Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-1999 PC MinutesU1S5> 6 1 MINUTES PI~lnning Commission Cit:V 01 Orange December 20, 1999 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None I 0 :, ~ O~ N'ir '7 Vern Jones, Planning ManagerfSecretary,John Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary n;) . i\ J,I8 -,IN RE:CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval 01 the Minutes Irom the Meeting 01 December 6, 1999 Chairman Bosch clarified that because of a potential conflict 01 interest, he removed himself from the me<3ting regarding Item 3 and therefore, show a vote 01 being absent Irom that item.Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Minutes of December 6, 1999. AYES:NOES:IN RE: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS 2. ZONE CHANGE 1201-99 & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-00 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend consideration 01 a zone change Irom R-2-6 to R-2-6fR-2-8 withazoningoverlaybyincludinganR-1-6 zone option and a General Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential, should the R-1-6 zone be recommended. The site is located on the south side 01 Culver Avenue between Shaller Strelet and Cambridge Street.NOTE:Addendum Negative Declaration 1614-99 was amended to evaluate the environmental impacts 01 this project.Mr. Jones stated the Commission, at their September 13 meeting, reviewed two zoning alternatives for the south side 01 Culver Street. The City Council had asked that the Planning Commission consider the existing R-1-6 zone as to whether or not it should be converted to an R-2-6 with an overlay. There were spedal Development Standards that lowered the floor area ratio, created some open space, and lowered the intensity 01 the site with the R-2-6 overlay. And, also, an R-2-8 overlay that did similarly. The Commission did consider both 01 those alternatives and ultimately recommended that the City Council return thezoningonthesouthside01CulverAvenuetotheR-1-6 designation that was on the properties prior to 1993. That recommendation was sent to the City Council and on October 26, 1999 the Council agre,ed with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the R-1-6 zoning alternative should also be considered along with the other alternatives.Because the R-1-6 designation was not advertised and was not parf of the original environmental documentation and noticing process, stall is returning to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1999 thre,e 01 them together. They have been noticed and the environmenfal document has been modified to rellHct the R-1-6 option. The Commission is required to review and make a recommendation to the City Council.Thel three options, as outlined in the stall report, are the R-2-6 with an overlay, the R-2-8 with an overlay,and the R-1-6. Also included are the Development Standards lor lot size. The R-2-6 and the R-1-6 both have minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square leet. The R-2-8 with overlay has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square leet. The 11001' area ratio with the current R-2-6 zoning is .7. The R-2-6 with an overlay is .45. The R-2-8 with an overlay is .35. The R-1-6 has a base 01 .6 FAR. There is also some variation in the open space requirements, lrom the base zoning 01 R-2.6. It's slightly larger lor the R-2-6 with an overlay and thel1 even more extensive with the R-2-8 with an overlay. There are additional standards lor the two overlay zones that include restricting each building to a maximum 01 two units, and providing the parking requirement lor either overlay, which would be one enclosed unit and one open space. With the R- 1-6, it would require the traditional two enclosed spaces.Commissioner Romero asked what the maximum number 01 units could be constructed with the R-1-6 and R-2~-6 zones.Mr. Jones believed the 61 units, referred to in the staff report, takes the total properties and assumes sonne subdivision 01 those properties for the R-1-6 designation. That number does not include accessory second units that could be constructed in conjunction with the 61 units.Mr. Godlewski said the number 01 units under the R-1 designation in the environmental document looks at a worst case scenario. The most intense scenario would be a single family home and an accessory second unit on each 6, 000 square loot lot. Therelore, it would be the same number 01 units, ilthe granny unit were counted as a lull unit, as could be attained on the R-2-6 with the special standards designation. The number would be the same; the size of the units would be much smaller.Commissioner Smith read the lirst sentence 01 the last paragraph on Page 3 01 the staff report about the infent 01 the City Council". She wondered where that particular sentence comes from because it has beEln in every staff report. Mr. Godlewski responded the sentence comes lrom the Minutes 01 the City Council Meeting lor the zone change. It is not a direct quote, but the intent is stated in those Minutes when the City Council changed the, zone lrom R- 1 to R-2-6. It was noted that a letter lrom Martha Phelan, 375 South Pine Street, was received and distributed to the Commission.The publichearing was opened lor comments: Zl.eoole sooke in lavor 01 R-1-6 zoninQ Joan Crawford, 394 South Orange.Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive.Doug Pancake, 556 East Culver.Mattie Unk, 801 East Culver.Bob Marone, 359 South Pine Street.Pa.tly Ritchie, 618 East Culver.Dan Phelan, 375 South Pine Street.Staff, the Design Review Committee and the Commission were thanked lor their hard work and efforts in reviewing all 01 the issues and conducting workshops to obtain public's input. The R-2-6 zoning could have a negative effect on the hisforic district and may be inconsistent Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1999 Towne Design Standards is the only way the City is going to work to control the negative cumulative ellect on any new building in the district. The Old Towne Preservation Association remains in support of the Culver neighborhood and the return to R-1 zoning for the single lamily area that it represents to eliminate thll density and minimize the intensity 01 any building in that neighborhood. Some 01 the projects that have recently been submitted have been granted some leniency. The issue is Fire Department access and the projects do not meet Fire Department criteria. Sprinklered buildings are also a requirement that must be met. One person proposed that the City re-align and redevelop Chalynn Circle by splitting the lots as a long-term solution. South Culver residents want to maximize units and minimize costs. The R-2 zoning does not work. R-1 zoning is the solution, which will allow people a profit. It will allow the area to appear as a single family residential neighborhood, and will not allow a massive impact on trallic and population utilities. R-1 zoning is the cleanest way to minimize the density and environmental impacts.Graphics were shared 01 the R-2-8 and R- 1-6 zoning designations depicting the density 01 each zone.Drainage problems were brought up. Each 01 the lots drain towardsthe creek, but need to drain towards thl3 street.1,j)eoole sooke in lavor 01 R-2- 6 zoninQ Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver.KEln Brimlow, 652 East Culver.Ralph Zehner, 630 East Culver.He.rb Runnells, 816 East Culver.The statement about the intent 01 the City Council was questioned. Many 01 the speakers opposing R-2-6 zoning live on R-2-6 lots. Fire sprinklers are a requirement 01 the Fire Department. The maximum number 01 units in the R-2-6 zone was questioned. The drainage has never been a problem and can be worked out. Culver is zoned R-2-6Irom the creek all the way to Chapman. The intent 01 the City Council cannot be gleaned from the Minutes. The intent is stated in the Resolution 01 the re-zone. II Culver is re-zoned, it willi result in spot zoning. Residents will be watching to see the Commission' s decision on Tract Map 15881, which is an up-zone. Two Commission members have not walked Mr. Zehner's property. Most of Old Towne is zoned R-2-6. Old Towne should be zoned the same. Culver Street should not be dillerent frc>m other streets in Old Towne.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch asked stall to respond to some of the issues raised by concerned speakers.Mr. Godlewski talked about second accessory dwelling units ( granny units), which requires a conditional use permit and is reviewed by the Planning Commission. It requires that there be an existing home on the property before the accessory unit is built. One 01 the two units has to be owner-occupied. It cannot be sold off separately. The maximum area for an accessory second unit is 640 square leet and it requires one additional open parking space.Up to this point, the Fire Department has required that there be fire sprinklers in the new buildings behind thl3 existing structures, more than 150 leet lrom the street. Staff is not aware that this policy has changed.Mi'. Hohnbaum responded Public Works would require that the drainage flow towards the Culver Avenue frontage. This can be accomplished by installing sump pumps, underground piping systems or in some ca.ses, it may require fill. Stall has not reviewed each plan specifically so a lot-by-Iot description 01 what would be required is not available.Mr. Jones relerred to Page 2 of the staff report relative to the maximum number 01 units that can be built under R-2-6 zoning. It is idenlilied as having an yield 01 somewhere in the range of 112 to 127 and thaf will va.ry based on the size 01 the parcels, lot consolidation, etc.Commissioner Smith stated the Commission Pllanning Commission Minutes December 20, 1999 Minutes. In her opinion, the R-1-6 is the most appropriate zoning lor this property. She would like to see most, il not all 01 Old Towne, zoned R-1-6 as it was originally until the zoning was changed in the mid 70's.The R-1-6 zoning would benelit many of the properties in Old Towne, but the ones being discussed are the properties on the south side 01 Culver Avenue. With the R-2- 6fR-2-8 zoning on this size 01 lot, there is simply too much intensity on the property. There is too much bulk, too much mass, too much trallic, too many people, too much noise, and inlrastructure problems. It is an over-representation 01 multi-family housing in a neighborhood that originally had R-1-6 zoning. She believed that Old Towne itsell bears an unfair burden 01 multi-Iamily housing compared to the rest 01 the City. Almost every residential nl3ighborhood that has detached dwellings 01 single lamily homes are zoned R-1. And there is a reason lor that. Thatis, to protect the open space around the homes, to keep those neighborhoods crime Iree,Il'lae 01 density, bulk, trallic, and noise because they want people to stay in Orange and not move away.Old Towne, because it was an old neighborhood and fell into a blighted condition, had the up-zone attached in order to try to retain the economic viability 01 the City. That's common knowledge. However, when people came in and started restoring the old homes, the economic viability was damaged by the addition 01 apartments. She thought it should be zoned R-1-6 to keep the mass at a livable, good quality of life level in this neighborhood. In this neighborhood, increased density would cause a deterioration of property. Looking south to the rental properties on Chalynn, those rentals are some 01 the worst and of the poorest quality in the City 01 Orange. She is extremely concerned that a higher density 01 apartments on Culver, back-to-back with these properties, would lead to more neighborhood deterioration. She's not sure what people would like to rent with a back yard on Chalynn Street, looking over the lence at their sElcond story into this type 01 poor housing. It is an embarrassment to the City 01 Orange and she didn't know why something isn't done about that particular block 01 rental property, on both sides of north and south Chalynn.She has had five (5) people call her with problems that they are already having with plumbing on Culver,Pine and Harwood. She suggested they call the City or a good plumber and see what the problem is. II that is the inlrastructure problem existing now belore there is any building, she wondered what will happen. Anyone who lives in Old Towne knows that the water pressure is horrible. Nobody can take two showers in a house in Old Towne at the same time. Or, it's hard to flush one toilet and not interrupt somebody's shower. She had concerns about what increased problems would come about with this fype 01 density.The problem is caused by R-2-6 zoning being applied to the large lots. This sets a precedent for other large lots to develop to a maximum degree and people may get the idea that this type 01 density is appropriate lor Old Towne. This density is drastically higher and unlair to impose on people across the street and down the street. The community knows her leeling about the preservation 01 historic architecture and the historic integrity 01 the neighborhood. This type 01 density is a threat to historic housing and a threat to the National Register Listing, which the Old Towne District was able to achieve in 1997.Commissioner Smith believes it was the Council's original intent that the properties would never be built to ttleir lull extent allowed under the R-2-6 zoning. She stated publicly and reiterated that she did not think it was a good decision. It was a decision made lor personal interest 01 some lolks and that wasn't the intent.She didn~ think anyone really thought about what 126 more units would look like on that hall 01 the streef.She also thought there were health and salety lactors that needed to be considered. She didn't think that it was a good thing in Old Towne to have houses 150 leet Irom the street and a lire engine could not gain access. She would rather see three (3) houses on a lot than six (6). Loss 01 life and property could be drastic if a fire broke out on a property with such intense population.For her, three (3) units is enough density on these properties, whether they are single lamily units or remtal units. Adding 46 to 50 units on hall a block is enough. She thought 79 to 85 is too many, and 126 is way too many. She goes back to the lact that she has walked the property Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1999 not think it is a loss 01 property rights or building ability because the people who have moved there more recently, moved in on the smaller, hall lots -- not on the big lots. In regard to spot zoning, Old Towne is spot zoned. It's the original parcel that the City began in. Every single zoning there is in the City is included somewhere in Old Towne, including Light Industrial, Office-Prolessional, all categories of residential. She does not see R-1-6 on this property as spot zoning. She would like it to be remembered as: a spot that was a good qualily neighborhood with controlled bulk and mass, an average amount 01 traffic and noise, and an inlrastructure that could support people in the healthiest and salest way possible.Commissioner Carlton agreed with everything Commissioner Smith said. She quoted Irom the CEQA Guidelines. It's one sentence and it encompasses everything that has been said. "The change in the environment which results from the incremental impact 01 the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably loreseeable probable future projects would result in a cumulative impact that would be very negative to the community." She based her decisions, in great part, on the CEQA Guidelines and she continues to do so. She thought the Commission should recommend the R-1-6 zoning.Commissioner Pruett recalled Irom some 01 the hearings on this issue where some of the property owners along the south side 01 Culver have indicated that what they are really interested in getting an understanding 01 is what they are able to do with their property. What kind 01 development can take place? He thought the current situation is very misleading in some cases because there is a lot of discussion about what you're able to do with the R-2-6 and what your rights are without taking into consideration the Development Standards that exist within the Old Towne area. By going to the R-1-6 zoning, it really provides a clearer description and clarification 01 the use, considering the bulk and mass and other requirements that are in the Old Towne Design Standards. He thought it will be a much better situation lor the people who are looking to develop or improve their properties along Culver. He' s in favor 01 the R-1-6 zoning designation.He,lelt it was also necessary to respond to Mr. Zehner' s request that he come out and walk the property.It'!; true he has not gone out and met with Mr. Zehner or walked his property. He didn't think it was necessary to spend time with Mr. Zehner on his property. He has been to the neighborhood and looked at the neighborhood to see what is really best. He wanted to clarify that he has an interest in the neighborhood and what is taking place.The other issue is regarding justice. This is a difficult subject because many people believe they are entitled to rights. Sometimes people fail to look at it Irom the other direction. And that is, what the neighbors are entitled to. It's important to understand that the Commission is trying to look at, not only the property owners who live on the south side of Culver, but also the property owners who live on the north sidle. On the north side, there are R-1 zoned properties. This is compatible with that zoning and it is also what the original zone was.Commissioner Romero's goal is to achieve consistency and stability with the entire neighborhood. He lavors the R-1-6 zoning. The National Historic Register is also another item 01 consideration. In his opinion, if is a reflection 01 stability and consistency. No one wants to see Culver Avenue turn info something like Chalynn. He also visited the property at diflerent times during the day, but he did not want a personal meeting with Mr. Zehner because he did not want to be influenced by a property owner. He do,es not apologize lor not having a personal meeting.Chairman Bosch emphasized a couple 01 points in concurrence with the R-1-6 zoning that abuts one-half the, length 01theentireblock. Spot zoning has occurred. When the R-2-6 zoning was applied by the City Council in 1993, in order to achieve a block of land that benefited a larger scale definition of R-2- 6,properties were included in it against the will 01 property owners, some who spoke at this meeting, who are now in the block colored R-2-6 who didn't want to be. Their liberty and justice was removed against their wilL There are other lots on either end 01 this block - those lacing Cambridge Street which were part of the lat'3r R-1-6 development and were never, and probably never Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1999 riglhts changed and challenged, and their values impacted. Similarly, the quite small lots lacing Shaffer Street, the substandard, not lully developed Shaffer Street, because 01 the small lot size at the west end 01 the block, were included in the R-2-6 zoning at the time, even though it is incompatible with those properties, and would require demolishing those homes and combining the lots. They must look to what th'3 intent was in a variety 01 ways. And, looking with a greater clarity of light and the imposition upon this ar,aa 01 The Secretary 01 Interior Standards, the establishing 01 the National Historical District, the development 01 the Old Towne Design Standards that were adopted into ordinance by the City Council,and the years 01 experience in linding that there is no way to appropriately apply all 01 this and have the R-2 zone work on this property that demonstrates the inadequacy 01 the analysis that despite the best efforts at the time, or the intent in either direction accompanied the R-2-6 zone change in 1993. He believes there is substantial development opportunity available for these lots, based upon the design wilthin the meaning of the R-1-6 zone, along with the potential lor the granny flats or combination 01 lots.He, also supports the recommendation 01 the R-1-6 zone.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to approve the Addendum to Ne'gative Declaration 1614-99.AYES; NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED MOTION MllVed by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Carlton to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment 1-00 changing the General Plan designation Irom Low-Medium De,nsity Residential to Low Density Residential, and recommend approval 01 Zone Change 1201-99, from R- 2-6 to R-1-6. The zoning would be consistent with the General Plan.AYES;NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones stated this item will be heard by the City Council on January 11, 2000.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adjourn at