse impact on parking. (If the parking code is what makes this different in asking for a variance.) Commissioner Bosch said given the construction of the ordinance with regard to ranges of uses which drives the parking demand, there may be other uses not specifically defined whose parking demand doesn't fit conveniently into a slot that has been designed in the ordinance. If, in fact, there can be a demonstration that proves that, is that a sufficient finding for a variance? Mr. Herrick believed these questions were within the realm of policy. State law does require the finding be based on hardship, depending on size, shape and topography, etc. pertaining to the use of the land. It's clear that economics alone is not a hardship. But the question is somewhat different. It is whether or not something that is not contemplated by the ordinance can in fact work in a hardship when compared to other properties in the City. He believed this would be a realm of policy that the Commission is entitled to make a decision on using its best judgment. Commissioner Walters said because of its nature of being half warehouse, half retail he thought that was the problem in terms of what to apply for parking per square foot. Because it is heavy on the warehousing end of the business is why the lot is rarely full. If the City is going to reduce the amount of the parking to accommodate the expansion, he thought they needed to be more sensitive to the confusing egress that exists and the striping of the lot. As the use increases and at the same time parking is reduced, he thought suitable and proper striping should occur. He suggested a continuance to the next meeting in order for the applicant to submit a plan for restriping the lot. Commissioner Bosch agreed and thought it would be beneficial to assist in identifying the hardship that is being put forward as the grounds for the variance to also demonstrate through square footages in the building how this project does have a substantial area of bulk/warehouse storage vs. the typical hardware/paint home improvement store. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 Commissioner Smith asked if the property were sold, would it have to be used as a warehouse (retail/commercial sales) building or is it feasible it could become a department store? Ms. Wolff explained there is a conditional use permit issued for this particular use. If anyone else would want to go in there, that use would have to be evaluated in terms of how similar it was to the precise use that is currently there. If it is not close enough, then it would be staff's judgment the C.U.P. would not cover that use. It would require a new conditional use permit. Commissioner Bosch asked the applicant for the specific ratio of bulk or warehouse utilization in the building vs. the more retail volume to identify the difference is actual use between the specific business and the business contemplated by the parking ordinance. Ms. Quon could provide a fixture plan which indicates how the displays are set up to demonstrate a little more clearly what appears to be more retail oriented as opposed to warehouse and sales oriented. Commissioner Bosch also referred to the parking access relative to the connection between the reduction in parking and increase in volume and how that would exacerbate the existing bad situation at the driveway to the private drive on site. He asked the applicant to address what might be done to mitigate that problem. Ms. Quon concurred with a continuance to provide the Commissioners with additional information. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue Variance 1951-93 to July 7, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 6-93, ZONE CHANGE 1161-93, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1431-93 -CITY OF ORANGE ON BEHALF OF THE "COMMITTEE OF 300" A proposal by the "Committee of 300" to change the zoning for 40 parcels from R-4 Residential Maximum Multiple Family) and C-2 (General Business) to R-2-6 Residential Duplex, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) and OP (Office Professional). In addition to the zone change request, a general plan amendment to redesignate a portion of the site from Old Towne mixed use, Industrial and Medium Density Residential (15 to 24 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (6 to 15 dwelling units per acre) is required. Subject property consists of 40 parcels that total 8.4 acres in area and that are primarily located along the 100 and 200 blocks of South Cypress, and the 100 to 300 blocks of South Lemon Street, including parcels located on the 200 and 300 blocks of West Almond and Palmyra and the 400 block of West Marietta Avenue. Properties under consideration of rezoning are addressed as follows: 225, 229, 230, 237, 305 West Almond; 155, 246, 280, 294 South Cypress; 209 to 273 3 South Cypress (odd #'s east side of street); 130 to 186 South Lemon (even #'s west 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 side of street); 173, 205, 221, 276, 290, 301 and 311 South Lemon; 402 to 416 Marietta Avenue; and 225, 226, 231, 313, 325, 327, and 335 West Palmyra. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1431-93 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, presented the staff report. The proposed area, known as Area "C" of the Old Towne rezoning requests, consists of 40 parcels that total 8.4 acres. The proposal by the "Committee of 300" is to change the zoning for the 40 parcels from R-4, M-1 and C-2 to R-2-6 and OP. In addition to the zone change this would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate portions of the site from Old Towne mixed use, Industrial and Medium Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential. The "Committee of 300" presented a petition to the City Council in January, 1992 requesting the rezoning to the R-2-6 district. The City Council referred that action to the Community Development Department and asked staff to review the request and make recommendations on the requested zoning. On February 25, 1992 the Orange Tax Payers Association submitted a petition containing signatures of 70 to 80 property owners to the City Council opposing the proposed rezonings. Area "C" was the fifth in a series of five workshops during the summer of 1992. Staff also prepared separate reports and the Planning Commission held workshops on the two issues of the actual buildout that could actually occur on lots in the Old Towne area, as well as the economics of preservation and various development alternatives. On February 9, 1993, the City Council reviewed the staff reports and minutes from the workshops and concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to hold public hearings on Areas "B" through "E". Planning staff has examined this rezoning proposal in relation to existing land use patterns, historic resources and context, bulk/mass/density, zoning and/or land use conflicts and non-conforming uses. Due to the variation in the study area, each area has been broken into sub-areas for analysis purposes. On an overall basis of the 40 parcels, 34 are residential in use, one is commercial, one is commercial and residential, two are office professional, one is an institutional use (church), and one is a public alley. Of the 34 residential parcels, 17 are single family, 4 are duplexes, 3 are tri-plexes, 2 are four plexes, four lots have 5 or 6 units each and four lots have 7 to 10 units on a parcel. Development of multi-family units has occurred in two concentrated areas within the study area -- the southeast corner of Cypress and Almond, and the north and southeast corners of Palmyra and Lemon. Eleven of the 39 developed lots are owner-occupied. Numerous land use and zoning conflicts exist in the study area; individual parcels are "spot zoned", residential areas are zoned for manufacturing use, one parcel has two different zoning designations (split zoned) and several parcels have zoning designations which are inconsistent with the General Plan. The parcel located at 153 (155) South Cypress is spot zoned for C-2 with the balance of the parcels on the street zoned R-2-6. The half block is general planned for Low Medium Density Residential; therefore, the C-2 zoning is in conflict with the General Plan. An application to rezone an adjacent parcel at 145 South Cypress from R-2-6 to C-2 was denied by the City Council in August, 1990. In Sub-Area II, which is the 200 block of South Cypress Street and Marietta Avenue area, the parcels are zoned R-1 and are residential in use. Six of the parcels are single family residences. Several property owners on Marietta have requested assistance from the City regarding rezoning this area, so they can obtain refinancing on their homes. Within Sub-Area III, the southeast and southwest corners of Almond Avenue and Lemon Street, a parcel at the southwest corner is presently zoned C-2 and has three residential structures containing four units on the property. The parcel at the southeast corner of Lemon and Almond has both a C-2 zone on the northern portion of the parcel and R-4 zone on the southern portion. 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 The northern C-2 portion is vacant at the present time; the southern portion contains residential units. In Sub-Area IV, which is the Lemon Street 100 block south (west side and southern portion of eastside), the majority of structures within this area are residential in use, followed by office professional and institutional use. The streetscape of the area remains residential in character except for the one stucco storage and commercial building at 130 South Lemon Street. Within Sub-Area V, which is the southeast corner of Almond and Cypress, and the northeast and southeast corners of Palmyra and Lemon, seven of the eight lots at these locations are already developed to higher densities and contain no historic structures. Twenty-six of the 39 parcels within the entire study area are contributing historic structures, in addition to the church at 305 West Almond, which is identified as a local landmark within the Historic Preservation Element. One 2 1 /2 story 1889 Victorian structure at 163 South Cypress is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Several early citrus packing houses across the street have been identified as being eligible for listing on the National Register. Three groupings of historic homes remain intact within the study area -- the east side of 100 South Cypress Street, the 100 block of South Lemon and the southern portion of the 200 South Cypress, Marietta and Palmyra areas all contain groupings of historic homes. Marietta Avenue represents the only area of concentration of small Mediterranean Revival homes in Old Towne. Sixty-seven percent of the structures within the study area are single story, two of the sub-areas contain a majority of those single story structures -- the west side of the 100 block South Lemon and the Marietta, Palmyra and Cypress Street sub-area. There are five residential non-conforming structures within the area at the present time. If the R-2-6 zone were to be approved, there would be an additional nine non-conforming structures. The staff recommendation would reduce the additional non-conforming parcels to three. The Public Works Department estimates that the current infrastructure system in place is adequate to support the existing development densities. The only exception to that statement is with regard to the limited development of the arterial street system in the area that if not further developed, could adversely affect the traffic level of service in the Old Towne area. In summary, staff has considered all issues in relation to meeting established goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Historic Preservation Element, while at the same time trying to balance the growth and development issues. It is staff's concern that careful consideration be given to the creation of additional non-conforming properties while at the same time eliminate existing land use conflicts. The Commission has received a letter from Brian Mickelson, 335 West Palmyra, as well as communication from Alice Clark on behalf of the Orange Tax Payers Association at the time of the public workshops of last summer. The Commission has also received minutes from the August 19 public workshop on Area "C". Another letter was received from Ruth Kroll this evening, delivered to staff the same afternoon. The following are the staff recommendations by Sub-Area: Sub Area I 153 (155) South Cypress spot zoned C-2 parcel. Rezone to conform to adjoining R-2-6 zone and eliminate inconsistency with General Plan designation of Low Medium Density Residential. Sub Area II 402-416 West Marietta Avenue. 246, 280-284, and 294 South Cypress. Change the General Plan designation from Industrial to Low Medium Density and rezone these parcels from M-1 to R-2-6 RCD. On the following parcels change the General Plan designation from Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and rezone from R-4 to R-2-6 RCD -- 243, 253-255, 263, 265-273 South Cypress Street; 313, 325, 327, 335 West Palmyra Avenue; and 276-292 South Lemon Street. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 Sub Area III 230 West Almond Avenue (R-4) and 205-225 South Lemon Street (C-2 and R-4). Both parcels have Old Towne Commercial and Medium Density General Plan designations -- change to all Medium Density Residential. Rezone northern portion of 205-225 South Lemon Street and 206-212 South Lemon Street from C-2 to R-4. For the parcel located at 206-212 South Lemon. Change the General Plan designation from Old Towne to Medium Density Residential and rezone from C-2 to R-4. Sub Area IV Rezone the following C-2 parcels located within the study area north of Almond Avenue to OP: 225, 229, 237, and 305 West Almond Avenue; 130, 146, 156, 166, 173, 176 and .186-188 South Lemon Street. General Plan designation would remain as Old Towne Commercial. Sub Area V Retain the existing Medium Density General Plan designation and R-4 zoning status on the following clustered parcels: 209, 219, 225, 235-239 South Cypress; 301-311 South Lemon Street; and 225, 226, and 231 West Palmyra Avenue. Commissioner Smith wanted to make sure she was reading the section correctly on non-conforming uses; that there are five non-conforming uses now and if the entire area were to go under R-2-6, that would add nine non-conforming uses. (Yes.) But, if the Commission follows staff's recommendation, which includes retention of R-4 and shifting things around, that it would add three non-conforming uses. Mr. Murphy explained staff's recommendation would reduce the additional non- conforming to three. So there would be a total of eight non-conforming uses. Commissioner Smith heard Mr. Murphy to say there were two existing OP zonings now and she didn't see them on her map. Is there anything zoned OP in the area right now? Mr. Murphy responded no. At the present time the area is all C-2 and R-4 zoning. Commissioner Smith asked if the church were zoned C-2? (Correct.) Those speaking in favor Ann Seibert, 340 South Olive, commended staff and the Planning Commission for their thoroughness of the research and reports on this issue. The "Committee of 300" is a group of concerned neighbors. They are not, nor have they ever been an OTPA committee, although many of them are proud to be members of the Preservation organization. OTPA has supported their efforts, but they are a neighborhood group trying to look after their quality of life. When they submitted their proposal to the City Council, it was with the understanding they expected to compromise and they are willing to do so. Area "C" has many mixed uses. They agree with the staff recommendations to bring the zoning into compliance with the existing land use (i.e., residential to R-2-6, commercial to OP and leaving R-4 in the corners wherever it is applicable and wherever it fits within the area). This still allows for development of second units on those properties that are not already developed. There is, however, one small area that they wish to have clarified by staff. The two parcels on West Palmyra, 225 and 226, are single family homes abutting very large multi-plex buildings. The property owners would like to be put into Area "D" in that these properties fit in with the streetscape, land use, density, etc. of Area "D". There is still a question of measuring lot size from the middle of the street. She thought that would be cleared up by now. It doesn't seem to do anything but cause confusion to the property owners as to what determines their zoning 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 and the eventual buildout. In the final reports, she thought staff came to the conclusion that parking limited buildout on the properties, not necessarily the lot size. Another point that always comes up in these discussions is that they are against property rights. Nothing could be further from the truth in their minds. They want the right to preserve their neighborhoods for the common good. They felt their property values could only appreciate over time if the neighborhood is kept up. They firmly believe the preservation of the irreplaceable heritage on their blocks is m the public interest, and the future of open space in historic places will suffer if they can't defend the use of private land in the interest of preserving history. Preservation doesn't preclude the homeowner from developing his property; it just holds back over development of private properties so that the neighborhoods can still be viable and valuable in the future. They support staff's recommendations for the area. They aren't what they originally asked for, but they're willing to compromise and they can see that this is a good compromise for this sub area. Brian Mickelson, 335 West Palmyra, supports the rezoning of the area and thanked the Planning Commission for including his letter addressed to the original Planning session. He referred to the minutes from that study session in which several residents spoke about their concerns for the neighborhood, which he tried to address in his letter. Those being the decline of the neighborhood or a community feeling/involvement. He addressed the issue of owner-occupation of the area. He noted in the staff report 11 of the 40 parcels are owner occupied. There are 10 residential units of 101 in the area that are owner occupied. That supports his concern of an area without owner occupation in which there is a decline in involved and concerned citizens. He's not against renters; they too can be involved. Preservation of the historic structures and the character of Old Towne is important to him, but the sense of community and neighborhood is far more important. He didn't want to see his area decline. Jim Owens, 163 South Cypress, spoke as a resident of Old Towne and a homeowner in an old house. It was his sincere hope that the City can address the continued decline of the area. Staff's recommended plan is a beginning; it's a beginning to stabilize and go forward. The zoning that has occurred over the years (spot zoning) has created a hopeless disarray of uses --traffic, noise, parking -- a continuing decline of values in the historic part of Orange. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, read a small paragraph from the staff report dated August 19, 1992. The proposed zoning changes compliment the General Plan, Historic Preservation Element and the overall historic context of the neighborhood. He felt staff's recommendations were a reasonable compromise and the best possible solution for every parcel under consideration with the exception of the single family historically contributing homes at 225 and 226 West Palmyra. Barbara Noble, 3025 Hillcrest, spoke on behalf of her mother in-law who was ill and could not attend. She resides at 173 South Cypress and has lived there over 60 years. she has seen many changes take place. Her letter was read for the record in favor of staff's recommendation. It would help ease the spot zoning problems that have been allowed to occur. Those speaking in opposition Ruth Kroll, 1229 East Lomita, admitted she was confused. Her letter explained what she was in favor of and if that's staff's recommendation, then she's for it. She was 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 concerned about the one lot that was 10,000 square feet addressed 221, 223 and 225, and she wants that to remain R-4. Commissioner Bosch explained the existing zoning on the corner of Almond and Palmyra is C-2. T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman, said taking away zoning rights from property owners was wrong and he was against it; it shouldn't be done. Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, was opposed to any down zoning in the Southwest Quadrant without the express permission of the property owner asking for it and paying the City fee of approximately $2,000. The Air Quality Management measures call for less cars on the street and increase of residential density/mixed use density in and around the Depot area, up to a quarter of a mile, so people can walk or ride their bikes. She was in favor of keeping the density where it is; people should be able to put in affordable housing if they want. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, spoke against the down zoning; it was wrong and was a form of discrimination. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, thought something in the staff report needed to be clarified when they turned in 78 petitions (all owners of R-3 and R-4 properties in that area). She thinks down zoning is wrong and hopes it is straightened out some day. If someone wants their property zoning changed, then they should be able to do so. The preservation movement caused trouble in Old Towne. Wil Chambers had a copy of the first petition that says Old Towne Preservation Association was involved; they put out the first petitions for people to sign and he thought Commissioner Smith could verify that for him. Commissioner Smith responded to Mr. Chambers' question. She could not verify that as being true. Rebuttal Mr. Murphy responded to the question of the two parcels at 225 and 226 West Palmyra. That suggestion is worth consideration by the Planning Commission. Those two parcels contain single family homes and lie immediately adjacent to Area "D". They might appropriately be discussed at the time the Commission considers Area "D". Commissioner Cathcart stated at the study session for Area "C" on August 19, 1992, Vern Cross wanted to be put into Area "D" and the resident at 225 West Palmyra also wanted to be in Area "D". Mr. Murphy said the other question raised was in determining densities under the General Plan. Staff has a policy, subject to review and modification by the Planning CommissionlCity Council, for using the gross area for determining density, but then also requiring a 3/4's of an unit in calculation in order to achieve the next full unit. You need a .76 or greater to receive the additional unit on a particular parcel of land. There are two ways to look at that calculation as opposed to using a strict net density. The reason they have used that means of calculation is because ordinarily the General Plan is based on gross acreage, particularly in the Old Towne area, with the high 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 preponderance of street area because of the grid pattern, which does not exist in the newer portions of the City. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart commented everyone has looked at this long and hard. He thought when this began there was a greater concern of splitting the community than any positive element that could come out of here. He thought the staff had done a good job. Input from both sides makes the system work and hopefully everyone can live with the decision. He believed, though, the City of Orange made a disservice to the community by making themselves the applicant. It sets a precedent of fiscal irresponsibility to start picking and choosing on what applicants should get special favor. There needs to be rules on what makes some things special. There is a need for Development Standards as the City expands to the East. They can't always fix all the problems with development by zoning. He would like to see everyone get together and develop some good Development Standards dealing with F.A.R.'s and parking requirements, setbacks and specific elements that make certain areas unique. They don't want to see Old Towne destroyed; however, they don't want to look at Old Towne and say that is so special that everything else has no priority: Another program needs to be developed to achieve mutual goals without trying to tear it apart with zoning. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Negative Declaration 1431-93, as it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Walters was moved to support the staff recommendation because he didn't see any solid opposition from residents who live in the affected area, on the affected lots. There is a lot of concern stated about downsizing, changing zoning that has an adverse impact on value -- if so, he didn't see it translated into strong public reaction from the affected residents. He also saw a significant amount of rezoning from M-1 and commercial into R-2-6, which he thought was healthy. Infrastructure improvements will impact the neighborhoods and that needs to be weighed in terms of long-term cost of living in Orange and the quality of life because density has an adverse impact. Commissioner Smith was also in favor of staff's recommendation. It was not an easy staff report to put together and it didn't happen in two weeks time. The cost to government has been great over the last 10 years. This quadrant was referred to as the soup sandwich by a friend of hers and it's an accurate description with practically every zoning the City has contained in about three blocks. The recommendation has eliminated M-1 from the area; it has softened the C-2 to an O-P, which still allows business to exist with residential; it has looked at the land use as it currently exists with current densities and appropriately capsulized specific parts of the neighborhood into R-2 and R-4 zones. She appreciated that the RCD has been included in the R-2-6 area. She would accept the recommendation with 225 and 226 West Palmyra going into Area D" because it would be more appropriate. It was her hope that they could put this to bed at some time in the very near future and accept the zoning, which is a compromise to both sides. It is not what either side absolutely wanted, but she believed it was a good compromise. The main thing she is concerned about in this neighborhood is the 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 decline of the neighborhood, the increase of crime, noise, traffic and pollution which does not benefit the City of Orange at all. It is the City's responsibility to take a look at what is going on and to make decisions that not only ensure historic preservation and the integrity of their historic resources, but more importantly, restore and protect quality of life to all residents of Orange. Commissioner Bosch shared that his grandparents lived at 206 West Almond; he's saddened by the deterioration of that house over the years since they departed. His father was the general manager of the Orange Citrus Association at 426 West Almond for many years and Commissioner Bosch also worked there at one time. The key is "we look for change; we understand that change will take place." He has a great deal of concern about petitions being made on other people's property for either down zoning or up zoning and having either direction of zoning granted without fair and adequate participation of the people involved or the potential impact on neighbors. He was also aware they carry a great burden with regard to the police powers that have been granted to municipalities with regard to zoning. There are a number of cases where no one knows why non-conforming uses are suddenly created that cause greater densities of uses, greater damage, highly impacting businesses or highly impacting densities of residential going into neighborhoods where the zoning and General Plan never allowed that. He was concerned about a couple of parcels in the area. He was pleased to concur with the property owner's request on 225 and 226 West Palmyra to be considered along with Area "D" rather than this area. He was concerned about 153 South Cypress - a residence in a residential side of the street that shows the mixed bag of uses that can occur in what were the border areas of Old Towne in the past - manufacturing. He hopes that the existing non-conforming use is something that can be continued without detriment to the neighbors or property owner, even though the zoning may change. He was also concerned with 280 South Cypress Street where there was a mixture of a commercial type structure and three residential units. It appears there are only a few properties being considered for "down zoning" in the traditional sense. The C-2 properties on South Lemon Street, the trade off to O-P, he didn't see as a down zoning given the type of uses that exist there now and what is being allowed by the lot size and the stricter environmental definitions that could be applied to C-2 zoning. The same was true with the change from C-2 to R-4 immediately south of Almond, recognizing they really are four properties and provide an integrated piece of land that allows greater residential development on a busier street, again an appropriate use. He's concerned with the northwest corner of Palmyra and Lemon Street which there exists a difference of opinion over whether any of those units are legal over the original one or not. The legality of the units still exists. Then the four parcels that appear to have a potential significant impact in terms of number and development standards are located at 243, 255, 263 and 265-270 South Cypress Street where there is a 5-unit dwelling, non-conforming in use. There are four properties that do not have representation other than a petition from the property owners relative to their desires. He was concerned that they have the examples of some adjacent R-4 property. The existing is R-4 and will remain R-4, particularly in the 200 block of South Lemon where the property maintenance is terrible. With the reservation of the four lots on South Cypress Street, he concurred staff has done a great job. He stressed this was not a massive down zoning as has been identified, nor is it a massive return to preservation of original land uses that has been here before. 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, with the removal of lots 225 and 226 West Palmyra to Area "D", to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1161-93 and General Plan Amendment 6-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-93 REGARDING RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment adding provisions to Orange Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning Ordinance to establish maximum permitted lighting levels for residentially zoned properties. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor George Kallif who lives on West Arbor Way, thought this was a needed ordinance because at the present time there is no enforcement for proper lighting. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters thought the new security lights would throw significant light onto neighbors property. He has trouble understanding how to define lighting and foot candle in layman's terms and that there would be trouble in enforcing such an ordinance. Commissioner Smith also wondered how the ordinance would be enforced, but she thought the ordinance was calling for property line lighting. The lights are on the houses and point directly to the neighbors windows. This proposal, she believed, called for lights being either shielded or raised at the property line and focusing down on the property they are set on. Ms. Wolff said the ordinance does not call out for any means of requiring lighting to be installed. But it does say the source of lighting has to be shielded at the property line from the adjacent properties. It would regulate the type of light fixture that could be used and it would regulate the intensity of lighting that could be emitted relative to the intensity at the property line, as opposed to at the source. Commissioner Smith asked who enforces this ordinance? Ms. Wolff said past complaints regarding lighting have been directed to the police department. The Crime Prevention Bureau handles those complaints. 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 Commissioner Cathcart said they realize the City doesn't have enough police or zoning administrators to go out and catch every criminal in town, but he thought it would give the homeowner who calls and complains some ordinance to back up the fact of lighting abuse. He thought it was a step in the right direction. Commissioner Bosch concurred something needs to be done in this regard. He shared Commissioner Walters' concern that definitions were needed that could be understood to the lay people of the community. He would hate to see light police; it's not a practical solution today. He would like to see better definitions that could be published or go out with the utility bills or water bills to make it known to people what type of lamp, what degree of wattage produces an excessive half a footcandle at the property line. Commissioner Cathcart suggested staff take another look at the ordinance and try to put in layman's language definitions of footcandles so everyone could understand what that means. Relativity needs to be a part of this also. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue Ordinance Amendment 2-93 to August 2, 1993 for further study and revision by staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-93 REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment adding provisions to Orange Municipal Code, Title 17 -.Zoning Ordinance to modify the City's Home Occupation use standards. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Chris Carnes, Planning Staff, presented the staff report. The proposed ordinance amendment is before the Commission at the direction of the City Council. The City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to remove industrial home occupations from the City's zoning ordinance. The Council made this direction in response to a complaint from a neighbor who was storing irrigation piping and plumbing equipment on his truck in the driveway at his residence. The proposed ordinance amendment includes three changes. One is to add a definition of industrial home occupation as any use that involves assembly, storage, repairing or servicing of any type, anything at a home. The second is that all home occupations shall be restricted to office uses only and that industrial uses shall not be permitted. The City's regulations presently allow general office uses, service, repair and such. Typical home occupations include craftsmen, sales representatives, real estate/insurance sales, home repair services, mail order businesses and mobile auto detailers. The City's Business License Division estimates there are about 2,700 active home occupations in the City, and of the 2,700 one-quarter (675) are estimated to be falling under the proposed classification for industrial uses. If the proposed ordinance is passed, the existing 675 industrial home occupations would be considered legal, non-conforming uses. This is contrary to what was written in the staff report. It was determined after a meeting with the City Attorney the uses could continue an operation, renew their business licenses as long as they 14 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 didn't discontinue their operation over a six month period. Staff reviewed other cities' regulations in Orange County on home occupations. None of them have a restriction on industrial uses. In fact, the City of Orange's would become one of the most restrictive in the County. Commissioner Smith asked if the 2,700 home occupation businesses were informed of the hearing? (No.) Ms. Wolff said an advertisement was placed in the newspaper, but direct notification was not made. Those speaking in opposition Thomas Brown, 254 North Stevens, spoke against this proposed ordinance because it would put him out of business. He has had a small business - a home type of operation for 8 years. He repairs and replaces industrial Diamond tools. He felt this ordinance would put a lot of people out of business. Mr. Carnes clarified Mr. Brown described his business as involving repair and replacement of industrial Diamond tools, which involves small tools and minor storage. It comes under compliance of the existing home occupation ordinance. Therefore, if a revised ordinance not allowing industrial uses, would make his business a legal, non- conforming use. He could continue to operate as long as he stayed within the original ordinance requirements. Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, was mildly opposed because it doesn't really affect him personally. He has had a home occupation for some 15 years. The only thing he worried about was the City swinging the pendulum too far. He thought this was a bit of an over reaction to a single problem. You really don't change the situation; you just create an underground economy for people to work without the business license. The ordinance needs to be studied further and toned down a bit. Commissioner Cathcart thanked Mr. Mickelson for his remarks and concurred this does open a can of worms with all kinds of things. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch didn't think it was over reacting to propose the City looks at a good definition of the difference between industrial use and other good home occupations. The difficulty is where to draw the line to make sure it works. The ordinance needs to be finely tuned. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue Ordinance Amendment 3-93 to August 2, 1993 for further review and revisions by staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith thought it would be helpful to look at the reason why the Council sent this back to the Commission. It seems to be a storage problem. She agreed a good definition of industrial use was needed. It's essential to not eliminate home businesses, especially in these though economic times. 15 Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1993 Commissioner Walters did not think item 8 was crafted carefully. It would forbid his 9 year old daughter from selling lemonade at the corner of their house. He didn't see any provision that would allow her to continue doing that. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Mr. Mickelson referred to the last two items and talked about them in general terms. He thought there was a tendency over the years for government to want to solve everybody's problems by creating new laws. If you adopt a law, you will change people's attitude and they will, therefore, be good people and you won't have any more problems -- it just doesn't work that way! IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to a special meeting for discussing the zoning ordinance on Monday, June 28, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "C". AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. sld MOTION CARRIED 16