HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1993 PC MinutesC a so o. ~. a_ .~
MINUTES
Planning Commission
Cdy of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning;
Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City
Attorney;Gary Johnson, City Engineer;
and Sue Devlin, Recording
Secretary PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF AUGUST 16.
1993 September 8,
1993 Wednesday - 7:OQ p.m.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of August
16, 1993, as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Wafters
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Pruett
IN RE: NEW HEARING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-93; ZONE CHANGE1166.93, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1437-
93 -CITY OF
ORANGE Ordinance Amendment 4-93 is a comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of
the Orange Municipal Code. The proposed amendment reformats the existing ordinance and
updates provisions regarding the development review Process, zoning district use regulations, development
standards and design standards that apply to the Old Towne Historic District. Also part of the amendment is
a proposal to eliminate four zoning district classifications: CP (Commercial Professional), C-
3 (Commercial), R-1-40X Single Family Residential, minimum lot size 40,400 square feet),
and the RCD (Residential Combining District} oveday zone. Zone Change 1 t66-93 addresses
the reGassification of properties within these
zones. Staff
recommendations are as follows:CP Zone Properties located along Katella Avenue between Glassell Street
and California Drive -Rezone from CP to C-1 (Limited Businessj. Orange Hill Restaurant property
on East Chapman Avenue -Rezone from CP to C-1. Properties on the south side of
Orangewood Avenue between the Orange (57) Freeway and Eckhoff
Street -Rezone
from CP to OP (Office Professional).C-3 Zane Properties are primarily located along Main Street
south of
Chapman Avenue -Rezone
from C-3 to C-2 General Business).RCD Overlay Zone Properties are located within or adjacent
to the Old Towne Historic District. Theproposal is for all properties to retain their base
zone class'dication, and to incorporate a height regulation
that applies throughout Old Towne based upon averaging height within neighbofioods.NOTE: Negative
Declaration 1437-
Mr. Godlswski presented the staff report and said the two basic items before the Commission were theOrdinanceAmendment, a comprehensive update of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Zone ChangewhichrepresentsmodificationscreatedintheZoningOrdinancebyeliminatingfourzoningdistractclassifications, and the reclass'rfication of those properties within the areas. The Zoning OrdinanceUpdatehasbeenatopicofdiscussionformanymonths, with numerous study sessions and publicmeetings. Although seen by many as a cure atI for all of the City's conflicts, the actual goal of this projectwastoreviseanoldandoftenambiguousdoaimenttobemoreuserfriendly, contemporary and intamallyconsistent. Staff has seriously thought through and discussed every page before the Commission. Anumberofquestionsstillneedtobeansweredandspecificdirection ~s requested of the Commission onmanyissues. The documents represent staff's proposal for a fair and non-biased approach to thezoningdocument, taking into arx;ount the direction that has bean given in past documents adopted by theCity,including the Preservation Element of the General Plan. Realizing that a number of vary sensdwsandemotionalissuesareatstake, staff has tried to take a "middle of the road" stance, leaving theopportunitytoprovideemphasisbythePlanningCommissionandCityCouncilthroughthepublichearingprocess. In reviewing various portions of the document, a number of zone consolidations appear to make senseandthosehavebeensuggested. Because zone changes affect the zoning map document, it willrequirethosepropertiesiobenoticed. Staff had sent out notices to those properties within a 300 foot radiusthatareproposedforconsiderationofchangingthezone. State mandated noticing requires the City to pasta118pagenewspaperadandmailingtothoseproperties. City action on advertising for thishearingincludeda114pageadinthepaper, notices were posted at City Hall and on cable tv, as well as mailingtothosepropertieswithinthe300footradius. The documents under consideration include theZoningOrdinanceUpdateDraft, dated June 14, 1993, Municipal Coda Title 17, the Historic PreservationDesignStandardsworkingcopy, which is the latest version. The Commission was asked to date the bottomofthecoverpageof8/26/92. The cover is the same as the existing Design Guideline document staffisworkingfromunderthecurrentordinance. Comments were also provided from the City Attorney'sletterdatedAugust19, which addressed some of the questions that were raised at previous public hearings, a staff report and a negative declaration. Most recently the Commission held a study session on June 28toreviewandcommentontheZoningOrdinancedocumentanddraftHistoricPreservationDesignStandards. A number of constructive comments were made during that period. It was the impressionofstaffthedirectionwastoprovideannotationsidentifyingwheresectionscamefromandbecausethedocumentwassubstantiallydifferentfromanythingchatwaspresentedbefore, staff providedthoseannotations. Staff is now working from a third document, dated8/26193, which incorporates many oftheitemsbroughtforwardintheoriginaldocument, but certainly not all. Staff went back to theexistingDesignGuidelines, recognizing it was a familiar document to everyone, and fried to go through pagebypagetomakethatdocumentinternallyconsistent. Then, add to that the issues that were brought upinthepastconcerninghistoricprsservat~on and being more direct in the way of providing standardsfordevelopmentintheOldTownearea. He pointed out the residential section of the document. TheoriginalDesignGuidelineshadonlyonepageofstandards. Staff has now incuded a little more than six pagesofstandardswhicharemoredirectandprovidedirectionnotonlytodesigners, but also to theDesignReviewBoard, who would be reviewing projects in the residential quadrants of the Old Towne area. The best outline of Changes made from the existing Zoning Ordinance to what is being proposed is on Page1oftheNegativeDeclaration. Staff is looking for speafic recommendations from the Commission ontheseissuesandMr. Godlewski explained each change in detail, as well as answered theCommissioners
questions:Administrative
Procedures Redefined the role and responsibility of the Design Review Board and consolidated speaal criteriaforthereviewofOldTowne
protects.Established the Staff Review Committee and its responsibilities in minor and major sits plan
review.Residential
Districts Added the R1-R and
R1-5 districts.Established maximum FAR and minimumopenspacerequirements.Reduced minimum lot frontage requirements for
various R1 districts.Eliminated the Residential Combining District (RCD) overlay zone and added aheightrestrictionforOldTownepropertiesbaseduponadjacentdevelopmentandstreetcontext.Revised the Planned Communlty (PC) District regulations.Revised the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. Additional changes havebeenmadetotheminimumdistancebetweenbuildingsandrecreationalamenitiesrequirements. These revisions were also made io the R3 andR4districtprovisions.Revised the Senior Housing provisions to be consistent with changes
in State law.Added the recently adopted AffordableHousing Incentives (i.e. density
bonuses,
Commercial Districts
Eliminated the Commercial-Professional {CP) and Commercial (C3)
districts.Addressed residential uses in the commerdal
zones.Developed pro»sions for Single Room Occupancy {SRO)
housing.Added height and setback requirements for properties within Old
Towne.Added the design guidelines for drive through
proposals.Industrial
Districts Reformatted and revised existing use pro»sions and development
standards.Added setback requirements for properties within Old
Towne.Sign
Code Changed limits of wall sign letter height to allow aggregate square footage of total
sign.Revised regulation pursuant to attorneys ad»ce to remain "content
neutral".Non-
Confomuna Code Expanded provisions to include buildings as well as uses, and to allow the rebuilding of
legal non-conformities within two years
of destruction.The Commission received a letter regarding the Ordinance from W.L Chambers who was out of
town on business. He requested more study sessions/workshops on the Standards because they
were too involved to be given blanket approval. However, Commissioner Bosch explained the
Commission's viewpoint as to the length of time involved in this issue. They chose to go to the public hearing
format in order to pro»de direction to staff to focus in and come back with precise language. They also
received a letter dated August 31 from Gloria Boise with a number of suggestions for indusions or re»sions
to the Ordinance, which all Commissioners
have received.Regarding the height restriction in the Mile Square area, staff proposes to use the average
height and number of stories of the residential block. Staff was trying to create a threshold a person could build
to -ii doesnR prevent someone from building two stories; it means if that person wanted to build to
that threshold, they could do so without a conditional use permit. H they wanted to go beyond that
threshold,then a wnditional use permit would be required for review by the Planning Commission to make sure it
is consistent with the
neighborhood.Floor area ratio (FAR) requirements include the total square footage of the building including the
garage.That is the ratio between the floor area and lot size - .6 -and it varies depending on tha size of the lot.
Mr. Godlewski would also like darification on the process charts. Staff revised the charts to include a
reference to applicable specific plans and to change the appeal procedure. Staff will also incorporate
changin the make up of the Design Review Board. There was a question on an appeal period for
Design E~eview Board issues. That was addressed in the Cdy Attorney's letter where they would allow the
appeal period to be 15 days from the date the decision was made; not from the date the Minutes were
presented. Staff was also looking for clar'rfication on the demolition procedures. They would change that
to clarify that demolitions initialed by the City are only those that pose a safety threat. They would like to
better define the process and were asked to indude penalties for unauthorized demolitions. Bui that was
covered in the City Attorney's latter and the penalties were covered in another portion of the City
ordinances. Staff was looking for some direction on the Historic Preservation Design Standards. They
have added to Title 17 the residential lighting, as was brought forward to the City Council recently.
Regarding the Old Towne Design Standards, Ms. Wolff clarified they have built in an inconsistency in the
Zoning Ordinance TRIe 17. The Design Re»ew Board has been given a number of functions to determine
items such as nominations, designations, landmarks, certificate of appropriateness, which staff has not
carried over to the new Design Standards format and need the Commission's dedsion of what to include
in that.
The public hearing was opened to receive public input.
Nanette Hartsell, 203 South Cambridge, said her property was currently zoned R2. She opposed the
rezoning to R1 and thought it was an unnecessary action. h would hurt the property owners in the area
and cause their properties to depreciate. She was also opposed io the FAR requirements.
Commissioner Bosch pointed out there was no proposal to rezone ftom R2 to Rt in the area she was
speaking about.
3
Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, asked if the FAR's will govern the height of
buildings? Will there be a limitation or a public hearing process? He was puzzled about PUD's. He
understood that whatever was in the plans would be approved and developed. He suggested more
thought be given to PUD's and planned communtties; tighter control was needed.
Mr. Godlewski explained building heights were addressed differently in the different zones. to the
residential zones, it limits the bulding height to a number of stories or m the Old Towne area, more
specifically to an average. In the commercial zones stall did not attempt to break any new ground in
terms of the high rise study that was still out there and being worked on. They brought forward the
existing setback to height ratio that is currently in effect. The FAR does not have an effect on the height
of a building; the FAR merely tells you how many square feet Vie building can be on the property. The
planned community will be more resVictrve. In the draft staff listed a number of criteria that are not m the
requirements now. There must be a minimum lot size of 10 acres before a planned community can be
considered. That the proposal provides for a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, office, public
facilities, and open space. That the project incorporates features such as, but not limited to those listed m
the proposal which includes additional open space, natural features preserved wherever possible,
perimeter setbacks increased over what the minimum in the zone is required, a distinctive design
technique, such as architectural treatments, site planning, structural design, landscaping, etc. There are
a number of things that make it more restrictive and a better project. It lists parameters for ponsideration.
It says that by incorporating features such as those listed, the proposal constitutes an environment equal
to or better than that which might be accomplished under Vaditional development practices.
Commissioner Cathcart would Tike to make sure that while they try to sill in the loop holes that are good for
the City, he would also like to keep enough areas of creativity for good quality design and better ideas.
Charlie Miles, 1330 Dana Place, asked how many more things could be done in a C3 zone than in a C2
zone? What would be the difference in price be between the two zones? He objected to the zone
change.
Mr. Godlewski said under the current Zoning Ordinance there's nothing more you can do in the C3 zone
than in the C2 zone. Ms. Wolff stated the main difference between the C3 and C2 zones is that C3 allows
some limited light industrial uses, where C2 is sVictly commercial uses -- retail, office, restaurants. Stall did
not know the difference in value between commercial and industrial properties.Commissioner
Walters owns property in Anaheim, next to the Angel Stadium which had been zoned C3.As
that had been rezoned C2, it raised property values.Commissioner
Bosch said further study was needed regarding light manufacturing uses in the C2 zone.What
occurs in non-conforming situations if the C3 zone were eliminated? What would be allowed by
right vs. a conditional use permit?
Ms. Wolff read from the C2 code. Certain light industrial uses are allowed by C.U.P. in the C2 zone: fuel
and feed stores, laundries, newspaper publishing, plumbing shops, research laboratories, sheet metal
shops, storage garages, wholesale bakeries. That is somewhat of a carryover or link between the two
zones.
There was discussion about non-conforming uses and the grandfather clause. They were looking at
the zone change because of a bookkeeping process because there is little or no difference between the
two zones; not to create a hardship or eliminate a
use.There wasn't an easy answer and Mr. Soo-Hoo's reaction to granting a blanket conditional
use permit would be that it probably could not happen because theC.U.P. process would need to
be handled individually with a hearing for each properly. There may be a solution and he would research
it more.Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, brought up the Pep Boys hearing. They were told another use for
C3 zoning was adult book scores and pornographic stuff and that was one reason they did not want
the
zone change.Commissioner Bosch said those uses were not allowed by right in any zone in
the City.Diane Landine, 728 East Washington, was against rezoning the residential area. She was
also against the regulation of colors and hopes it does not apply to the residential area. h's absurd that only
two trim colors should be allowed. She hopes arbors can be put in; she would have liked to build a
high
around the front of her yard, but she was told she couldnY have anything above 42 inches. She didnY
want so much regulation in the Cfty; it she wanted that, she would live in Irvme.
Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, prepared a letter and read it into the record. He spoke on behalf of the Old
Town Preservation Assodation. They're glad to see the Historic Preservation Design Standards move
ahead. They want to make sure the final product is dear, condse and complete and tt is one that
addresses previously raised legal inconsistendes. His letter focused on the cumulative and adverse
impacts and their relationship to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, as well as the bng-term
stability of historic OId
Towne.Mr. Godlewski commented rt was staff's intent when they went iMO the Zoning Ordinance Update
to deliberately not address the California Environmental Qualty Act in the zoning document itself. They
Jett that to stand as a separate document, which is defined by State Law and has its own set of
guidelines and standards. tt may be appropriate to carry out some of the requests and include it as a
reference
document.h was felt that reference to the adverse impacts could be contained in the Design Standards so that
the applicant is aware there could be a problem and CEOA could be triggered ii there are adverse
impacts.There has been talk about the Master Environmental Assessment, but staff has not pursued that
because their time has been ~nsumed in writing the Design Standards and trying to get this document
forward.Part of Planning Commission's task is to apply pressure to the City Coundl to allow staff to make
that more of a priority. There are limited resources of staff, but there should still be a priority given to
certain
elements.VaI Tardif, 548 East Washington, asked if there was a significant Change in what was being proposed
as to developing the property he lives at now in the same manner they developed the property across
the
Street?Mr. Godlewski explained under the current zoning ordinance aC.U.P. would be required to build
two stories. What staff is proposing would mean ii everything else around them were two stories, then
he could build a two story. At the worst case, the threshold would be below that and if they wanted to
build two stories, a C.U.P. would be
required.Linda Schwartz, 733 East Palmyra, lives in a two story home on a block of one story homes. Would
the new regulations be more restrictive? The FAR formula is not easy to
understand.Mr. Godlewski said the only pplace this would be more restrictive would be in those properties which
are not currently zoned wish the RCD. It tt is straight zoning right now in R1, a person could build two
stories.Currently in the R2 zone, 'rf you have single story on all three sides, aC.U.P. would be required. If
there was a 2 story on one of those sides, a C.U.P. would not be required. Adding a conditional use
permit requirement to one story neighborhoods that are not twrcantly zoned RGD - it is in that light a little bit
more restrictive.
Commissioner Bosch stressed tt was important for them to get something that could be understood and
was simple as possible. They were trying to make some simplifications, but sometimes through this
process changes to properties do occur.
Commissioner Pruett said it should not be misunderstood that the thresholds being identified era
thresholds where development cannot take place. What they're talking about ors thresholds by which a
conditional use permit or some form of a heanng would be required before mowng torward with a project.
The City is not suggesting they're not going to allow that type of activity to take place.
Commissioner Cathcart also said they're trying to wrestle wfth a document to deal with the entire City of
Orange. Thera are areas in Orange that are more rural and then there are areas in Old Towne where
you're 10 feet away from the neighbors' house. It's a complicated problem.
Geneva Fulton, 1801 North Greenleaf, Santa Ana, was interested in the 400 block South Main. It's
curcentty zoned C2. What height are they restricted to? Could they request a zone change for that block
to build several stories?
Mr. Godlewski said their proposal is not to change what is under the current zoning ordinance. It would
be a function of how far you are, how far the setbacks are from the residential zone as it tx~rrently is in the
code. He didn't know what the height would be on her particular property. What she was suggesting
5
would be possible in a development project proposal. It would change the distance from where
residential starts and where commercial starts, but the regulations would remain the same as they are
now.
Leslie Weber, 536 East Palmyra, was conoemed the cunent proposal will limft the ability to improve some
of the smaller homes, which she owns. She is distressed thinking maybe she will not be able to go up,
but would have io cut down a tree and fill her lot in order to make her house bigger. Who decides this
and will conditional use permits cost mo~~y? The proposal is unclear and the guidelines seem to be
arbRrary again. She teals the tax base will be destroyed and the property value of her home will be
bwered.
Jim Owens, 163 South Cypress, would like some dartfication on what is meant by "retain the base zone
dass'rfication" and eliminate the RCD overlay?
Mr. Godlewski explained in the Old Towne area there are some properties that are zoned R2 RCD or
R3 RCD; stall is suggesting to eliminate the RCD and return those properties just to the base zoning of
R2 or R3. The RCD stands for Residential Combining District and it means i( you're in a R2 zone wfth the
RCD, then you have to have a conditional use permit to build two stories on that property, no matter what
is around you. Staff suggests eliminating that RCD and just leave the property with the base zoning. No
change is proposed other than to eliminate the RCD.
Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, said storage must be provided per the Design Standards of 120 square feet
per unit. What kind of storage is meant by the Standards?
Dan Ryan said it should be cubic feet rather than square feet.
Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked i(a vote was going to be taken at tonight's hearing? She
suggested putting the final draft in language that everyone could understand. There is too much
restriction and Old Towne is becoming a dictatorship.
The Commission would receive input from the public at tonight's hearing, but there will not be a decision
on the final wording because it still has to be dratted. There's no way to go through all the issues and
look at the tine detail of language. The Commission would also like to hear detailed input on where
people believe there is over regulation in the ordinances that are proposed to assist them; they need to
know the specifics.
Nanette Hartsell, 203 South Cambridge, received a public notice about downzoning from R2 to R1 and
that was her main concern. She believes her property will be less with the downzoning.
Commissioner Pruett thought there might be some confusion in terms of the notice that was sent out. In
lookingg at the legal notices that went out to property owners in that area was the removal of the RCD.
Mrs. Hartsell's notice was different and it would be helpful if she could drop off a copy to staff for their
review.
Diane Landine, 728 East Washington, asked what a conditional use permit costs?
A condRional use permft is based on the size of the project proposed. A conditional use permit before the
Planning Commission starts at $550 and goes up to over $2,000 depending on acreage. Any C.U.P. up
to 5 acres in size is a $500 application. There are other applications that may be submitted along with it --environmental,
negative declarations -- and a variety of fees could be charged. As a project gets bigger over 22
acres) then a deposit is made and staff charges by the hour.Duncan Clark,
205 North Pine, backed up what Mr. Miles said, about C3 zoning on South Main Street. He has watched
the growth of that street for many years and is opposed to changing the zone from C3 to C2 even though
there is some indication there is no difference. It's not a good thing to do for the property.Ralph Zehner,
630 East Culver, lives next door to a two story house. WiII he need a C. U. P. to build on his property? He
would be opposed to any averaging and feels he should be able to build the same structure as his
neighbors. How many Goes in Orange County have FAR's for residential? He suggested leaving the document
flexible so people could be creative. Who decides what is a visual disorder? What is a heritage building
and where are they? He felt the language of the document should be changed to be more flexible;
proper definitions were encouraged. Ribbon driveways were questioned.
Under the proposed zoning ordinance, staff would make an evaluation of the entire block and make a
determination as to the average roof height of each of the roofs on that block; then add them up and
divide that by the number of parcels on the block and come up with an average. If he is proposmg to
build a structure that is taller than the average determined by that method, than a C.U.P. would be
required. Surveys have been made on FAR's, but it is something that is new to zoning ordinances; FAR's
are being adopted in a number of cities throughout the L.A.-0range County area, but Mr. Godlewski did
not have that number.
Craig Simpson, 536 East Palmyra, addressed the height restriction. On streets that are all one story
residences, how has staff determined what is bast for the residents? Was the ordinance proposed by the
homeowners or has this come about through protest of other homeowners? He did not feel a genenc
method of determining whether you should or can build a second story by averaging the height of the
houses was a viable method. That should be done on an individual basis.
Mr. Godlewski responded the whole concept of going to two stories was brought up on a citywide basis in
earlier study sessions. A number of residents in the City of Orange -not even in the Old Towne area -expressed
a concern with people coming in and over building their property by building to two stories. It was
originally requested to add a number of restrictions that would preclude this from happenmg and add substantial
setbacks so that if a person built a two story, the second story must be built more than 10 feet back
from the property line. Another reason for the ordinance is that slat(, in looking at the zoning of the OId
Towne area, looked at the RCD zone, coming from the other side and felt the RCD zone was too restrictive
and too arbitrary in its application, requiring that everybody in the RCD zone obtain a conditional
use permit to build two stories. Staff felt it was appropriate to consider two stories in some neighborhoods,
because of the architecture and historic quality (especially in Old Towne) by the C.U.P.process
on some rationale basis. The Planning Commission would review projects that propose two stories
and thereby provide a forum for public review to make sure there is compatibility with the neighborhood.
It
is not staffs intent to devalue anyone's propertyy. The rules and regulations being brought forward are not
downzoning. Ths only case is the C3 and C2 and it requires further study by staff. It was staff's assumption
that all the uses allowed in the C3 zone would not conflict with the uses m C2. Staff wanted to
take what was already in the Zoning Ordinance and try to darify it and make it easier to use and then shore
it up where there were problems. Then, apply the interest of the community which have been historic
preservation. Specific studies have not been done as to evaluations and he didn't think it was required.
Commissioner
Smith responded to Mr. Simpson's questions. About five years age in the 500 block of East
Van Bibber a person proposed a second story addition. The neighbors came out in opposition to the second
story because the txntext of their neighborhood would be changed. That C.U.P. was denied and to
this day that street is still single story, both sides. That is exactly what the C.U.P. is suppose to do; it is to
give neighbors input into what they would like to have in their neighborhood. As a point of reference,there
have been no C.U.P.'s denied since she has been on the Commission (15 months). And there are a
very few C.U.P.'S that are ever completely denied -- sometimes they are denied on the first round, but it becomes more
a matter of design rather than the question of can you have a second story. Is your second story
intrusive to your neighbor? is it an invasion of privacy? What does the design Irk like in the context
of the neighborhood?Ann Seibert,
340 South Olive, has listened to everyone speak. She's afraid they're losingsight of the fad that this
is a historic area. There is a preservation element; they are bound to preserve the area. There has to
be some area for building, but she thought that has been provided for. If they're goingto be serials about
Old Towne, there must be some restndions. She lives in a block that has gone from single family, single
story to quad-plexes. She'snot seeing any protection on her street. There has to be standards;
dbuilding is not limited, there will not be an Old Towne to care about any more.Steve
Nelson, 357 South Olive, hopes a balance is maintained between the neighbor who wants to build and
the neighbors who live nazi door to him. He shared his personal experience about the development next
door to him. it was built without regulations. He stressed as property owners they not only have to be
concemed about their right to build: they also have to be concerned about their right to protect themselves
from irresponsible building next to them.Bob
Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, suggested the Planning Commission consider a
concise checklist of the proposed major changes. Anyone can read and understand the changes to the Ordinance.
7
Corrine Schrock, 446 North James, asked what was wrong with the word "Guidelines" and why was it -being
changed to "Standards"?Mr.
Godlewski explained the reason it was changed was because the document, which was originally adopted
as a guideline, was subsequently adopted by the City Council as an ordinance. As an ordinance,N
is no longer a guideline. h was stipulated at that time to be called "Standards".Mrs.
Schrock asked why should her 1950's home have to conform with a ribbon driveway? For those houses
built later than 1944, why should they have to conform to something pre-1944? Will the neighbors
help pay her taxes since they will have a deasion in her property? She heard that drive-
through restaurants were going to be added to the ordinance, yet homeowners cannot have an aluminum
roll-u garage door. There fs so much change in Old Towne that tt should be handled separately.
She felt Commissioner Smith should disqualify herself as a member of the Commission because she
is not impartial about many decisions in Old Towne. Based on past statements, Commissioner
Smith shows evidence
of partiality.Commissioner Bosch asked for a legal interpretation on the issue of cenflid of interest. fl
Mrs. Schrock were asking for total impartiality, she would have to disqualify every dtizen of the United
States from participating m public life. Everyone is entitled to public opinions. That is why there is diversity --
to represent the community at
large.Mr. Soo-Hoe stated the City Attorney has reviewed suggestions regarding possible conflict of
interest on the part of Commissioner Smith. The condusian was that there were no conflicts with State
taw in Commissioner Smith's other associations and her rots on the Planning Commission. The
conflict of interest laws in the State of Calitomia focus on financial interest and that's what the opinion
Bused on.Tho public hearing
was dosed.Commissioner Cathcart stressed clarity is needed and highlighting specific areas of
change was necessary such as the fisted uses, the toms in C2 and C3, the danfication of FAR's and an
explanation of how the Cfty will arrive at that, the procedure for averaging building heights, usable open space - a
dear explanation, perhaps in combination with the procedural averaging of heights, a reference to the
CEQA documentation, and a wish list of manpower or time allocations available for the Master
Environmental Assessment. At this point the Commission's action is more of a recommendation to staff to bring
back these items for further
review.Commissioner Smith responded io a couple of questions regarding the new procedures outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance Title 17 relating to certificate of appropriateness, rehabilitation incentives,
nominations!designations. It was needing clarity in the document. The DRB crteria is in the Zoning
Ordinance;however, it is net in the hands of the applicants if it is not in the Design Standards. Sha suggested
the DRB criteria be carried over to the Design Standards so that the applicants know exactly which
criteria their project will be evaluated on. A Iistmg of the adverse impacts m the Historic Preservation
design Standards was needed. She also proposed that the Secretary of Interior Standards be considered as
part of the Design Standards because they spedfically spell out what is recommended in historic areas
in terms of renovation, rehabilitation and additions. The map is not readable; you cannot read the names
of the streets. That should be redone to see the names of the streets. It should also spell out the
Nutwood Trod be included in Old Towne. Her preference would be to have ihs CEQA section in the
Standards,but she would defer to the wishes of the Commission if there was at least some reference to
adverse impacts that would send a person back to the CEQA standards. What about the public review of
CEQA standards? That is not included in any of the documents. The only reference to CEQA review is at
the staff
level.Commissioner Bosch thought they should limit CEQA within the Historical Preservation
Standards;however, they are revised and enfolded into the City ordinance a reference to CEQA. But CEQA
applies to the entire Zoning Ordinance; everything the City does. Stronger wording should be put in the
general or spedfic administrative procedures of the Zoning Ordinance. Similady with the DRB. Wherever
there are other portions of the Ordinance where there are discretionary actions subject to the review of
the DRB, that's all it should state in the Ordinance. It should go into detail up front; we only want to
correct the procedures in one place. This should be a rule for the darify of
documents.Commissioner Smith spoke about the appeal process used by DRB and thought the City Coundl
should use the same criteria as the DRB in considering appeals {Pa a 25 of the Historic Preservation
Design Standards). The Southwest Guidelines were done with a consultant at a great expense. The reference
to those guidelines is nowhere included in the Design Standards. M refers to commercial buildings. It'
excellent material and should be included in the document. She noticed there is no appendix from the
Historic Preservation Element mentioned in the Design Standards. That would also be good to include as
a reference document.
Mr. Godlewski referred to Page 43 under Appendix B -Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan.
Commissioner Smith was surprised there was mention of no more than two trim Coors. It's very common
in Oid Towne to have more than two trim colors and she would like to see that deleted. That's not needed
there.
Commissioner Bosch would like to get soma consensus from the Commission on aIi issues. They'vealreadydiscussedtheissueofC2vs. C3 and staff will bok into that. They concurred with staff's intent to
redefine the role and responsibility of the Design Review Board, including the membership of DRB.
Commissioner Smith had concerns that no one was checking the site plans and that was a glaringomissionofanarchitectonstaff. Site planldesign standards issues will be addressed with the new
mmittee. Under residential districts, FAR's need further clarification to make it more understandable.
Terms need to be defined and in the summary the definition needs to be explained. There needs to be
diagrams showing the different FAR's and how it tits on certain lots. A survey of other clties was
requested; show examples on how ii relates to the setback impacts. The basic concept is an appropriate
one, but 0 needs to dearly show that it is well defined and makes sense. A art of that is the minimum
open space requirements. An explanation on usable open space was needed. Do slab driveways count
as open space. There needs to be a good definition of allowable encroachments in the setbacks. Theywouldliketoseenoairconditioningequipmentorpoolequipmentinsideyardsetbacks. Buildingencroachmentsinthesetbacksneedtobedefined. A penalty of $500 for the illegal demolition of a
historic building is no deterrent at all, but the Commission realizes they are limited by State Law. Why not
propose a penalty to rebuild the structure; is there a legal restriction on that? Mr. Soo-Hoo explained
that might be difficult to enforce and to convince a judge to uphold such a request. Some years ago there
was a Demolition Implementation Committee. They prepared a document which was never
implemented anywhere in the ordinances. The penalty proposed in that document was that the landowner could
not bwld on that property for two years; to restrict their return a bit. It should be included in theDesignStandardsatleastasadeterrentsopeoplewillknowtheCityisseriousaboutretainingtheir
resources.The Commission needs to encourage the City Council to work towards finding better ways to polies
or penalize chose who flaunt the law. Who is at fault regarding illegal demolitions -the homeowner
or contractor? If ft is the contractor who is in violation, is the City in a position where they Can revoke
the individual's business license? A licensed contractor knows when permits are required andit's a
violation of the State Contractor's Law for a contractor to undertake any such action, subiect to disciplining at
the State level. That's something again where notice needs to be made to have the State follow up on
whatthey're suppose to Police. The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
Demolition Ordinance because tt should be referenced in the updated Ordinance under the demolition section of
Title 17. Removing the RCD overlay is the right step to take. Clarification is needed and staff must explain
the procedure about averaging heights. There was concern about taking an aversge to ascertainbuildingheights. There is a real need to provide the clarity that brings forth the idea that what is being
established is a threshold for a conditional use permit and not a ceiling that would prevent someone fromdoingsomething. It would help to improve the process which People go through now which in many
cases requires a ~nditional use permd regardless of the situation. Commissioner Smith liked the RCD,
but would defer to the wishes of the Commission to eliminate the ACD if speclfic thresholds are adopted
far the other criteria. Otherwise, it would be dangerous. Neighbors have the right to know what is going
on next door io them because it does affect their property values. There is a need to communicate howthePUD's and planned communities have been revised to make sure there are basic standards foraccess,dreulation, open space, etc. that are not subject to the creativity of an unique zoning ordinance. Howhasitbeenrevisedtoaddressthemisuseoftheprocessinthepast? Regarding affordable housing,
are incentives included for affordable housing; they could be linked for adaptable reuse with some
historic preservation incentives. Staff is to identify the most appropriate place and provide language to cover
that with the new ordinance. Arbors (open work) is not a problem as an entrance to a front yard. Staff'
s concern was writing something that would preclude a public safety issue. A similar question dtat
comes up relates to the stucco arches -- it would fall into the same retegory and they would need to be defined.A definition needs to be provided for the Heritage House. Staff took the existing ordinance and put the
Draft Historic Preservation, which is more preservation standards, and added both to make one
document. The existing Design Guidelines were adopted by the City Councl and are in place as the
Historic Preservation Standards. Do they increase the standards and how is that piece of the documem
handled? Is it a reference document? (Yes.) All of the things that are in the Historic Preservation DesignStandardsistoworktowardspreservationandgoodqualityoflifeintheneighborhoods. Staff should
proceed by adding to it and referenced. There was a concern about the paint police concept and limitingittojustafewcolors, given the many historical changes in color. That problem needs to be looked at
more because it's too restrictive. All the material seems to bs in the document, but it needs to be darified
for the public's interpretation. Staff presented a working document to the Commission. tt may not read
well because you have to reference a bunch of numbers. Their next step would be to put it in print. All
the maps would be revised on the next go round. Ths Words shoutd/shall era important to the document,
but get rid of the words that cxeate ambiguities. Other does have some great documents that are very
user friendly with pictures and maps; they might give Orange some new ideas. The Commission would
Tike more discussion on Title 17 and the reference to ~rtificata of compliance or certificate of
appropriateness. Regarding the commercial districts, staff will study further the C3 zones and bring
something back to the Commission. SRO housing provisions needs more discussion to be sure the
standards are appropriate. Where does the high rise study stand? There were no Concerns for the
industrial districts or sign code. The suggestion is for two years rather than one year regarding non-
conforming codes. A permit needs to be pulled within one year and the project completed within two
years. The key difference for C7 zones is that a person can build a 20 foot high building on the property
Gns. The staff report made reference to a justification of there would be no greater impacts on adtacentresidentialbecausetheareaisbuiltoutanyway. Do they teal comfortable that there will be an area of
zoning where neighbors are curtentiy protected from 20 foot walls on their property line, and by that zone
change straight across suddenly they Could have that wall there? That is a concern that needs to ba
explored. Maybe there needs to be a lesser height (stepped height} in addition to site plan review.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to continua Ordinance
Amendment 4-93, Zone Change 1166-93 and Negative Dsdaration 1437-93 to the
meetingof October 18,.1993 to address key issues of the
Zoning Ordinance Update.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart,
Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES:
None MOTION CARRIED iN
RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS Resident, 839 South Oakwood, telt it was unfair to make a derision on the Zoning
Ordinance for the entire Ciiy when the issues revolve around Old Towne. Human rights are not
being considered. She wants people free of agendas. Too much tax dollars have been spent
m Old Towne.Corrine Schreck, 446 North James, spoke about the Shaffer House. If that is senior
housing with no parking, it now impacts her house at the other end
of the street.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, secronded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn to a
study session at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 13, 1993 to discuss an engineering request
relative to a GlasselUWalnut EIR, and to discuss potential recreation uses of the
Peralta School site.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart,
Pruett, Smith,
Walters NOES: None The meeting adjourned at 11:
30
p.m.
std