Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1991 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange July 15, 1991 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners. Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JULY 1, 1991 AND CORRECTION TO MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 17, 1991 MEETING Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of July 1, 1991 with the noted change of date from June 17 to July 1, and the correction to the Minutes for the June 17, 1991 Meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master abstained because he could vote for one, but not the other. IN RE: ITEM TO BE WITHDRAWN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1907-91 - DIANE GLENN Ms. Wolff reported applicant, Diane Glenn, has requested a withdrawal of her application. A letter dated July 8, 1991 was sent to the Commission. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 1907-91. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-91 & NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1369-91 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend various sections of the Orange Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 2 Code to add provisions regarding the keeping of miniature livestock and exotic pets on residentially zoned property. NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 6, 1991 Planning Commission meeting and April 8, 1991 Study Session. Ms. Wolff commented current City codes do not differentiate between miniature livestock breeds and more typical livestock varieties. Therefore, miniature livestock animals and other exotic pets, such as pygmy goats, miniature horses and pot bellied pigs are regulated in the same manner as the larger livestock animals. Due to public request of the City Council, the Council has directed staff to look into this issue and prepare a report. The zoning ordinance now permits keeping of livestock in the agricultural district and in the single family residential zones only in the R-1-20 and R-1-40 districts. Staff has done some research and has prepared an informational report/presentation for the Planning Commission. There is a draft of a preliminary ordinance amendment. The Commission needs to give a formal recommendation to the City Council on whether to amend the existing City ordinance. And, if so, how it should be amended. Three options seem to be available: (1) is to retain the existing ordinances; (2) another is to permit any outrigh t allowance of miniature livestock and exotic pets; 3) allow these types of pets subject to some kind of permit procedure. The public hearing was opened. Public Comment Stephen Heilman, 1429 East Oakmont, brought this issue to the attention of the City Council. He has raised pygmy goats for a number of years. He has. two dogs and feels they are twice as big and cause much more noise than the goats. The goats are very clean, they don't bite or attack people and the make wonderful pets. They're about 20 inches tall. He's in favor of a licensing program for pygmy goats and would like to see them legalized in Orange. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart questioned the correct procedure to follow regarding the Negative Declaration and recommendation to City Council. Ms. Wolff said if the Commission acts on the ordinance itself by recommending adoption of it, then it would be necessary to look at the environmental impacts. If one of the other options is recommended, the Negative Declaration is not an important issue. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 3 Chairman Bosch commended staff on the extensive work that went into the reports/presentations on the issue of livestock and exotic pets; it was very helpful for the Commission's deliberations. Commissioner Master though t the idea of making pets out of farm animals would create problems. The size of the residential lots (i.e., 6,000 square feet) are not compatible for certain types of animals. Commissioner Scott noted the negative while reading the staff report, such holes and get out or jumping the behavior of certain animals if no Even keeping animals 15 feet from the be enough space. aspects of pygmy goats as the tendency to dig fence, a nd obnoxi ou s t confined in the yard. property line will not Commissioner Cathcart had a problem with snakes over six feet long. Staff could not find another City that allowed snakes over six feet. The staff report also pointed out a snake longer than six feet could potentially pose a greater hazard to humans. Some dogs pose problems; he would hate to have pygmy goats contribute to a nuisance problem in many cases. The present Municipal Code is acceptable to him as written. Commissioner Murphy liked the video tape (seen earlier in a Study Session) . It shed some light on areas as far as realities involved in working with these types of animals. He voiced concern about the odor and noise problems with these animals. He was also concerned about putting these animals in a minimum required pen and would think about their quality of life from a standpoint of space and ability to move around. Chairman Bosch shared the concerns of the Commissioners. It would be detrimental to the City and those who purchased their homes in good faith on smaller lots to have them faced with a potential for exotic pets. He did not have a problem with limiting the animals to a half acre. He appreciates Commissioner Master's concern there could be negative concerns. That needs to be looked into by staff in terms of how that can be solved, while respecting the privilege of people who would be good owners of pets and maintain them on a large parcel of land. Staff needs to research this to assure the City is not causing problems to the surrounding small lot owners. The existing ordinance is fair and takes into account the impacts that can be caused by larger animals, livestock and exotic pets, regardless of their size. He's in favor of maintaining it. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 4 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to retain the City's present ordinances regarding animals and not allow the classification of miniature horses, pygmy goats, livestock and snakes over six feet in length. The Commission finds that Negative Declaration 1369-91 does not adequately address the impacts on surrounding residences and is therefore incomplete. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch stated this was a recommendation to the City Council to leave the Ordinance in tact as written. IN RE: NEW HEARING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-346 - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION A request to allow the conversion of a duplex apartment into two condominiums. Subject property is addressed 256-258 South Foley Place. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. The reading of a full staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Nagui Mankaruse, 4051 Ondine Circle, Huntington Beach, said the conversion is not going to hurt anything in the community. The staff report mentions there is an abundance of rental units in the City. There will be no physical changes to the structure itself. It will allow a mixture of owner-occupied and rental units in the same community, which allows stability. The intent of the units will remain the same -- family residential units. It will be a good opportunity for first time buyers and families. They intend to comply with all City codes and ordinances. Commissioner Murphy noted in the staff report it was not the applicant's intent to put the units up for sale in the future. Mr. Mankaruse does not intend to sell the property at this time. If in the future he sells, he will comply with all requirements. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 5 Chairman Bosch said one of the requirements was to establish a homeowner's association. Mr. Mankaruse wanted to wait until he received the City's approval before establishing a homeowner's association. He will meet with the City Attorney and Director of Community Development to discuss this. Public Input June McFeely, 234 South Pixley, owns one of these units with her sister. They can't sell individually, but would like to. She looks favorably on this request. Chairman Bosch said this action was solely for Mr. Mankaruse's parcel. If approved, it would not apply to their property, unless they submitted an application for a similar request. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott had a concern about creating a homeowner's association for two units. He would like staff to look into what is a reasonable number of units to form a homeowner's association. Could a lot split be made on the two units, creating two separate lots where a homeowner's association would not be required? Mr. Johnson said it is probably not possible because of the minimum lot standards in that zone. The frontage would preclude the two units having a split frontage. Commissioner Scott said Los Angeles did lot splits on duplexes which had separate owners. Mr. Johnson said it was not possible because it would exceed any variance that would be granted. Ms. Wolff said the zoning is R-2-6, which is a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. It could be approached through the variance procedure, but it would be creating two lots that were substantially smaller than would be allowed for the zone. Commissioner Cathcart asked how many members of a homeowner's association makes it viable? Only two members might be a problem. Ms. Wolff responded staff did not have an answer at this time. Staff sees a problem with every decision having to be made by consensus. A magic number has not been determined for an appropriate number of units to support a homeowner's association. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 6 Commissioner Cathcart's concern is problems of maintenance and repair to the units. He's certain two people in an association is not adequate. Chairman Bosch recollected the action taken regarding Olive Heights in 1990. There were special circumstances with regard to the applicability there because of access, collateral development in the area, property ownership patterns that had been established, that made the request a natural extension of the previous planning in the area. He was not familiar with the action that occurred on the Pine and Sycamore property in 1985 relative to findings that demonstrated the adequacy of that for conversion. It would be helpful to him if staff had access to the backup on that to identify what special concerns caused the appropriate decision to be made in favor of a condominium conversion. Ms. Wolff will provide that information to the Commission. She recollected the previous approvals were each two separate detached structures, with separate yard areas. There was not a common structure to be maintained. That was the significant difference between the one proposed now and the previous ones. Commissioner Murphy felt more data would be helpful before making a decision. He would like to see some clarification on both of those parcels noted earlier. He suggested continuing this item. Mr. Mankaruse was familiar with similar situations in Sunset Beach, but not in Orange. The property is zoned R-2 and the lots are 30 x 90. There is a common wall in between the units. There are no common areas, except a common wall in between the units and a common fence in the back yard. Each unit is separate and completely independent. The applicant stipulates to a continuance to the next regular meeting. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to continue Tentative Parcel Map 90-346 to August 5, 1991, subject to receipt of the requested information concerning information on the homeowner's associations liability and sizes) and attached vs. detached units to assure they will be dealing fairly and equitably relative to the application. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott voted "n o" because he doesn't think it's the best use of the land to convert a duplex into a condo Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 7 and developing a two-person homeowner's association. It would set a precedent throughout the City which would come back to haunt them. IN RE: NEW HEARING PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1138-91 - LEROY ROBERTS A request to pre-zone a single family property from Orange County Zoning E4-1 (Single Family Residential, Small Estates, minimum lot size 43,560 square feet) to City of Orange Zoning R-1-40 (Residential Single Family, minimum lot size 43,560 square feet). Subject property is addressed 20381 Amapola Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15319. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change 1138-91. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1384-91 - WILLIAM BURRE A revised environmental assessment of a 2-story 47,493 square foot retail/office commercial center, located on a 2.77 acre site at 340 South Newport Boulevard. NOTE: This item was previously heard by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1991. A study session was held and staff was requested to do a re-evaluation of the project and re-formulate the Negative Declaration, which they have done. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Bill Burke, 10051 Sunrise Lane, Santa Ana, has reviewed the staff report and while not in full agreement with all the items, feels it's in their best interest to accept it and ask for approval. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 8 Public Comment Bob Hahn, 7620 East Briarcrest Lane, is a homeowner in the Santiago Hills community. He spoke on behalf of his neighbors and they are hoping the Commission would approve projects that would help the area and not adversely affect it. The proposed project would adversely affect the area and he's opposed to it. The land is about 25 to 30 feet above the street. The proposal calls for a 2-story structure at that point, which will make it a 4 or 5-story building. This will invade the privacy of the surrounding neighbors, not to mention the lighting/glare situation. Noise will also be a concern as the existing center already creates a noise problem. In referring to the plan, he does not see retaining walls for noise abatement. Traffic is a problem on Newport Boulevard. He feels the size, the uncertainties created by the size of this construction, and the elevation of the lot would have a negative impact on the community. RPhu ttal Mr. Burke is sensitive to everyone's concerns. The particular property is zoned as commercial property and they're attempting to develop that in conformance to the zoning. They prefer the property were not elevated; it would be much easier for them to develop and design if at street level, but unfortunately that's not what they have. Sophisticated lighting today concentrates itself almost solely on down lighting. They want to develop the center with the neighbor's concerns in mind. There is a need for commercial development in the area. They would be happy to work with the neighbors and listen to their ideas. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart believes the revised Negative Declaration will make it mandatory that the applicants go back and re-design the configuration of the project. The Commission must take action on the Negative Declaration as revised, not the way the project will look. Chairman Bosch stated this project would not have come before the Commission if it were not for the findings of the fault. The Commission is bound by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to find that this is a C-1 zoned property. Any project that meets the requirements of the EIR mitigation measures for identified environmental problems can pull a permit and be built on it. This parcel has some substantial problems that he hopes the developers, as they complete their plan, will overcome. He asks that the Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 9 mitigation measure with regard to light and glare, while still must conform to the City's Building Security Ordinance one foot candles sustained over the parking area) do that with utilization of low level in terms of vertical height of lighting. It may take a few extra lights, but it will be a substantial improvement for the neighborhood environment. His personal concern is with the elevations proposed for the exterior design of the building while well crafted and meaningful in the context of the style they were rendered, don't appear to be appropriate to the context of the community. He hopes that in working with the Design Review Board, the applicant might come up with a proposal that is, while distinctive also is more in keeping aesthetically with the surrounding neighborhood. He believes the mitigation measures, as they have been modified, with regard to the faults are very appropriate and satisfies his concerns. He's hopeful an amicable solution on the trail issue can be reached between the applicant and City. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file the revised version of Negative Declaration 1384-91. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Cathcart was in receipt of the Landscape Standards and Specifications presented to him this date by the Department of Community Services. It's a preliminary final draft. He suggested he and Commissioner Murphy, as Chair and Co-Chair of the subcommittee, get together the next two weeks with staff and work out the minor "glitches". They would be prepared to bring a recommendation back to the Commission at the August 5 meeting. It would be put on the August 5 Agenda as a discussion item. Commissioner Scott prefers another Study Session to review the document prior to a public hearing. At the August 5 meeting the Commission could adjourn to a study session. He prefers getting a copy of the preliminary draft after Commissioners Cathcart and Murphy have reviewed the document. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, said this was ridiculous. It has been 2 1/2 years and every time there is a study session, it goes back for modification. He wants to see this document passed as soon as possible. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1991 - Page 10 Commissioner Cathcart appreciates Mr. Bennyhoff's frustration. The Commission shares the same frustration. He feels that after looking at this document that the study session wi 11 prove to be fruitful and i t will not go back to staff. Staff will set the soonest legal date for Mr. Godlewski understood the ordinance document would be split out from the portion that changes. There will be both an resolution. Technical standards will resolution so they could be easily changed. public hearing. portion of the of the document ordinance and be adopted by Mr. Herrick requested a copy of the document after the committee completes their review. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourn to a joint study session with City Council August 1, 1991 regarding the Residential Zoning Ordinance from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. in the Weimer Room. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. sl d