Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett August 15, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 1. 1994 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the Minutes of August 1, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING VARIANCE 1974-94 -DWIGHT CLARK A request for a waiver of development standards with regard to building setbacks, parking requirements and residential unit size, to allow use of an existing structure as a residence. Project site: 421 South Olive Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a). The full reading of the staff report was waived. It was noted the Commission received two letters -- one dated August 9 from owners of the property at 455 South Olive Street; one dated August 10 from owners of the property at 465 South Olive Street -- both in opposition to the project. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Furman Roberts, 2504 East Paladin Avenue, Anaheim, was the attorney representing the Clark's. Mr, and Mrs. Clark purchased the property in 1989. The unit in question was being rented at the time of purchase. There have been no changes made except to paint the unit. About a year ago Mr. Clark received a letter from the zoning officials stating the unit was not properly approved and asked that the use be discontinued. There has never been any complaints or problems with density, crowding or parking to their knowledge. The unit provided a very satisfactory living environment. It's small, but it didn't cost much either. A covered parking space was provided for the unit. At one time the end unit was used as a work shop or lab (before the Clark's purchased it). The applicants have met with staff to see what could be done to seek approval of the unit. As a result, the variance process was being sought as a means to keep the unit as a residence. It was built to standards that would qualify under the Building Code. The unit provides affordable rent that people can live with in a safe, decent, sanitary living environment. There is a need for this type of housing in the downtown area. The property has a strange Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 1994 building lot line on the east end. The wall comes right up to that line. The applicants have talked to Dr. Ruper, who has the propperty next door. The trash storage area offers no problems. An agreement could be reached with Dr. Ruper to put in a small fence behind the trash storage area to keep the storage bin from resulting in any hazardous storage up against the building. This variance request will not set a bad precedent, if conditions are placed on the approval. A video was shown of the site and turning radius of cars on the property. The wide driveway permits turn arounds. Commissioner Walters noticed the drawing shown on the wall was dated September, 1993. Why has it taken one year to get to the Planning Commission? Dwight Clark, 6618 East Waterton Avenue, originally received the Notice of Violation in July, 1993. It took awhile to decide if they were going to follow up so the process has been going on since that time. Commissioner Walters asked when the apartment complex was bought? (June, 1989.) At the time, when closing escrow, did the owners obtain new financing or take over existing financing? (The Clark's obtained new financing.) When he bought anon-conforming property, the banks would not approve the financing until corrections were made. Lending institutions require an inspection of the property. Mr. Clark didn't know. The issue never arose. The lender financed the 7 units; the 8th unit was never involved. Commissioner Walters asked how to enforce a limit of two occupants in the dwelling, as suggested by the applicant in his letter. How could it be legally binding? Mr. Clark said the standard accepted was 2 + 1 per bedrooms in the apartment industry. He thought they would be able to validate that rule for the bachelor unit. Commissioner Walters said state law permits 10. In Santa Ana, where owners tried to put limits on occupancy, they were defeated by court action. How were the applicants defining low rent as it was not part of any government sanctioned program for low rent housing? Mr. Clark said the apartment was $150 less than other units. He was getting $525 for the unit and he paid the utilities. Utilities were not provided in the other units. Those speaking in favor Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, stressed they needed affordable housing in Orange. The Clark's should be given credit for trying to rectify the problem and she thought the City should work with them to obtain compliance. Those speaking in opposition Steve McHarris, 485 South Orange Street, represented the O.T.P.A. He visited the site and saw the video. There is not much to add about the parking situation. The Association's main issue is that the unit was really meant to be a garage at the time of condo conversions. The garage could be a ggranny unit. There is awkward parking on site. A precedent would be set and they agree with the D.R.B.'s opinion on this item. Rebuttal Mr. Roberts recognized the problem of converting garages. But they have no evidence the unit was ever used as a garage. It was always used as a work shop or some other kind of use. It had plumbing in there from the very beginning. It always had some parking serving it. The efficiency unit was never designed nor used to park vehicles. They want to continue the use without objection or concern in the neighborhood. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart concurred that quality, affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing is a necessity and it is needed in Orange. But he personally did not find 425 square feet acceptable. There is a 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 1994 standard of 650 square feet for a bachelor, 1-bedroom apartment. He thought the unit was meant to be for storage or a maintenance building. The quality is not acceptable for living space. Commissioner Walters didn't feel the owner was on strong ground. If he refinanced when he purchased the propertyandhecovered7units; yet there are 8 units, either the 8th unit was not there at the time or it was quietly or somewhat deliberately ignored in the purchase. He was concerned that low rent housing in an uncontrolled environment, subject to discretionary choice of how many people might be allowed to live there, might create overcrowding in substandard housing. There is no way to restrict the unit to two occupants, short of a deed change. The owner hasn't suffered a financial problem from an assumption of the past. The City has grave exposure as to the quality of life if there is no limit legally possible within a framework of 10 people in a 425 square foot unit. He was opposed to the variance. Chairman Bosch has fought strongly for all types of affordable housing in the City of Orange to the extent of smaller lots, in unpopular areas, to relaxation of development standards even to allowingadditionalheightorlessersetbacks -- virtually anything except a gross reduction in open space, which has always been a concern to him for a living environment. He didn't think the issue with this request was affordable housing. He appreciated Mr. Roberts' in doing a great job in putting forth all the potential reasons by which he felt the Planning Commission might be able to attach some findings to justify the variance. He never has been able to assign cosmetic, expedient findings to justify a variance. He goesbacktotheletterofintentrelativetothelawandfindingsonavarianceapplication. He's worked hard to look for not financial, not the intent of the owner or the previous property owner, but the reality and how it fit into sound planning principles and safety for the people, as well as it assures a reasonable use of the property by property owners. He thought it was unfortunate the current owner was mislead by the previous owner of the property with regard to the status of the 8th unit. If the problem is the content of the zoning ordinance, then the ordinance needs to be changed -- not look for expedient, cosmetic findings in order to try and justify the variance. That's the precedent he doesn't want to set. It's degrading the value of good discussion, good input and reasonable and prudent decision making on planning issues by removing any value to the process with regard to a variance. What are the realityfindingsthatcanbemadetojustifyavariance? He had "ifs" -- if there is an inability to move the thru-wall heat pump to another side of the unit, such as on the property rather than across the property line, then the answer isn't merely a verbal or brief written agreement with Dr. Ruper. That thru-wall heat pump vent is both air intake as well as an exhaust. If the parking space weren't three feet from the front door and the only window into the unit, then there might be a better way to solve the problem. That would requireanotherreductioninparkingthewaytheproposaliscurrentlyconfigured. He's been shot down several times in looking to allow an off-street open parking space in a circular driveway in front of a single familyresidencenotinthesetbackbecauseitwaswithinmorethanthreefeetofthefrontdoorandlookedto be a safety/fire hazard. He couldn't find any help from past actions of the Commission or City Council in that regard. He has seen dozens of dwelling units well designed that have all the windows and doors only on one side -- carriage units over garages, back to back, side by side units. There's nothing the matter with that if the interior design of the unit allows good ventilation to all parts of the unit. But he was afraid that would require a re-design and re-construction of the inside of the unit to change the dividing wall inside to run the other way. Sleeping space within dwelling units require direct access to exterior ventilation and light. There is no doubt if this were to be approved at any level the basic Building Code requirements would have to be met. There would have to be fire walls and adequate electrical and plumbing for the people who live there. The fact that it has been well managed and well maintained, and it hasn't been a fire and health hazard todate doesn't mean this is the quality of construction that has been allowed in the community by code for many years. And that can't enter into the discussion for findings for a variance. He has great sympathy for the Clark's and he appreciated their coming forward in trying to solve the problem. There aren't many solutions given this type of unit and situation. The Clark's are stuck with something handed to them unbeknown. The unit doesn't meet the basic criteria of quality housing -- affordable or not. Quality is gained by relaxing standards -- greater density, less open space. This goes below the floor area set aside for the least costly, the most affordable housing that the City has been able to reach consensus on after years of struggle. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to deny Variance 1974-94 because the basic findings with regard to those required for a variance application have not, and cannot be, demonstrated. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Walters NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 1994 Mr. Jones explained the action taken by the Planning Commission was considered final unless appealed within 15 days. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pruett sld MOTION CARRIED 4