Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange August 2, 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning; 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 JULY 7. 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of July 7, 1993, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED 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. Subject property is addressed 321 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1430-93 has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This item was continued from the June 21 and July 7, 1993 Planning Commission meetings.) Mr. Godlewski explained there were two issues to this request: 1) to redesign the parking area in order to provide a better circulation on the site plan; and 2) the reasons for a variance. A memo from staff indicates some of the reasons for requesting the variance that are unique to the property due to the shape of the property in that it is not similar to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The public hearing was re-opened for further information. Planning Commission Minutes Applicant August 2, 1993 Susan Quon, 911 Studebaker Road, Long Beach, was with MPR Architects representing Home Depot. She brought some graphic materials that will help review their project. Two documents were given to the Commissioners. One was a proto- typical site plan for Home Depot. The second is information with regards to a parking study that was performed in January, 1992. She had a chance to confer with the architect of record to get a better background on the site constraints. The proto-typical site plan is basically a square shaped property. The site in question is trapezoidal; it's wider towards the back of the store and narrows as you come forward to Katella. Among the site constraints the architect had to work with is that there is a Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way to the easterly portion which has set the location of one of the main entry drives into the site and store itself. They have had a number of improvements along Katella and also the requirement to make the adjoining driveway across the street which sets up their main entrance that has a traffic signal for control. To access the site based on these two entries and based on Home Depot's requirements that there be two entries off the main street, the architect has provided for an access drive to access the site and beyond into parcel 2 which is reserved for future use. That has made for an awkward transition, but they can introduce a cross drive adjacent to the pad user to try and mitigate that access problem. The resulting parking layout and access to further Home Depot's goals to have patrons enter and see their front doors has been challenging, but the architect has indicated they have made the best of the situation that they could. The store is sited approximately 425 feet at it's longest point between the front of the store and Katella, whereas in a proto-typical design, they like to see the front of the doors placed approximately 300 feet back. Unique to the condition is that Home Depot deviates from traditional retailing in that they do have bulk items that are pre-packaged and are merchandising out of a warehouse through a retail sales network to homeowners. Many of their patron aisles inside the store are stocked by forklifts and 8 to 15 foot wide access aisles are not uncommon in the store. The City of Orange does not have a parking standard that addresses Home Depot's particular use and method of merchandising. Home Depot had asked for a parking study, which was given to the Commission, of different findings and comparative stores. She explained the different tables and comparisons of Home Depot's other stores as it relates to the parking ratios. The store in Orange is providing 532 parking spaces with a requirement of 594. This breaks down to a parking ratio of 4 per 1,000 and with their proposal before the Commission where they are deficient in parking, this deficiency is about 10 1/2 percent of the required. Because of the site constraints, the uniqueness of the marketing at this location, how they have tried to mitigate some of the access problems, by concurring with the Commissioner's recommendation for a cross drive, they hope the Commission looks favorably upon their request for a parking variance. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart thanked Ms. Quon for her patience through the public hearing process. He thought the parking layout was a positive step in changing some of the congestion. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept Negative Declaration 1430-93 and find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Variance 1951-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED 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. This item was continued from the June 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) Chris Carnes, Planning staff, presented the staff report. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, direction was given for staff to review the proposed impacts of the proposal to add a half foot candle at the property line for all residentially zoned properties in the City. Staff, in reviewing that impact to residential areas found two things. The City Attorney's office had a concern that Code Enforcement Officers would be responsible for enforcing the ordinance and would have to be trained in making light readings. The City has a light meter; the Crime Prevention Bureau uses it to enforce lighting levels in manufacturing zones adjacent to residential areas. The City Attorney's concern was that if a case ever went to court, the judge would not take the findings of a Code Enforcement Officer unless that person was specially trained in reading a light meter and how to handle it. The light meter, in order to be official, has to be calibrated every 6 months as well. The one the City uses was last calibrated in October, 1990. The second issue is the difficulty in going out and reading light levels. He demonstrated the light meter to show the different readings from the existing lighting levels of the room. Staff revised the proposed ordinance to include that lighting be reviewed by the Code Enforcement division to ascertain lights do not shine directly on other properties. Code Enforcement would respond directly to complaints. The property owner could screen the lights so that it doesn't directly shine or glare upon neighboring properties. The ordinance amendment does include adding to the ordinance that a half foot candle lighting levels be applied to commercial properties. This would not apply to existing developments, but only new developments in commercial areas. The City does not presently depend on professionals to enforce that for new developments because when a developer comes in they are required to hire a lighting specialist to prepare lighting maps which indicate lighting levels by any proposed lighting fixtures. The City only goes out to check those. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1993 The public hearing was re-opened and closed as no one wanted to speak in regards to the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Cathcart thought this was a step in the right direction rather than turning the City of Orange into a police state when it comes to lighting. The revised proposal is appropriate. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 2-93. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED 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. This item was continued from the June 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) Mr. Godlewski explained the original concern was that the Home Occupation Ordinance did not properly address industrial uses in the residential zone as a home occupation. Staff has made a couple of revisions and Mr. Carnes will give the staff report. Chris Carnes, Planning staff, reported staff was directed by the Commission to review the proposal to eliminate home occupations that are considered industrial. The City Attorney's office determined that industrial home occupations include anything from manufacturing and storage. The Commission thought the proposal by staff was a little too restrictive and there was also comments from the public that various home occupations being conducted in the City now would be covered by that and prohibited. The citizens felt their home occupations did not have any adverse impact on surrounding properties. In reviewing the existing ordinance, which contains performance standards, it allows office, commercial and industrial uses and are regulated by performance standards (i.e. amount of noise, light, odor, dust, vibrations, fumes or smoke) that is allowed to be created at a residential lot and they cannot be created in such a state that would exceed what is typically allowed. Staff also reviewed the possibility on defining exactly what an industrial home occupation would be. They could not come up with an exact definition that would cut off the difference between what would be a hobbyist who made clothing for dolls with the use of her sewing machine and somebody who made bookcases and used a table saw. The adverse impact on residential properties isn't the sewing machine or table saw perse, but it would be the amount of time they are used, the hours they're used, whether the windows were open or not. There is no easy or hard way to define an industrial home occupation. The performance standards were reviewed again and staff revised the proposal a little bit to limit what could have been considered industrial uses in the 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1993 existing performance standards. Staff included, as per City Council's direction, that only office uses would be the permitted home occupation. Otherwise, industrial uses would not be allowed subject to the proposal. The ordinance amendment does include deleting it from the present definition section and moving it to the single family zone to make it easier to use as an improvement to the zoning ordinance. The public hearing was re-opened. Thomas Brown, 254 North Stevens, was not in favor of the amendment. He thought it was an ill conceived plan to reduce a business in Orange. He felt the 500 cu. ft. storage area was rather small and he didn't see how this would be enforced. He stated once again notification was a problem. He talked with the City Clerk who explained the notification process to him. T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman Avenue, concurred with the speaker 100%. He knows several people who work on small instruments in their homes and it supplements their income. They're not doing anything wrong and the amended ordinance would put a burden on them. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, asked for a copy of the Ordinance Amendment. She has heard so many things about it. She thought it would create a strain of trade and it is another aspect of Orange's very "unfriendly to business" demeanor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch has severe concerns about the amendment as well. He didn't think one could limit it to a definition that is strictly office use; that would eliminate piano lessons and minor sorts of repairs. Someone who heard about the amendment gave him a Jr. Achievement pamphlet -- a high school program intended to assist and develop entrepreneurism. It could be interpreted to ban Junior Achievement programs in the City of Orange and that is terrible. There are some instances where people misuse the intent of the residential zones; it's true there could be some ambiguity of interpretation of what industrial use is, but where there is a nuisance, it should be controlled with very few modifications, if any, to the existing ordinances. If storage is a problem, he would be interested in it, in terms of size and type. He didn't know if 500 sq. ft. is appropriate or not; it sounds like a lot of storage for a single use business. It's important to note staff was requested to bring an ordinance forward for review. He's not attacking staff; he appreciates their pointing out the problems with enforcement and wording because it reinforces his feeling that this is entirely the wrong approach. Commissioner Cathcart said they already have an existing ordinance to regulate home occupations. As stated, it is the most restrictive in the County. He thought the performance standards have been the correct approach -- as long as it doesn't interfere with the neighbor's quality of life, what difference does it make. The performance standards, in his opinion, were strict enough. He thought it was about time everyone starts learning how to get along rather than try to find a law in which to put each other in jail. 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to deny Ordinance Amendment 3-93 and that it not be adopted. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith added in these difficult economic times, she would not want to further restrict business, but rather encourage business. This particular ordinance would seem to bear hardship on many small business owners in the City. Commissioner Pruett supported the motion. He thought the existing ordinance provides sufficient regulation. Performance standards are a much better way to regulate use. IN RE: NEW HEARING PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1163-93 -THOMAS AND CYNTHIA DAVIDSON A request for apre-zone change for an unincorporated single family parcel, from existing County of Orange E-4 (one acre) (Single Family Residential) to R-1-40 Residential -Single Family, one acre minimum lot size). The request for the pre-zoning is for annexation purposes. Subject property is addressed 19710 Santiago Canyon Road. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15319. Commissioner Walters was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. A staff report was not presented because there was no opposition. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Godlewski informed the Commission the applicant was unable to attend the meeting. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council approval of Pre-Zone Change 1163-93, noting the project is exempt from environmental review. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Walters returned to the meeting. 6 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING August 2, 1993 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7-93, ZONE CHANGE 1162-93 -CITY OF ORANGE ON BEHALF OF THE "COMMITTEE OF 300" A request to change the zoning for 66 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) including one area of R-2-6(P) Parking. In addition to the zone change this would require a general plan amendment to redesignate the site from Medium Density Residential (15-24 dwelling units per acre) and Old Towne Mixed Use to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-15 dwelling units per acre). Subject property consists of 66 parcels that total 10.9 acres in area and that are located primarily along Olive Street, including parcels located east of Lemon Street, west of Glassell Street, south of Almond Avenue and north of LaVeta Avenue. Properties under consideration of rezoning are addressed: 122, 206, 220 West Almond Avenue; 215 to 218 West Olive Avenue; 312 South Glassell (west 132 feet of Lot 18 fronting on Olive Street); 205 to 217 West LaVeta Avenue; 215, 224, 225, and 232 to 495 South Olive Street, and 127 to 222 West Palmyra Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Negative Declaration 1434-93 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Cathcart opened discussion on this request. It appeared to him that the process they have gone through for the past few years has divided the community. At the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission dealt with one of the issues and then the City Council reversed the Commission's position. Instead of approaching this from a band aide perspective, is to develop a good solid zoning ordinance, which is currently in the process, and development standards which should be pursued on a citywide basis that would deal with specific neighborhoods throughout the City with overlay zones. It would not put everyone at odds with one another. As a result of all the study sessions, they have found there are several lots in Old Towne that are zoned R-4, but if you actually looked at what could be developed on those properties, the people could not build more than two units anyway. There is a perception the City is taking property rights and values away from the residents. He personally did not want to go through that process anymore. Development standards are needed which would be consistent throughout the City. He's concerned about consolidation, people's rights and quality of life. If a developer were to build out a R-4 property, it could be devastating to the neighborhoods. He suggested continuing this item until the adoption of a zoning ordinance, development standards, along with a RCD overlay that would be specific to consolidations rather than holding a public hearing on this item. Commissioner Bosch concurs with the problems the Commission has seen. Appearances become reality. Everyone has to be concerned with their rights. The single family homeowner has as many rights for a different lifestyle and different view of the City as one who perceives that there should be greater development on their land. There is so much history, tradition, and market place work built into the numbers assigned on maps vs. the development standards and the City is caught in a war and nothing they have done has brought people together to find how much common ground they have to bridge the gap between them. His key concern is the consolidation of lots, which could be devastating, to avoid further confusion between the difference of neighborhood preservation in terms of maintaining the invaluable and extensive stock of housing in the older part of the City, which is essential to many single family residents, 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1993 and not confusing that (neighborhood preservation) with the historic preservation issues, which are also dear to his heart. There's an obvious correlation given the age of the houses; there's also the need for neighborhood preservation. All of these need to have the same basis of fact for application development standards to assure quality of life and property values. Those need to be diffused. His understanding is that the City Council at the last hearing, although no formal action was taken, discussed not carrying on with public hearings at least at that body until such time the issue of the development standards within the revised zoning ordinance could be addressed to see if they adequately cover the issues. The City Council petitioned as the City on behalf of the Committee of 300" to put this forward. The Council, therefore, acts as the applicant on that. The Commission should refer back to the Council to see if their intent is clearly to take that step with this hearing before it carries forward. Commissioner Cathcart didn't want to infer that he's not willing to stay and go through the procedure; however, he really didn't feel they would get anywhere until they worked on the development standards and zoning ordinance. Commissioner Smith had a great deal of frustration in the fact that this particular process once again is a function of the planning process in the City of Orange. They have completed 4/5ths of an assignment and to stop now means they do not have a full package to refer back to. She was also frustrated with the process having been involved with this particular discussion for a number of years. Whenever it gets almost finished, it gets shelved again. If the zoning ordinance and development standards were to actually go forward this time, she would have some inclination to support the Commissioners' position, but in the past they have stopped, started, stopped to her knowledge for about four years. In the meantime, development occurs, illegal demolition occurs, arguments occur, more ill feelings occur and without a guarantee that the development standards and zoning ordinance will go forward at this time and to be resolved in a timely manner, she could not support leaving this request hang. Commissioner Cathcart concurred; however, he's also frustrated. This has taken years and he thinks right now they have to apply all the pressure they can to the procedure of the zoning ordinance and development standards. If the Commission were to go ahead with the process and make some recommendation to the City Council, no pressure will be applied. They haven't done anything; pressure has not been applied to the people they are suppose to help (the community); they haven't applied pressure to the City Council or give them the catalyst. He wants to apply the pressure. It never gets to the point where it becomes the pivot point to where they can use it as a power position in order to proceed on this -- to get the Council to give staff and the Planning Commission direction to proceed to completion. The Commission needs to be proactive in the process rather than just doing their task, vote and go home and let the City Council go on. He doesn't intend to let the City Council off the hot seat; it's time to apply pressure to move it along rather than use the Planning Commission in a way he doesn't particularly care for (scapegoat or a decision they over turn without doing their homework). He feels the Commission works hard at what they do. Commissioner Bosch, when first appointed to the Commission, and it has been reaffirmed to him by every Mayor and Council person since that time, was provided with the direction that as a Commissioner he was to review the facts, analyze, discuss and take action based upon what is seen as the best application on good planning principles to the issue given to them, recognizing at the same time that the City Council has a purview which has needs -performance standards -that go beyond the physical 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1993 planning issues. They go to economics, certain rights and obligations vs. health, safety and welfare that are beyond the Commission's purview. It's not a cop out when they say don't worry if there is an over turning of a specific decision. The Council has additional considerations to make. It's important to give adequate recommendations to the City Council without prejudging how they might act on something. On the other hand, there is the current issue where the Commission is engaged in a process that has feedback from the Council. The Council initiated this. The Commission indicated to them some time ago after the study sessions there are in fact problems and major contradictions in zoning that need to be corrected. The Council concurred to have the hearings with regard to all but one of the areas involved. They elected not to proceed with the Commission's recommendations even though portions of the recommendations involved re-zoning of properties dearly requested by people who owned the property, such as re-zoning of single family residences currently in an industrial zone so that those property owners could enjoy use of their residences, including people who had mixed zoning on a single lot which precluded them from adequately developing or financing that lot and that could be corrected. The Commission gained the frustration of the stop-start process, the often stopped and started zoning ordinance which stopped for a number of years for reasons beyond the Commission's control. He would rather have something in place where people could come to the counter and pick up one book or look at the map and know what they can and cannot do with their property, rather than having to come back constantly for a reclassification. Regardless of the zoning ordinance, he hopes the City does something to revisit those areas that because this is a package, whether it's 4/5ths of a package or 5/5ths, have been turned down as part of the entire turn down when the property owners desired something to relieve economic hardship that they didn't cause because zoning is misapplied and has nothing to do with R-4, 2 units per lot or R-2. It has to do with industrial zones and Marietta Place where the people are stuck now because it was tossed out at the same time. He's hopeful dates can be set for public hearings on the zoning ordinance amendment, encouraging or as serving as a catalyst to the City Council to move that ahead with good solid input still hoping for the citizens to work together. Commissioner Walters shared similar opinions and thought the intent was how to find and save historic dwellings and structures and to emerge with some broad rules of the game by which development occurs. He thought if those were in place, it wouldn't matter what the lots were zoned. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to continue General Plan Amendment 7-93 and Zone Change 1162-93 until the adoption of a zoning ordinance, development standards, along with a RCD overlay that would be specific to consolidations rather than holding a public hearing on this item. The Commission would like a response date from the City Council by September 8, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, WaIteMOTION CARRIEDNOES: None In response to Commissioner Smith's question about Area D not existing as part of the package, Commissioner Bosch was not sure whether a package exists. The Council has opted to maintain the zoning as it exists on previous areas. Commissioner Smith's concern was that recommendations have been made for Areas B, C and E, but not Area D. However, the City Council did not want to see further recommendations/public hearings until the zoning ordinance was revised. 9 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE August 2, 1993 Staff is requesting the Planning Commission set specific hearing dates in order to take what has been drafted thus far, bring it up as a public hearing item for discussion and specific direction as to where the Commission wants staff to take it from here. It is preferred to have a public hearing rather than a study session because it can not provide decisions to staff with regard to suggested rewording of an ordinance. Hopefully by having a public hearing it will speed up the process of getting a zoning ordinance recommendation to the City Council. It is hoped staff will have adequate time to notify the public as well as the Chamber of Commerce and/or others who have voiced interest in the ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to set a date of Wednesday, September 8, 1993 for a public hearing to discuss the zoning ordinance update. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Walters hopes this could be the first public hearing where there is advanced public notice for the general public on cable T.V. which was discussed before, but hasn't happened yet. He would like to see the Agenda made available to cable T.V. for viewing. Commissioner Bosch reminded staff those portions of the draft Historical Preservation Design Standards are appropriate to be included as development standards rather than the preservation ordinance within the overall zoning ordinance, and be brought forward at the same time. Commissioner Cathcart would like to see the document condensed down to as few pages as necessary in order evaluate what the real ordinance is all about rather than the law and other issues. IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, commended the Commission for taking the action they did. He spoke from personal experience, relating to the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Where is the zoning code ordinance update and what is City Council going to do about the Design Review Board? They are down two or three members and have been talking about it for over a year. No one knows which direction City Council is going. It's time to face all issues on a complete, whole pie basis -- not by slices. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is August 16, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 10