Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission November 2,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19. 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of October 19, 1992 with the following corrections: Page 2, last paragraph, third line indicates the word waiver"; change word to "waver"; Page 4, third paragraph, second line change the sentence to read "Typically in industry standards for second units are 850 to 1,000 square feet."; Page 6, third paragraph, first line change the word "apathy" to "empathy"; and Page 6, fourth paragraph, eighth line -change the sentence to read "A site plan should show what is required and how existing structures surround the project to see how new projects relate to the neighborhood." AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy, Smith None Commissioner Cathcart MOTION Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 IN RE: ITEM TO BE CONTINUED MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1930-91 AND VARIANCE 1916-91 - BUNDY-FINKEL ARCHITECTS A request for modification of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance approved by City Council in 1992, which allowed the development of an automotive center consisting of service and repair uses such as tube/oil change, car wash, tire shop, and an existing service station. Proposed is s revised site plan, and a further reduction in code required number of parking spaces. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Wayfield Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1492-91 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the September 9, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, and has been requested by the applicant to be continued to November 16, 1992. Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to continue Conditional Use Permit 1930-91 and Variance 1916-91 to the November 16, 1992 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS A request by the City Council of the Planning Commission to recommend, after analysis of staff research, which Old Towne areas should be further considered for zone changes. Chairman Cathcart informed the audience this was not a public hearing unless the Planning Commission votes to open the hearing for input from the public. It was brought to the Commission's attention that Commissioner Alvarez had a potential conflict with Area "C" and will 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 not be participating in that discussion. The Commission also received correspondence from the Orange Taxpayers Association addressed to Chairman Cathcart and Commissioner Smith. Copies were distributed to the Commission. Mr. Godlewski read the letter from the Orange Taxpayers Association into the record requesting Commissioner Smith not vote in the Downtown rezonings. Commissioner Smith responded to the letter. She received it at 6:30 p.m. this date. It appears several people ahead of her got the letter as well. With limited time to collect her thoughts, she asked for a ruling from the City Attorney regarding conflict of interest concerning financial gain by public officials in areas where a vote is required in that domain. Mr. Herrick said the rule at issue would have to be the impact on property values. That rule is mandated by state law. A member of a Commission must refrain from participating in any decision affecting property within 300 feet of property owned by the Commissioner unless there is absolutely no financial effect on the property owned by the Commissioner. Or, within 2500 feet of the Commissioner's property if there is an impact of $10,000 or more, one way or the other, on the value of the property owned by the Commissioner. And outside that radius only if the impact on the Commissioner's property would be somehow especially distinguishable from the impact on other property owners similarly situated were not Commissioners. Commissioner Smith owned one piece of property at 169 North Shaffer. Would ownership of that property constitute a conflict of interest in voting on the matter before the Commission? She knows it is not within 300 feet and doesn't think it is within 2500 feet -- it is a matter of several blocks. Mr. Herrick said i f there would be a Commission could that real property. it were within the 2500 square disqualification if the decision have an impact of $10,000 or mor foot radius, then in front of the e in the value of 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 Commissioner Smith said it did not appear to her that it would be within 2500 feet of the Southwest Quadrant. How would one project a financial gain of $10,000 on this particular type of issue? Mr. Herrick replied if it is not within the 2500 square feet, then the only requirement is that it not have any favorable or unfavorable impacts on her property that is somehow distinguishable from the impact it has on the public at large that her neighbors owning property similarly situated. He was not aware of any facts that would make that the case that would make her property more impacted than other properties surrounding it. He did not believe there would be a conflict. Commissioner Smith believed she heard the City Attorney say for her to retain a voting position on this particular issue and it would not be a conflict of interest. Given the facts as they were assumed in his statement.) Chairman Cathcart spoke to those in the audience that went through the work shops. They will probably be as frustrated as the Commission in finding out that those do not constitute proper, legal hearings. Therefore, whatever recommendations the Planning Commission makes to the City Council, they will have to include public hearings -- properly noticed -- and the Commission would have to hold new hearings. The Commission received a revised memo subsequent to the meeting of October 19, 1992 from Jere Murphy dated October 22, 1992 on the Presentation of Findings on Development Economics and Financial Incentives for Preservation in 01d Towne and the Summary of Staff Recommendations on Old Towne Rezoning of Areas A,B,C,D, and E. He appreciated what the staff has done through the process. They have worked diligently and he realizes staff was put under a lot of scrutiny by the public. He also commended the public during the work shops of keeping them with the right information. They need to know the public's input and correct information; he hopes they do not tire of that. Commissioner Smith asked who initiated the discussion for the rezonings in Old Towne? Chairman Cathcart thought it was the Committee of 300 who made a request to the City Council, at which time the Council took it upon themselves to become the applicant. 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 Jere Murphy, Manager of Advanced Planning, said that was true. In addition to the "Committee of 300", there were a group of citizens headed by Mr. Zehner who also approached the City Council, and their request was included as part of the other rezoning requests for Old Towne. The City Council asked the Commission for their recommendation with regard to whether public hearings, in fact, should be held on the requests from the two groups of people. Chairman Cathcart has been asked why the applicant did not have to pay a fee. In many cases, the applicants have to pay fees in order to begin the planning process. That question has now been answered and it was the City Council who took it upon themselves to actually become the formal applicant for this process. Commissioner Bosch further clarified the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council whether or not the Commission felt the information provided to them indicates it would be appropriate in their estimation for the City Council to consider opening public hearings for official reclassification. He presumed that may be for reclassifications or rezonings other than those in the staff report. The Commission's recommendation is not to decide whether or not they feel any specific recommendations of staff with regard to specific zoning on lots is appropriate because that requires a public hearing process. So, the Commission may make a recommendation, the work goes forward to the City Council including the staff recommendations. The City Council may, as the applicant, elect to apply for rezoning different than that seen before the Commission. Staff nodded affirmative. Commissioner Smith had reason to believe it would be appropriate to open public hearings on four of the areas in question. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that they recommend to the City Council that public hearings be opened to discuss changes in zoning and general plan densities for the Areas of A,B,C and D based on the following reasons: 1. As presented in the staff report there is repeated documentation of land use inconsistent with zoning. 2. There is evidence that reveals that some parcels have actually been over bui 1 t. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 3. There is frequent occurrence of spot zoning in this area. 4. The build out potential is possibly leading to a density that might provoke crime, infrastructure failure, traffic and parking problems. 5. There is evidence of existing traffic, parking and crime problems. 6. The high incidence of pre-1940 structures, which are listed as contributing and significant i n the area, contribute to the hi stori c integrity of the entire City of Orange and should be protected. 7. Due to the confusion in public perception of what can actually be built on property with a particular zoning, there needs to be clarification of actual build out on lots of specific sizes. For example, it is not always true that R-4 zoning affords all developers the right to build four units on a particular lot. There are many other factors that come into that. Commissioner Bosch moved to divide the motion to separate Area C since Commissioner Alvarez has indicated a potential conflict of interest in only that area. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Bosch was concerned whether the reasons given were part of the motion or the reasons following the motion. He took the motion to be recommending to the City Council for rezoning. Then for specific reasons --apart of the discussion that follows the motion. Commissioner Murphy asked if it were assumed Area E would not be recommended for a public hearing? Only in this motion.) Commissioner Smith clarified the amended motion: Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council that public hearings be opened to review both the zoning and the general plan density of Areas A, B, and D. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 Commissioner Bosch believed there were properties included in Areas A, B, and D that would be inappropriate to change the zoning on based upon information they have because it would make certain properties inconsistent with the General Plan and inconsistent with what is the reasonable and orderly development of properties within the overall plan of the City. The Council may find through public hearings that the boundaries of the proposed areas will be redrawn again. Commissioner Murphy said Minutes were not taken on the first two work shops, Areas A and B. Again, it underscores the importance of the public hearing process. Commissioner Alvarez excused himself from the meeting. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to open public hearings regarding the possible rezoning and General Plan amendment concerning Area C. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Alvarez MOTION CARRIED The same comments follow this motion as the previous motion. Commissioner Alvarez returned to the meeting. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council the following procedural recommendations pertaining to public hearings regarding rezonings and General Plan amendments: 1. That the staff prepared Old Towne recommendations be the basis for the public hearings. 2. That the staff work prepared for the Old Towne Public Workshops and the public comments made at the Workshops be included in the official record for the public hearings. 3. That all of the rezoning requests for the Old Towne area be agendized for a public hearing at one special meeting of the Planning Commission as soon as possible. 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 Commissioner Murphy agreed with the first two recommendations, but based on previous experience and the level of detail at the work shops, it's probably too much to consider four sections in one hearing. From his own personal standpoint i t would be more appropriate to look at a couple of special meetings, perhaps a week apart, to allow the Commission time to focus on the specific areas. Commissioner Bosch said the important part for him is to get everything agendized as soon as possible so people aren't kept waiting. He ventured an amendment to the motion on the floor that would amend 3: To require that all the rezoning requests for the Old Towne area be agendized for specific dates as soon as possible for special meetings of the Planning Commission; and that all agenda dates be set at the same time. Commissioner Smith agreed to the amended motion: Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council the following procedural recommendations pertaining to public hearings regarding rezonings and General Plan amendments: 1. That the staff prepared Old Towne recommendations be the basis for the public hearings. 2. That the staff work prepared for the Old Towne Public Workshops and the public comments made at the Workshops be included in the official record for the public hearings. 3. To require that all the rezoning requests for the Old Towne area be agendized for specific dates as soon as possible for special meetings of the Planning Commission; and that all agenda dates be set at the same time. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council that formal public hearings be set to consider potential rezoning for Area E for the same comments that were made with regard to all the other areas. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The same rules apply, as well as the recommendations from the previous motions. It's not a statement of whether one agrees or disagrees with the staff recommendations, or that any or all or part of them are appropriate. It's clear there are a number of questions that need to be answered with regard to specific areas or parcels within that area to assure that the best thing is done to protect the neighboring property values as well as have orderly control of what is happening on the major strip along East Culver. There are some real problems there and they need to be looked at in detail to assure that everyone understands how their rights can be protected, whether they believe the environment should stay the way it is or whether they believe there should be additional development. IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked if Commissioner Alvarez stepped aside while Area C was being considered? (Yes.) IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 9