Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City 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 OCTOBER 4 1993 Monday - 7:00 p.m. The Minutes of October 4, 1993 were continued to the next regular meeting because the Commissioners did not receive them. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2036-93 -BOLE' INTERNATIONAL A request to expand an existing 153,400 square foot office complex with the addition of an approximately 5,000 square foot metal building to be used as a vehicle service facility. The request is a modification to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 1399) which allowed for office use in the industrial district. Subject property is located at 800 to 840 North Eckhoff Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant William Bole', 1601 Dove Street, Newport Beach, said this was an industrial use and it is limited to installing radios for the County of Orange on their vehicles. The surrounding areas are industrial uses; it's in the rear of the building, and to the rear of the property is the Santa Ana River bed. He has read the staff report and has no problems with the conditions of approval. They have looked into the study on the recirculation and will present several different options to resolve that problem. Perimeter fencing to the rear will be reworked for security purposes. There will also be a security gate in the rear parking area. He didn't know about the height of the fence, but would take that into consideration. The Commission was concerned about the size and height of fencing so as not to have complaints from occupants in the office buildings. Some of the fencing has been 12 feet tall with razor high wire wrapped around it similar to a prison. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Godlewski explained fences over 6 feet in height are required to submit for plan check in a building permit. If they're less than 6 feet, they do not require a building permit. Commissioner Smith had concerns over item 13 -- lease agreement. Has this been looked at thoroughly and was this the only way to pursue action through the courts should it be necessary? Commissioner Bosch said it would be difficult to enforce without legal action in any event whether it's private action between the landlord and tenant or if the City has to come in because of a public nuisance. Commissioner Cathcart shared the concern, but he believed condition 2 would be about as close as they could get . Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2036-93 with conditions 1-3, and find the project is exempt from environmental review. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2027-93 -ROBERT BRESKIN A request to add onto and convert a portion of an existing commercial office building to create seven (7) residential dwelling units. The request is to allow a density bonus and concessions in development standards as incentives for the development of affordable housing. The requested concessions include: 1) waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces required on site; 2) waiver of the maximum number of stories allowed within the Old Towne district; 3) allow for mixed use in conjunction with the housing development upon property owned for commercial use; and 4) allow for a density bonus greater than 25% over the maximum residential density permitted by the General Plan. Subject property is addressed 200 East Chapman Avenue and 111 South Orange Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1436-93 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to re-open the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Applicant Robert Breskin, 200 East Chapman Avenue, submitted an analysis of the project under the present requirements. If he chose to follow the current code, he could put in three residential units and convert his commercial use to residential. The analysis which he submitted indicated three units would generate a loss situation; it would not be profitable and would not make sense to spend that kind of money. As a result, he would have to keep it as commercal use. By approval of 7 units, he would be able to convert the restrooms and upstairs to a mixed use (residential and commercial) which would enhance the downtown area, reduce the parking requirements for morning hours and make the project feasible. The project would be a catalyst to help the downtown area. Commissioner Cathcart said at the last meeting they discussed the staff report and affordable units to be set aside for a minimum of 30 years. He believed the staff recommended 3 units -- two of which would be low and one very-low (affordable units). This suggestion was not put into the conditions of approval. Mr. Breskin has discussed this project with the Redevelopment staff and they're very much in favor of reducing and converting to low income housing three of the units. They must have less than 50% (which would be 3 units). He doesn't have a problem with the 30 year requirement and Redevelopment will abide by that. They're looking at income levels of $20,000-$22,000 with rents at $525/month. His plans are presently in plan check. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Walters didn't have a problem with the project. He believed if the project were approved, specific reference should be included to the 3 units being designated for low income housing on a 30 year plan. It should also be very specific that approval of such a proposal should be mitigated on the City's ultimate decision to sell, lease or otherwise make available public land needed for certain minor modifications of the building/project. 2 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board and approve Negative Declaration 1436-93 in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith was concerned about the parking situation and being deficient 11 spaces. It would seem to her that would have an impact on the environment. Commissioner Cathcart said it was addressed that parking was sufficient behind the space, between Grand and Orange. Commissioner Bosch said specifically the questionnaire and Environmental Impact Evaluation study talk about the effects on existing parking facilities and demand for new parking, and it was explained in the text relative to the available public parking. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2027-93 with conditions 1-6, and with the stipulation that three of the units shall be designated for low income housing on a 30 year minimum arrangement; and that it assumes the City, at some future date, makes suitable sale, lease or conditional use of its land for the ultimate reconstruction of the property affected by this conditional use permit. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Smith again voiced her concern about a project being 11 parking spaces deficient in a downtown area that is already over crowded with parking. She was concerned with the acquisition of public space that taxpayers pay for to provide for a private project. There is a church next door without a parking facility for weekend use and the fact that the commercial parking on the weekends is already deficient. Commissioner Cathcart concurred. He served several years on the Old Towne Parking Steering Committee and they went through the exercise of approving a design firm, approving a design for a parking structure, and he would like to see a recommendation perhaps at a later date that it be continued. The City needs a parking structure in Old Towne. Commissioner Bosch also shared the concerns, but he believed this had a specific difference from other multi-family residential projects in being in the commercial core. That's what makes it a big difference for him. Not only the plans for the future parking structure, but the fact the commercial property owners to a great extent have been the ones who carried the tax burden to create the public parking lots that do exist at this time. It's not setting a precedent in that The Flats has a similar situation. It doesn't mean parking problems won't occur, but if they don't take the steps to reinvigorate the public parking process and encourage people away from their cars by putting residential units in proximity to a nice, more urban, small town commercial environment, they'll never make the gains to free themselves from the strangulation of parking that is killing the community throughout the rest of the City. Commissioner Cathcart said if Mr. Breskin kept the property in the commercial office structure that it is now, the chance for over parking would be greater with employees than would be perceived with residential development. Commissioner Smith's problem with the project is the fact there could easily be a trade off for the one private parking space for public parking if the City's restroom facility which is owned by the taxpayers was used for an additional four or five parking spaces. An alternative was suggested that if the project were redesigned and the single private parking space was abandoned for the foyer and entrance, that more public parking would be provided. That mitigation has not been built into the project. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2032-93 -THE SANCTUARY-0RANGE HILLS A request to establish a church within the C-1 (Limited Business) District, and to exceed the parking allocation for their tenant space during hours when there is a limited demand for the existing parking facility. Subject property is a commercial shopping center located on the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Swidler Place, addressed 3622-3626 East Chapman Avenue. 3 NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. This item was continued from the October 4, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting.) Mr. Godlewski explained the Commission requested additional information regarding the original approval on the project which was submitted to them. Included was Resolution 66-57 where the specific resolution sets aside the back parking area specifically for employees. That is dated July 15, 1986. Additionally, Minutes of the City Council meeting were attached where the gate discussion took place concerning that a gate be placed in back to limit the access. Specifically, it says a control gate will be installed to encourage employee parking in the rear. Subsequent to the last Planning Commission meeting staff met with the neighbors, Mr. Young and Mr. Ledesma, who expressed their concern for the project, specifically with regards to items that were mentioned at the previous Commission meeting, including the new front to back orientation of the church, the continuation of lights shining from the building; opening of the date for use is a concern on days that the church would meet because it encourages traffic into the residential neighborhood, and there were questions as to the staff calculation for how much parking is required for the use. Additionally, the Commission received a letter from the project manager, Mr. Cottle, addressing similar items and site concerns as he saw them from the last meeting. The public hearing portion was closed at that meeting. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to re-open the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED Applicant Barry Cottle, 3626 East Chapman Avenue, has attempted to meet with the neighbors, but has not been successful yet. They are willing to do that and hopes it will come about. He met with the electrician about their lighting. The glare shields can be adjusted down and he's open to that as long as they can meet with staff or code enforcement to make sure they're in compliance with the original conditions. They still feel the church is a good use and tenant. Parking will be during non-peak times. They have 57 spaces in the rear parking lot. They want to resolve the problems with the neighbors. They are open to talking to the trash people. Commissioner Walters said it seems the gate is one of the issues that concerns the neighbors. He doesn't have a problem with seeing that gate kept closed almost continuously. To make effective use of that back parking area, he thought by keeping the gate closed, it would cut down on the danger of anyone parking back there (vandals or other influences). It would seem the solution would be in creating an entrance driveway that goes between the two buildings. It's not used now; there's a planter and walk space. The front parking lot is always full in the evenings. Yet the parking in back remains empty. You might give up four to five spaces; the only serious construction required would be to remove the planter and curb immediately at the corner and to cut through the walkway that exists now. He thought it would solve the parking situation, the neighbor complaints and allow overall use in a more even manner, in a safe fashion -- something that should have existed from the beginning but never was. It would be possible to put in a triangular planter. Mr. Cottle said that was talked about originally, but the only concern is for the children attending karate school. That planter is used as a sitting area. Those speaking in favor Pastor Dennis Pendergast, 700 West LaVeta, re-emphasized they intend to be good neighbors and excellent tenants as compared to other potential tenants. He addressed a few issues: speeding cars, trash, li hts, vandalism and the hours the trash is picked up -- what do these problems have to do with theChurchTheEIModenaneighborhoodsareexperiencingtraumaandthat's one of the reasons why they've selected this area to bring in a church. They believe they will be a healthy influence to the area. The other issue had to do with children. They will take care of their children. Their facility will not be large, but neither is their congregation. They believe parents are ultimately responsible for the children. A nursery area has been considered and an excellent program has been planned for older children. Commissioner Pruett was the one who raised the question about the children's safety in the parking lot. The lot was described as a thoroughfare in which traffic moved quickly. He raised the question of concern as to had the Church really recognized there was that potential in terms of a danger over a traditional parking lot? The last thing he wanted to do was to create a situation that is a danger to kids after church who may wander into the parking lot to play. He wasn't challenging the Church's care for the children, but trying to address the greater image he had of the danger that may be developed in approving the use without taking it into consideration. Commissioner Smith said there was discussion about condition 1 which specified the church's hours of operation. She suggested the condition be re-written: 'The church office may be open weekdays during business hours, the hours for operation of church services will be limited to mornings and evenings on Sunday and an occasional week night after 7:00 p.m. All church gatherings will end by 9:30 p.m." Pastor Pendergast asked if that would limit them on Saturdays for smaller meetings? Commissioner Smith wrote the condition based on the uses the pastor had mentioned at the last hearing and she didn't hear of any activity on Saturday. They will take note of that for discussion. Kathy Pendergast, 700 West LaVeta, explained children are very important to them. She is the mother of a 2 year old and is also the Director of Children's Ministry. She is working with others regarding the safety of the children including the parking lot issue. One of their larger churches in the Van Nuys area has a situation where they occupy several parking lots. Their attendants personally usher cars in and out; that would be something they could incorporate as well to make sure the safety of their children is considered. Vern Cummings, 734 East Tularosa, thought the church brings more solutions to the community than the difficulties. Those speaking in opposition Jim Young, 165 South Swidler, met with Mr. Godlewski this past week and it was nice to have an ear; someone who listened. He appreciated Commissioner Walters' comments on the planter area. That was addressed 7 years ago. The lights are more than one problem; they represent a 7-year problem of getting someone to listen to the neighbors' problems. The application is more than a request to allow a church to be used in a C-1 zone. It is a request to ignore agreements made before the center was constructed. The agreements were made by the City, residential neighborhood and the current owners of the property. They include the express limited use of the rear parking area and a control gate to limit the use for that purpose. The completion of the strip center has proven these concerns were justified then and even more lustified today. The application has some discrepancies as to the number of parking spaces required. The application is for 1400 square footage to be used for an assembly area. Referring to the code, he calculated 49 parking spaces. The proposed addition calls for another 700 + square feet. That's another 24 spaces. Last weekend the gate was left open. It was an interesting observation of how quickly traffic learned the gate was open. By allowing that gate to be open for four hours on Sunday morning and various times during the week is going to severely frustrate the people in the center. Driveways that put traffic onto a residential street will create problems and that's his main concern. Rebuttal Mr. Cottle was concerned with the suggested driveway access without giving it more thought. He has talked with his tenants about the church and parking situation. By trying to put the driveway through the planter area would impact his existing tenants. He suggested taking the responsibility of enforcing tenants to park in the back and have the church take access off the front. There won't be a problem with parking during the non-peak hours. The tenants are currently parking in the front of the center, with a few parking in the back. He didn't know anyone who parked on Swidler. Commissioner Pruett asked what recourse would management take if the tenants chose not to park in the back; would it be terminating the lease? That doesn't sound like much of an incentive on management's part. It might be appropriate to offer the tenants incentives in their rent in terms of a rebate. It was his opinion that the parking problem is probably greater than perceived. He hears the public saying people are parking on the street. Based on what he's heard, he's concerned about the parking problem that is being created for the community and for the people living in the area. He thought too there was a responsibility on the part of the community to work a little bit closer with the management in terms of resolving some of their problems (i.e., lighting). The problems go beyond the borders of the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart shared the concerns of Commissioner Pruett. In the original approval by the City Council back in July, 1986, there was a condition placed on this that the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Safety Commission study this development and establish measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of traffic circulation from the proposed development to the adjacent residential area. The Traffic Engineer shall report to the City Council in six months after construction of the restaurant use. That has never been done. One of the problems he had with this was ignoring a previous condition. He had a problem with being consistent and doing what is right. He personally felt until this was taken care of, he wasn't comfortable in moving ahead with a motion. Commissioner Walters didn't blame the land owner for item 18 not being enforced six months after the conditional use permit was issued. It was the City's failure to not have that traffic study done. He can't see that as a negative position. He came back to the original proposition he suggested two weeks ago of all possible tenants for the site, the church was the best tenant as far as minimum impact on the neighborhood and community. The lights are on every night; he's been there. They'll continue to be whether the two rooms are full or not. The lighting issue is something that can be addressed with staff. To play games and having the gate accessed for four hours is not realistic. He thought the only real solution and something which Jim Beam told him was on the plan to begin with but was not pursued, was the access from the front to back through the planter area. That would be the only way to seriously address the neighborhood's concern about traffic in and out of Swidler. It's the only way to realistically give sufficient parking, no matter what is going on in the center. You cannot force or have as a condition of this center access from the westerly side. That means you have to allow traffic in and out of Swidler and/or have an optimistic plan that the kids who work in the shops are going to park in the back faithfully, which they haven't done for 7 years. The driveway is what is required in order to make the project fly. Beyond that, he has no problem with the project at all. It's the best of all tenants to put in there. Commissioner Bosch had a couple of comments; one, is with regard to the potential for church uses and the impact upon commercial or industrial areas. They've reached a strange position in society where churches are forced into commercial or industrial areas. He agrees with Commissioner Walters that many of the potential occupants of the space, the church is probably the least damaging to the neighbors because of the programs of the church. It's a commercial site that was not intended to have a church, but society has forced us into that. He'd rather have church parking and traffic than 57 employees at all hours of the evening in and out of there. He'd prefer neither, but that puts them back to the dilemma of the original approval. He sees that there would be a great improvement with regard to flow through on parking from the point of view of the driver, with the driveway between the buildings. He didn't think it would reduce the traffic on Swidler because the employees parking in back could come through between the buildings and exit onto Swidler and perhaps increase it rather than having the gate. There might be a modest improvement for getting out, but not a major one. Proper design could provide for vision, safety and pedestrian safety; there might be some potential there. His bigger concern in terms of traffic safety is for the church itself. It's a great opportunity for what the church wants to do in a part of town where it is a required need to provide social services that the government cannot provide to a community in need. He worries about the danger of the rear parking lot -- there's no sidewalk or pedestrian area. Even though it's the least objectionable potential use to put on the site, in his view for the impact on the neighbors, he didn't think it was the best place for the church and it's occupants. He would rather give up some parking spaces to the rear as a trade off to provide a safe access point and pedestrian arrival to the church, and then give up the parking spaces to get the driveway through. Commissioner Cathcart would be in favor of reducing some of the parking on the site if there was a way to get that pass through. The condition that was originally put on by the City Council was meant to preserve the residential neighborhood from being impacted by parking onto Swidler and ingress/egress at that point. If there was a way to close that off and run the access from front to back in that corner somehow (it might even require some modification to the building), he thought that would be better than ignoring the issue altogether. Commissioner Smith shared the Commissioners' concerns in being caught in the middle of a dilemma. She had concerns about the suggested drive through where the planter now is. She has been in centers that have this type of drive through and she felt they were quite dangerous. There are a lot of blind spots because of the two buildings that corner there. She was concerned about the congestion already present in the parking lot with three entrances to the front and she visualized a traffic jam at that corner. Speed bumps may be a possibility, but there are children in the area. Safety is a real concern if cars were going both ways. She didn't see why condition 18, which has never been addressed, could not be brought back and addressed at this time. They have issued other conditional use permits where there was review and if the review was not favorable, the C.U.P. was withdrawn. She suggested that condition 18 be resurrected once they determine what they're going to do with this. A review should be made on this particular site. It would be better to have the land owner do the review. She also proposed a condition 6 that spelled out the hours of operation of the church (same as previously stated). There was a question about Saturday use and she was open to the Commission's input. She thought the church would be a good use; a good tenant because it is small, assuming that if they outgrew the site, they would look for a larger spot. She would rather have more lighting than less in a neighborhood that has a high crime rate. She would like to see the lighting in the parking lot retained for the safety factor. Perhaps the land owner could be required to work with that particular tenant to put up better window coverings so as not to impact the residents. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2032-93, with mitigation that the land owner develop, with City approval, a 20 foot wide (or suitable) driveway connection between the front parking lot and rear parking lot; and that the gate from Swidler into the rear parking lot remain locked. And, the church office may be open weekdays during business hours, the hours for operation of church services will be limited to mornings and evenings on Sunday and an occasional week night after 7:00 p.m. All church gatherings will end by 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Bosch supported the motion on the hope that the church would work to encourage members to park in back and walk around. And encourage the land owner to have the employees park toward the Swidler end in back of the locked gate; to help assure pedestrian safety and morntonng by the occupants of the church of the flow of kids to other businesses across that driveway. He believed this is a far less impacting use than the majority of the commercial uses allowed by right on the site. Commissioner Smith would support the motion if a condition is applied that the land owner will do a traffic study within six months to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic circulation from the tenancy of the church through the adjacent residential area. The maker of the motion had trouble in supporting that since the gate would be locked. The purpose of item 18 was in the event of an open gate situation, which was contemplated 7 years ago. Commissioner Bosch thought the study might show is whether in fact the placement of the new drive access from front to rear, despite the locked gate, has been discovered by those who use the shopping center to the west. How much longer is it going to take for people to discover that the shortcut is available unless some mitigation is placed to prevent that from happening. Commissioner Cathcart asked about placing a condition that would put the highest safe speed bump in that area? If the area could be made less attractive for speeding that might be the answer. The maker of the motion would accept a speed bump as part of the pass through. Commissioner Pruett was not going to support the motion. He agrees the church use would be the best use for the property in terms of the neighbors. But he didn't think the proposal to cut a drive from front to back is doing to solve the problems. Speed bumps may help address that problem, but he thought there would still be a problem getting through there and the problems raised earlier are the blind spots that may be created. Commissioner Smith reluctantly supports the motion because she is not in favor of the pass through. She maybe needed to reword her traffic study proposal to say she was concerned about the danger factor that the new pass way would create in the parking lot by having still another ingress/egress opening. Although the traffic study proposed by the City was to mitigate adverse impacts on the residential area, she was concerned about the pedestrians and drivers in the parking lot area as well. She still asked for the traffic study as a safety feature by the land owner. Commissioner Bosch wanted to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to require a traffic study after six months of occupancy by the church to identify specifically whether through traffic has developed creating a hazard through major use from the westerly property through the new cut through drive to Swidler Place, and to specifically identify in that case, if that finding occurs, that traffic barriers be required to be placed on the diagonal drive at times church assembly is not occurring (normal daily business hours). That could be accomplished by means of removal posts, manual barriers -- not an automatic gate. The gate would be allowed to be open for employees and during periods of assembly by the church. Commissioner Smith seconded the amended motion. Commissioner Smith's second to the motion was based on the fact that the gate would be opened in the limited fashion that it was agreed to by the City and land owner. Commissioner Cathcart asked the City Attorney if there was a problem with the City overriding a reciprocal easement agreement by asking that the gate be locked all the time? Mr. Soo-Hoo was not familiar with the terms of the reciprocal access agreement, but he imagined that it called for some means of ingress/egress to a public street. He didn't see anywhere in the paperwork that it requires that specific access point that's existing be maintained. It leads him to believe that any access point to a public street would suffice, but he stands to be corrected with the actual agreement. The diagonal drive that was available would take place and provide that reciprocal easement. The Commission voted on the amended motion, but it failed: AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith NOES: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett, Walters The Commission went back to the primary motion: Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2032-93, with mitigation that the land owner develop, with City approval, a 20 foot wide (or suitable) driveway connection between the front parking lot and rear parking lot; and that the gate from Swidler into the rear parking lot remain locked; to include a speed bump in the connector to reduce the speed of traffic. And, the church office may be open weekdays during business hours, the hours for operation of church services will be limited to mornings and evenings on Sunday and an occasional week night after 7:00 p.m. All church gatherings will end by 9:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch wished he hadn't said he supported the motion based on further discussion; he apologized. He's concerned about the short cut being explored and discovered so readily through there. Minute Order by Commissioner Smith: The traffic study was not included in the motion; therefore, it is not required. She asked that the applicant (land owner) voluntarily take on a study in the future to assure the safety of pedestrians and cars in that particular parking lot as a gesture of good will and good faith towards the neighbors. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-93; ZONE CHANGE 1166-93, 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 40,000 square feet), and the RCD (Residential Combining District) overlay zone. Zone Change 1166-93 addresses the reclassification 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 Business). 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 Zone Properties are primarily located along Main Street south of Chapman Avenue -Rezone from C-3 to C-2 General Business). 8 RCD Overlay Zone Properties are located within or adjacent to the Old Towne Historic District. The proposal is for all properties to retain their base zone classification, and to incorporate a height regulation that applies throughout Old Towne based upon averaging height within neighborhoods. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1437-93 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts on this project. This item was continued from the October 4, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting.) Mr. Godlewski stated the Commission is reviewing the Zoning Ordinance document dated June 14, 1993, the Historic Preservation Design Standards dated October 7, 1993 and the staff report dated October 7, 1993. In the staff report, staff has outlined those areas which they provided more information as requested. The easiest way to review the documents would be to follow the outline as it was presented. On Page 3 of the staff report there is the Planning Commission action that is requested; staff has outlined some bullet points as to those subject matters in which staff is still looking for clarification. They would like the Commission's direction so that they could bring back a more abbreviated list or one that has new items on it as discussed at this hearing. A couple of things occurred during those weeks staff assembled the information. Three people (sometimes four) were working on the document. Throughout the document staff noticed after they published it, they had swapped the columns where there is a proposed ordinance and current ordinance -- it was not intended to confuse; it was merely an oversight on staff's part. They also discovered in reading through some of the descriptions that were made for certificates of appropriateness, the demolition review, and the nomination and designation section that it probably wasn't written as clearly as it could be. He was prepared to go over those sections with suggested revisions that will make it more clear and understandable. Commissioner Bosch would like to go through each section to see if the Commission had any comments. Then to look at the specific bullet points some of which are covered by the information sheets and some of which aren't. The Commission could then direct staff to incorporate these into the final text of the ordinance or to make changes, or to refer them back. Public input still needs to be received on the new information. The Commission received a letter dated this date from architect Frank Gonzales regarding his 10 points of objection and another letter, also dated this date, with 7 objections to the ordinance. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Commissioner Smith understood the FAR would apply to the entire City. Was that correct? Mr. Godlewski said the section is in the residential section and it is a varying scale of FAR's depending on the size of the lot. It applies to the entire City. Commissioner Smith raised the question -- was it applicable to the whole City or should there be different FAR's in different sections of the City based on existing properties? The rather high FAR's in newer neighborhoods may not necessarily fit in with older neighborhoods. Mr. Godlewski responded the original thought for FAR's was some way of controlling bulk and mass, and particularly the large house on a smaller lot. Staff felt their suggestion was rather generous; they have not worked with it in actual usage for what is being constructed today, but they did take a number of examples and implement it. It's reasonable and somewhat generous and certainly can be adjusted in the future if it doesn't work out. In terms of the older areas of the City, it's based on lot size and that's a reasonable citywide requirement. Commissioner Bosch was a strong advocate of the floor area ratios. Identifying what is a specifically correct ratio is a difficult one. There have been so many second story additions in the Old Towne area where one of the items the Commission has to consider is bulk and mass and there's nothing objective whatsoever anywhere in the ordinance to tell them what that is. It's not fair to people not to know when they come to the counter what the potential is for the utilization of the site is. It doesn't foreclose the need for a design that is neighborly; that is respectful of the neighbor's living environment. It sets a guideline that both the land owners and the reviewing bodies know is more subjective. Mr. Godlewski explained in looking at developments that have come across the counter in the last year or so, staff has tried to apply this and see where a building would cross the line. The only building that went over the FAR was the one structure that asked for the one foot variance into the side yard setback; it was a 2-story, very large structure. What he means by generous is a person can build more building without 9 being restricted at the FAR's staff has suggested. At the .5 FAR a person could build a 3,000 square feet of floor area on a 6,000 square foot lot. That's pretty much the typical lot size in the Old Towne area. Only the most overbearing and imposing of applications would have been prohibited through the FAR's. Commissioner Smith was concerned about a 3,000 square foot house on a 6,000 square foot lot is out of context with the rest of the neighborhood in some of the older neighborhoods -- that would be considered bulk and mass. In order to keep with the Historic Preservation Element and keeping the context of the neighborhoods by preventing bulk and mass, there needs to be some consideration to the neighborhood context -- not just the lot. Mr. Godlewski said their objective was to create an ordinance that was applicable citywide; not only to the original lots that occur in the downtown area, but also to the new lots that are further out in the hill areas and certainly another set of standards entirely is developed for the Irvine property. The FAR is something staff is encouraged to get on the books so that they can use it as one of the evaluation methods to try to quantify the issue of bulk and mass, which was up until now, undefinable or not quantified in the ordinance. What may seem generous in one part of town may be restrictive in another part of town and what staff tried to do was to strike a balance so at least they could put the concept forward. It will be on the books and if it needs to be amended, it could be. It does not stand alone particularly in the Old Towne area. There are a number of other more restrictive development standards that act in conjunction with the FAR to give a total picture of what could be built or a total envelope of what could be filled on the various properties. If it is felt the FAR is too generous in the Old Towne area, then subsequent amendments could be made to make it more restrictive for one area over another, but that's not what staff is suggesting. The FAR does include the garage. The garage is a function of the bulk and mass of a building. It is further specified, however, that in previous agreements with the East Orange General Plan, the Irvine properties that those lots and those properties in the 5,000 square foot lots are the only ones that do not include the garages in their calculation. That is by previous agreement that was made at the time of the General Plan. Floor Area Ratio (FART vs Lot Coverage It's ok the way it is. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Commissioner Walters asked if someone could have a PUD with one 6,000 square foot lot? Is there any minimum to the lot or acreage involved? If not, there should be. A minimum PUD size was established within the last two years. Mr. Godlewski said they put the minimum lot size in the PC text (10 acres minimum). The PC text was the text that was most abused in that light. The PUD merely allows one to take the same number of units that you could get on a piece of property and re-distribute them. Fora 6,000 square foot lot, a PUD was unlikely. The concept of the PUD is to allow clustering of units while maintairnng the acreage that is required under the zoning. Planned Communit,~fPC) District No comments. Senior Housing This is before the Commission to incorporate what the City is required to incorporate by State law. The current ordinance does not address what it should address. These are changes to make that happen. Affordable HousinQlncentives/Preservation Incentives Similar situation to Senior Housing. Commissioner Smith read the recent copy of Western Cities, September, 1993 and she found an article which ties in historic preservation and affordable housing. She submitted the article to City staff to see if there could be further enhancement of the wording. Usable Open Space Commissioner Smith was surprised to see a particular aspect to this. In the second sentence in defining usable open space, it says it is the term used to describe an area that can be utilized for recreational or leisure purposes and may be either outdoors or indoors in R-3 and R-4 districts. She was surprised to see that open space could be included indoors. What was the definition of indoor open space? Mr. Godlewski explained indoor open space included pool rooms or recreation rooms. 10 Commissioner Smith's concern was for a small project area -- a 3-unit project where indoor open space was allowed, it would drive up the size of the building which would diminish the size of outside open space. Mr. Godlewski said if it was within the building it would still be counted in the floor area ratio. So it would still count as usable square footage; however, that use would be attributed to recreation area. It would be counted as usable open space, but it would be counted against the project in terms of FAR. You're not counting the same thing in the FAR. You would almost be penalized on a small project to put in an indoor recreational area. And that's exactly the intent. A person would still need to meet all the setback requirements. Commissioner Smith was glad to see it 's spelled out that usable open space does not apply to parking areas or driveways, or those areas provided for vehicle parking and access. It makes it very clear to the reader. Commissioner Bosch had a concern that was illustrated on Page 10 (Table). The concern was with the minimum usable width and length for usable open space when it is in a side yard. It is calling fora 7 foot minimum width and length in the R-2, 3, and 4 districts. They've seen in the past under the existing ordinance the ability to have a sliding glass door into a five foot patio which is the side yard and drainage swell of the development. That's a farce and hasn't worked for anybody. He questioned whether 7 feet is the usable open space for a multiple family dwelling unit? He preferred to see the minimum width, if in a side yard, be 5 feet in addition to the side yard setback. Commissioner Smith shared the same concern. She didn't think it should be counted as usable open space. It's not sufficient recreation area for children or families. Elimination of the C-P (Commercial-Professional) Zone Commissioner Bosch pointed out the last sentence of the first paragraph where it states to address the difference between the two zones. It would be possible to re-zone the properties to C-1 and to create and apply an overlay zone to retain the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement in areas now zoned C-P. That's something to be carefully considered. Think about the ramifications of that; he's worried about it. He's still in the thought process and would like to request people think about application of that and whether it would cause problems. He would hate to create a new kind of overlay zone that would be difficult to follow through. Would there be another way to do it and solve the problem? Elimination of the C-3 (Commercial) Zone Commissioner Bosch had a minor change. He's in favor of simplifying along the way, but sometimes the emotional attachment to zoning far exceeds the value of the difference in numbers. He asked staff to comment on the differences. They seem to be fairly industrial type uses. Mr. Godlewski said the C-3 zone was originally conceived as the transition zone between a general commercial zone and an industrial zone. The C-3 zone in Orange has not been taken advantage of to any great extent. Staff heard from many people at the last hearing about their concern over losing the potential to include those uses in the C-3 zone and that's true, they would be eliminated if the zone were eliminated. Staff is not proposing the more industrial type uses to be included in an outright use in the C-2 zone. Some of the uses would even be moved over to the industrial zones. Sinp/e Room Occupancy )SRO) Housing Commissioner Walters' concern was the potential for a skid row district. It tends to become permanent housing for an underclass that lives in them. It is a problem and he urged they proceed carefully with putting up SRO Housing. Commissioner Cathcart also shared the concern. It's a good concept, but it leaves the door open for them to do their job more carefully as projects are brought in. Commissioner Smith asked if the SRO Housing units counted in the affordable housing requirement for the State? She thought they needed housing inclusive of all financial status within the City. Mr. Godlewski responded in the affirmative. This was one of the programs staff was pushing forward to qualify the Housing Element that has been adopted by the State. Commissioner Pruett shared the same concerns regarding what these types of facilities turn into. What kind of recreational requirements are placed on single residency housing? What you begin to see is a 11 conversion of hotels to single residency occupancy housing and their recreational areas tend to be limited to swimming pools. Recreation tends to take the edge off of some of the problems presented in areas that don't have recreational opportunities. Mr. Godlewski said they were proposing an ordinance that would require the conditional use permit process to come forward and he believed they discussed it in terms of minimums that would be allowed -- not only in terms of recreation, but in terms of the management of the facility. There is a minimum requirement of 400 square feet of common area and an additional 10 square feet per unit in excess of 30 units. The intent is to create a housing unit that is very economical and people who will live in these places aren't there for the recreation amenities that are provided; they're there for a place to stay. The Commission wanted to be sure to develop standards that will assure the same standard in five years that they're trying to create today. Commissioner Bosch has seen some excellent solutions in far more urban areas than Orange. He thought the CUP would be critical. With the SRO's and seniors, it's not quite objective enough. What is proximity to services? How far is it to a grocery store? Maybe for both of them, as well as other types of transitional housing, need to be more careful about codifying appropriate distances to these services to make sure it works. The criteria needs to be spelled out to specify the criteria which the City would locate these types of uses and distances to services. A section could be added to address those concerns. One of the key issues is what are the services that this type of tenant is going to demand (i.e., public transportation)? Commissioner Smith stated many of the SRO's today are senior citizens. This type of project helps to provide space for seniors who are waiting to get into other affordable housing. This might be a transitional place where people would reside while waiting for senior housing to be completed. Sfafus of the High Rise Sfudy Commissioner Bosch was looking for a time schedule that is anticipated with regard to the further development of the Specific Plan for the Northwest area? (One year.) Commissioner Walters' office was directly adjacent to the Anaheim ballpark and that entire area has been designated by Anaheim as a high rise commercial area. The adjacent properties have also tentatively been earmarked in the past for high rise development. He thought from the description -- from Glassell, Fletcher and Orangewood -- is pretty far removed from where in fact high rise development is going to occur. High rise development will not occur along Glassell. The focus should be on the other side of the 57 Freeway, towards Anaheim Stadium. That's the area that should be targeted for study. Commissioner Bosch thought the comment was appropriate to keep a focus on the intent of the study and encompassing the boundary was to recognize to a great extent of what was said and to protect the proximity of residential east of Orange-Olive Road and south towards the Plaza area of town. They're concerned about the traffic impacts in that area if there is high rise development to the west. To his recollection there was never any move made or intent to propose that the high rise go all the way to the boundaries listed in the report. The high rise portion of that study area is over toward the river. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Commissioner Cathcart referred to Page 12 of the Historic Preservation Design Standards and any place else that discussed the Design Review Board -- there is no line going over to the Planning Commission at that point. That whole scenario needs to be clearer. It was his recollection the Design Review Board was a recommending body and that it goes to the Planning Commission; then to the City Council. Commissioner Smith thought the staff did a wonderful job on this particular section. It's a little lengthy for her right now; she has not had the time to review it to see what possibly could be eliminated, but she knows it took a lot of time to do that and it's an excellent job. She had two or three concerns with items in the Standards: Page 9 -the criteria for the composition of the Design Review Board members. It was close to what she was looking for, but not it's not quite there. There seems to be a loop hole. "Of the five board members, two are licensed architects, one is a licensed landscape architect, and two other members have backgrounds in urban planning, architectural history or preservation, or other disciplines that relate to historic preservation." The way it is worded feasibly there could be two people there with backgrounds in urban planning still without a background in architectural, history or preservation or other disciplines that relate to historic preservation. She suggested the inclusion of the word "and" between urban planning 12 and architectural history so that person could likely have experience with urban planning and the historical perspective, but not just urban planning. Page 16 -the design development standards, item 1 -- what is the "Bauhaus" architectural style? Does that mean you cannot have that style in Old Towne? The term should be defined or clarified. Commissioner Bosch said most definitely you could not have that design in Old Towne. The "Bauhaus" style is real)y the international style developed after World War 1 in Europe and most represented in Southern California. Housing is very contemporary, flat roofed, lots of glass -- they're wonderful buildings and they have absolutely nothing to do with anything in Old Towne Orange. And there are none in Old Towne at this time. Page 37 -building design -spoke street section -item 6.3 - Is it the intent of the ordinance to say that you can bring buildings on those lots all the way up to a zero (0) foot setback? In parts of West Chapman, those are original historic buildings up to the railroad tracks and then there are a few west of the railroad tracks, but she wouldn't want to close in Chapman Avenue all the way to Batavia with zero (Oj foot setbacks of buildings. She would like to see that eliminated and a larger setback be required on West Chapman. East Chapman has the larger yards and she can't see locking the City in with those setbacks on the whole length of West Chapman. Mr. Godlewski commented this was taken directly out of the existing Guidelines. This was exactly what was in there. It's up for discussion if the Commission wanted to change it. Commissioner Bosch thought they allowed a zero (0) foot setback since construction began on West Chapman as evidenced by the former Higgins Warehouse and those buildings in that vicinity. He thought they were not wanting to freeze a neighborhood that was in transition when some economic change occurred. They're kind of promoting that in the Depot area by encouraging greater commercial development there. People aren't required to put in the zero {0) foot setback. It would be ok if they had adequate street improvement standards. Mr. Godlewski stated it was a requirement. If someone wanted to build a new building on Chapman, they would have to build it to the zero (0) foot setback. Commissioner Bosch sees the point and stands corrected. He could see a "may" instead of "shall" or an encouragement because it would be nice to encourage the further commercial development that way rather than have the mixture. East Chapman is a whole different ballgame because of the larger houses that were there and the professional office type uses that have transitioned. Commissioner Smith's final point was something about not having a leaded glass window in the front door. If that's the case, many people in Orange are in violation of City code. She didn't see anything wrong with having leaded glass doors as a section of the front door. Commissioner Bosch made a few comments: Page 5 -the Exhibit 1 map was not included and before adoption of the document, the map should be included to illustrate the districts of Old Towne. When referring to a historical district vs. other references for whatever the Old Towne area is that they have the correct definition each time. Page 10 - he would like to see some discussion on minor certificates of appropriateness with regard to the impact of requiring routine maintenance and replacement; appearance before the City, the DRB, staff, application, fees paid or other things required. Why should he have to come in and get a certificate of appropriateness when re-painting his house? Policing is difficult enough for staff anyway. He has a problem with the paint police and he hopes there is a standard to which neighbors are able to encourage each other to carry forward the pride everyone evidences in Old Towne. Mr. Godlewski explained it wasn't their intent to charge for that and just have staff take care of that over the counter, but he will clear it up in the document. Page 16 -the bottom section of the page -development standards by zoning district -the formatting is confusing. Page 21 -middle of the page -paragraph on seismic and masonry rehabilitation standards for unremforced buildings -speaks of the present period of time. It talks of programs in the current sense and he would like to see wherever possible in the ordinance to make it as timeless as possible rather than 13 referring to conditions that won't exist when it is adopted. It's a simple rewording, but keep it in mind throughout the document. Page 25 -awnings - he re-emphasized and asked to include under awnings to prohibit plastic, translucent backlit awnings in the Old Towne area. Page 36 -item 5 now item 4 -side yard setbacks - is that intended to be just West Chapman? Clarification or a better definition was needed. Page 37 -building design -item 4 now item 1 - he didn't believe churches or other institutional buildings that occur on those streets should be residential in character. There needs to be a better wording of that sentence as some existing uses would become non-conforming in that regard. Pale 42 -the whole averaging concept for block faces. He has great concerns about the specific definition where it is taking away some rights that don't have a negative impact on the properties. Long blocks vs. short blocks and the averaging concept needs more thought. Page 48 -under the harmonious mixture of trees he sees the dreaded Canary Island Pine and would like to strike it from the list. Commissioner Bosch said this document becomes a part of the ordinance, but will be used as a reference. Sometimes it becomes confusing. He stressed that wherever they could simplify and get rid of redundant language without making people think that it doesn't relate to the larger book, then it should be done. Commissioner Smith found the reference to the front door on Page 43 and she may have read it wrong. It says "No single, fixed plate glass is allowed except as part of an original period design." There are some beveled windows in Old Towne that are single plates in a door. She's not sure of the intent of that item. The sentence, as stated, resolves the problem. Residential Combining District (RCD) Commissioner Smith was warming up to eliminating the RCD. The part that bothers her the most is that there is no public notice to your neighbors that you're going to build a second story. What are other ways the neighbors can be informed of the fact you are going to build up or do something that may impact their privacy other than the RCD? Does the average continue to go up so that eventually there will be a whole block with taller buildings because the average keeps increasing or is a base line established to work from for the average? Mr. Godlewski said the average would continue to rise. But it would be at such an incremental pace, it would be the increment divided by the number of units on that block, that it would probably take a great deal of time to realize the maximum potential which would only be every house on the block being two stories. In terms of notification of neighbors, currently the RCD involves a very limited number of blocks within the Mile Sc)uare area. What staff is proposing is to eliminate the RCD and whatever system the City comes up with would apply to the entire Mile Square area, thus impacting a greater number of properties. However, the averaging that is proposed would mean that a person could build to a threshold without notifying the neighbors (within 1/2 story of what everyone else has on the block). To ~o beyond that, to go to 2 stories in most cases, would require a conditional use permit -- on many properties that do not require a C.U.P. to build to 2 stories now. The height of the property is based on the highest building on the property (either front or back). Page 23 shows an example of two blocks and the averaging concept. For purposes of averaging, staff is measuring to the peak of the roof; not the building height. CEQA Issues Commissioner Smith likes this section. Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) Mr. Godlewski thought further clarification was necessary, especially under the major certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness is merely a process where they document what the decision of the Design Review Board or staff is. Under major certificate of appropriateness the way it was written was very unclear. He verbalized what they propose to change it to: "Where major COA's are required for all other projects within established historic districts, including demolition. COA's are required for replacement structures and uses prior to obtaining a demolition permit for any non-designated resource, designated resource or local landmark. A major certificate is a one page statement issued by the Design Review Board to attest that a project conforms to the established cntena." 14 Commissioner Cathcart wanted to make sure "criteria" was well spelled out. Commissioner Smith raised an ugly question -- Where are local landmarks designated within the City? Has it been formally adopted by the City Council as a public document that can be worked from? She doesn't see that they have any designated or local landmarks that is official yet. The wording is great, but it doesn't do anything for the neighborhood if there isn't any viable designation. Mr. Godlewski responded when moving ahead to Page 29 it talks about nominations and designations. There are currently 7 designated resources in the City. They are the National Registered Listed ones and the same process would be applied to local designated nominated resources as well. The only time you look at the demolition of a particular structure is when it is a designated resource. If it is not one of the 7 designated resources, then it is handled the way it is now. Staff looks at what is being proposed to replace that property and whether or not it conforms to the Guidelines. Commissioner Smith's understanding of a local landmark is one that the community designates as being valuable to the locale, even if it isn't valuable to the United States. Mr. Godlewski said those local landmarks are not considered as such until the property owner decides that is what they want to do with their property; and they must ask for the designation. That's the reason for this section; they're creating a document for residents to designate local landmarks. Demolition Review Staff felt this page was confusing and will re-write it to make it easier to read. A replacement page is forthcoming. Commissioner Smith called for some inclusion or mention of how CEQA could possibly apply to demolition. Commissioner Bosch agreed, but to keep everyone clear, there is a summary of what is happening in the ordinance to help make it easier to understand what the changes are. The ordinance has specific wording and he has a professional desire to have the detailed, technical information to occur once in a document and then be referred to. Otherwise, you run the great risk of multiple errors throughout that void the whole thing. Commissioner Walters assumed the rules and ordinance would apply to any dwelling in the city. How does this vary from destruction or illegal demolition of properties/buildings outside the historical district? Commissioner Bosch said they require a permit, but do not require a review of the replacement structure by the Design Review Board. Mr. Godlewski confirmed it would be strictly by building permit unless it is a designated structure. Commissioner Walters said the worst penalty is a very minor fee to be paid and then rebuild the next week or one year. Mr. Godlewski said outside of the Mile Square area and other than designated historic structures, it becomes a building permit issue. If you tear down your house without a permit, then the only loss is the loss of a dwelling unit. If you tear down your garage and you're caught, you will be charged a double fee for permits and a building permit for the new building. The primary concern in demolitions outside of Old Towne is that the utilities are properly capped and it is a safe building site. The definitions on Page 28 would apply to demolitions. Commissioner Smith did not believe the one year penalty was strict enough and would like to see it increased to two years. (These comments pertain to Page 31.) Mr. Godlewski said the one year penalty was recommended by the Demolition Committee. Nominations and Designations of Cultural Resources. Landmarks. and Districts Commissioner Bosch commented on the Nominated Resources definition. The second sentence needs to be reworded so as not to cause confusion. 15 Demolition Commissioner Smith's earlier comments apply to this section. There is no mention of CEQA being initiated relating to a demolition. Arbors No comments. DRB Membership Concerns were previously mentioned. Commissioner Smith had one concern and it applied to the overall zoning ordinance. The question had been raised as to whether or not two units will be allowed on a substandard lot that is zoned R-2? She didn't know if that were addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Godlewski referred to Page 20 of 1714-070, letter S and read the requirement. In other words, if you had an R-2 lot that had 3,000 square feet, a person could build two units as long as he could meet all other development standards, including the regwred garage setbacks. Public Comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, made some comments and suggestions. On Pages 3, 4 and 5 he would like a better understanding of planned unit developments. What happens to the City's existing zoning codes? Is there some control over the required setbacks? Why is the five foot side yard setbacks allowed to be counted as open space? On Page 18, he was uneasy about the high rise limits. He would like to see a flat limit of 2 stories, for example on East Chapman. He suggested giving serious thought to at least parts of the City with a provision of limiting high rise buildings. On Page 30 -designating historic places - e would like to find a way to prevent a repetition of what happened with the school district's headquarters. There should be some provision made where the public is made aware of that fact. Mr. Godlewski responded under the P.U.D. section staff has added development standards that are more restrictive than are currently imposed under the City ordinance. They have imposed some minimum standards that are currently not required by developers. Under the PC text section, they have also become more restrictive in emphasizing the need to prove that they are creating a development that is a better quality than could be achieved under the existing zoning for the property. Staff also included minimum standards in that section that were not previously included in the zoning ordinance. The driveway lengths are included in the PUD ordinance. Building setbacks, distance from each other -- you can cluster buildings, but still must maintain some minimum setbacks. Garage doors and setbacks are also mentioned in that section as well. It was the consensus of the Commission earlier to only count the five feet when the developer can add another five feet, making it a minimum of 10 feet. Under the current situation, the City does not have an adopted ordinance that allows them to have local review for National Register applications. The applications would be processed through the State and Federal process. If the City adopts what is suggested, then the City can establish their own method of handling these things and require that the City Council either make a determination to approve or deny the designation and choose to send it on to the State Office of Historic Preservation, or kill it at that point (even for National Register applications). Ann Seibert, 340 South Olive, has not heard about lot consolidation. She wanted the City to be able to address that somewhere so it can't happen. Is it going to lead to someone being able to consolidate just to be able to build more units? Mr. Godlewski believed that was a question Commissioner Cathcart raised a number of weeks ago: Staff is still looking into that; they're not sure whether it is legal to prevent someone from consolidating properties, or even if staff has jurisdiction over that. Consolidation of lots does not require a public hearing. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, referred to Page 30, second paragraph, process for designation of districts -- she asked if the City had an ordinance stating that they must do it the same way as the State? She was appalled to think that 10% of the property owners could designate an area as a historic district. But it took 49% of the owners to object and kill it. That's not fair. 16 you designate that you want it to be National and the other you specify that you want it to be local. The basic process is the same, and the process is outlined as follows: That any person or group may initiate an application for a district provided that 10% of the property owners within the area approve the designation and it would take 49% of the property owners objecting to kill it. You could probably change that for the local ordinance; they will look into that further to see if it could be changed. It is phrased in a negative way; further research was needed to clarify the issue. Commissioner Smith would like to know what a historic district is before it is labeled as something that is not desired. What would be the advantage or disadvantage of historic districting so as not to assume that is some animal that hasn't been clearly identified. Eileen Hurtfelder, 720 East Culver, questioned the DRB membership. It says the members are appointed by the City Council, but later it says officers may be re-elected. Who elects the members? And, what is a block (bottom of Page 22)? Commissioner Bosch explained they are re-elected internally like the Planning Commission. Amongst themselves they elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from time to time. The DRB would still be appointed to and responsible for their term of office by the City Council. A block face would be all the buildings between two north/south streets, or the 100 block of North Shaffer Street, the east side of that street from Chapman to Maple is a block face. Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver, referred to Page 30 and the historic district, which is the Plaza area. That regwres a 51% vote of the property owners. He would like to see that language put in there. On Page 10, certificates of appropriateness -- does that apply to the Old Towne area only? There is mention of 1300 historic homes. Let's also mention there are 700 non-contributing homes in the Mile Square area. In the definitions he would like to see definitions for a contributing structure, non-contributing structure, property owner, resident, renter, non-historic and give a definition of what bulk and mass is. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, said their concern remains in the area of impacts. Specifically, what is the status of the Master Environmental Assessment? An M.E.A. is the most effective manner in which a consistent review and mitigation of impacts to historic resources can be carried out. There is no identifiable, specific criteria in the City for the application of the mandates of CEQA. There needs to be specific criteria by which a project is judged to be adverse or not. Wil Chambers, 242 South Olive, started with Page 20 -modern or non-contributing structures in Old Towne - he didn't understand what modern or non-contributing structures was referring to. At the bottom of Page 25 and Page 26 -CEQA -fine line between exercising one's right to develop one's own property... - he thought this needed to be clarified more. On Page 28, 2nd paragraph on demolition - requires a petition for demolition -what does that mean? Who is the Community Development Director? Referring to Page 31 -you can't demolish a building without telling the City what you're going to put on it? On Page 32, the appellant must provide... -- who would be the appellant? On Page 33, arbors - it should be removed; it was put in there for the benefit of one specific party. He looked at the Historic Standards, Page 4 B. - "Protect and stabilize property value." "Minimize building deterioration." He didn't understand how for either one. On Page 8, 2.2 -state historic resources surveys -where are they; does the City have copies of them? Then, on Page 44 - re-roof with tongue and groove -will everyone be required to use tongue and groove for replacements when re-roofing? On Page 46 -wiring under F. - it says overhead and exposed wiring and conduit for outdoor light is not permitted The difference in price between running wire inside vs. outside would not be believed. He did go inside, but had a choice. According to this statement, there will be no choice. Page 47 5. -wrought iron must be black, dark green or dark brown. Across from St. John's there is a nice white one. Are we not going to allow white wrought iron? Then in 2. B. -ribbon driveways are required -- a person should be able to have a choice. Commissioner Bosch responded everything that was not historic in the historic building survey would be considered modern or non-contributing. A petition for demolition would be an application by the property owner. The application would be submitted to the Director of Community Development, Jack McGee. He's head of the Department and would be the recipient for most documents per City ordinance. Current ordinance states a person cannot demolish a building without specifying what it is being replaced with. The appellant would be whoever lost the decision at the Design Review Board level. It is whoever makes the appeal. There wasn't a simple answer to minimize building deterioration or protect and stabilize property value. The how and why is part of the entire process of the City; it's an educational process and everyone has different viewpoints. The re-roof with tongue and groove may be a Building code issue. Staff will look into this for clarification. He would prefer to see the wrought iron complement the color of 17 the building. He, too, mentioned at a previous public hearing people should have a choice of driveways because there are a lot of historic driveways that are not ribbon driveways. Mr. Godlewski added the demolition section was one of the sections staff re-wrote to make it more clear. They changed it to read: "One needs to obtain a demolition permit from the Building Department". Regarding the state historic resources surveys, in some of the resource documents it discusses in general cities in California and which cities have a resource of historic buildings, and Orange is listed among them. Copies of this can be shown to him. It would be good if the document or list of surveys were listed in the bibliography. Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, commented on the nomination process the DRB would have control over. She would like to include on that list trees and archeological resources, landscape, parks, and landmarks that are not necessarily buildings. Mr. Godlewski said they will try to make that section more clear. Resident, 308 South California, questioned Page 4 -perimeter setbacks on the sides will be 10 feet? On Page 10 -usable open space - is the City still looking at the same square footage for the open space or would that be reduced? Will there be extra costs involved when all these changes are made? Will additional Building Department staff be needed? Mr. Godlewski said this was just in reference to the PUD section of the ordinance. If you're proposing a PUD, then you would have to meet those minimum setbacks. Regarding extra costs, there is more work proposed under the new ordinance than under the existing; it is anticipated that staff can handle it. Commissioner Bosch responded the square footage would not be reduced and he explained the concept of the usable open space. A person would still need 350 square feet per dwelling unit. Hopefully, the new ordinance will reduce some costs and reduce property owners' time, effort and expense because the new ordinance will shorten the process. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Ordinance Amendment 4-93, Zone Change 1166-93 and Negative Declaration 1437-93 to their regular meeting of December 6, 1993. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to elect Commissioner Bosch as Chairman of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to elect Commissioner Cathcart as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 11:45 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 18