Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/2/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California March 2, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart Master ABSENT: , Commissioners none STAFF PRESENT Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission : Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; Kathy Braden, Planning Department; Ed Deason, Planning Department; Doris Ofs th un, Recording Secretary . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 1981: Moved by Corr~nissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes of February 18, 1981, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart Master NOES: , Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: Request of County for resolution finding that construction of a culvert at the Santiago Creek under Collins Avenue conforms with the City's adopted General Plan. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of said resolution as prepared by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart Master NOES: , Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED It was decided that Items #2 and #3 on the Consent Calendar be placed at the end of the agenda for discussion. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: TENTATIVE TRACT 11406, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1088 - DORSEY: Request to allow development of a 6 unit Planned Unit Development at the northwest corner of Glass ell Street and Rose Avenue (614 North Glass ell Street) . (NOTE: Negative Declaration 672 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.} Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application, stating that this is a request to allow the construction of a six-unit, two-story Planned Unit Development. The property contains .634 acre of land located on the northwest corner of Glassell Street and Rose Avenue. The property is zoned R-M-7 and contains a single family residence. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Tract 11406 and Conditional Use Permit 1088 to allow development of a six-unit planned unit development, consisting of six two-bedroom units. The area of each unit will be 1375 square feet, with a net site area of 17,783 square feet (.408 acre). H e explained that the proposed density for this project would be 14 7 . dwelling uni is per acre, wi th a maximum permitted density of 16.33 - dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing 12 covered parking spaces and two open parking spaces, for a total of 14 parking spaces. f ~ j Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Two ~' Mr. Soo-Hoo expl ai ned that the units are parti al ly s i ngl e s tory with a second story over the garages. There are two duplexes and two detached uni is . The two detached units are 1 ocated one foot from the northerly property 1 ine. The access to the development would be via a driveway which bisects the lot to Rose Avenue. Each unit would have a two-car garage and two guest parking spaces would be provided toward the rear of the project. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the Staff has evaluated this proposal and finds it technically acceptable. Staff has pointed out to the applicant that special care must be taken i n the architectural treatment of the northerly bui 1 di ng elevations due to the bui 1 di ng code requi rements relating to the one foot setback from the property 1 i ne. The north el evations wi 11 not be permitted to have openings - windows or doorways . These el evati ons wi 11 be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 672. Staff also recommends approval of Tentative Tract 11406 and Condi- ti onal Use Permit 1088 for the reasons that: 1. The proposal is similar to other development in the area. 2. All development standards for a planned unit development in an R-M-7 zone have been complied with. 3. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. 4. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Staff recommends that approval be subject to the 18 conditions listed in the Staff Report, as well as those conditions set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Commissioner Coontz asked if this application is going to the Design Review Board even though there is concern about the lack of setback. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the setback is not the issue. The Staff's concern was that because there is no setback, the building regula- tions wi 11 not permit doors or windows on the north side. He also explained that being a planned unit development, i t could be bui 1 t on the lot line. Commissioner Hart brought up that aside from the fact that it might not look quite right es theti cal ly, he wondered how a buil di ng woul d be maintained with no access. H e was concerned with how it could be built under these ci rcumstances . This definitely could affect the adjoi ni ng property. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Tom Dorsey, 2604 Glen Eyre, Laguna Beach, addressed the Commission, explaining that he was the developer of this property. He pointed out that the buildings to the north are not on the property line and are held back a foot from the property 1 ine. There is a specific reason for this . He told the Commissioners that i t i s correct that this wall would not have any opening in it. However, the reason that they held i t back a foot is that they would have an r Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Three opportunity to do architectural detailing on the side of the building. He pointed out that the design of these units hope- fully would be capturing the look of old Orange, with Spanish design details. The roof lines slope on the street side. fie pointed out that there is no two-story wall until you are 50 feet back from the lot line. He believes this is a design review cri teri a and he feels they wi 11 be able to satisfy them wi th re- gard to the northern wall. They feel that it will be a better development to include the use of the land within the development as opposed to a side yard. He then stated that he was here to answer any questions which the Commissioners might have. He ex- plained that if they run into a problem with the Design Review Board, they can still make a change and stay wi thin the proximity of the lot line. Commissi oner Master asked for more cl ari fi cation wi th regard to the roof 1 i ne of this development. The applicant explained that the wall line facing Glassell Street would be 8 feet. The roof would be slopi ng i n that area and works up i nto a 1 oft i n the rear. The second story is over the garage. From the entry toward the rear motor court, it is basically two-story and from there forward the roof slopes downward. It is mostly a sloping roof toward the for- ward part of the house, with a flat roof over the deck. Ed Taheta, 1910 W. Palmyra, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he is the owner of the property at 644 N. Glassell. He explained that a few years ago the park was bui 1 t on Rose Street and at that time they came i n and put i n an 8 i nch retai ni ng wal 1 at 644 N. Glassel l and Rose Street. He pointed out that the drainage there now is a terrible problem. The property is actually lower than Glassell so that water runs from the sidewalk through the southeast corner past the back wall , south along that wall and then along Rose Street. He wondered what the elevation would be for this development and what it would do to the ground level there and what wi 11 i t do to the water i n those areas . Mr. Johnson explai ned that generally the property that exists now will be regraded and the pad will be placed above natural ground. If there is water draining onto that property from the north, then probably they will have to provide a way to get rid of that water. He pointed out that all new developments must drain thei r water to public streets . He could not say at this time that he i s expecting water from the north until he sees a grade plan. Mr. Taheta explained that just north of 604 N. Glassell there is a large apartment complex and the garages to that complex are on the south end of the property. The water drains off there and down the 1 ong driveway, comi ng right along the wall , maki ng a U turn and going along the back edge of his wall. The elevation there causes the water to flow down towards Rose. Mr. Taheta stated that he is concerned about the large volume of water that they sometimes get. Mr. Johnson explai ned that the apartments whi ch have been bui 1 t i n that area recently should have been bui 1 t according to the new regulations . Mr. Taheta then explained further how the water drains down towards his property. Mr. Johnson stated that they would look at the grading plan when it comes in and make sure it does not create a problem to the property. v Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Four Mr. Dorsey responded that there is a tentative map filed with this application which addresses this situation. What exists currently is that along the city wall, which he pointed out on the drawing, water currently does not cross the property at 614 N. Glassell. It goes along the footing along the wall. There is a retaining wal 1 , the swal e 1 i ne and then the next property starts , where there is a fence. Apparently the water flows down, makes a turn, flows along the footing of that wall and then out onto Rose Street. He pointed out that when they planned this property, they got in touch with a member of the engineering staff and discussed how they could work with this problem regarding the water flow. He pointed out that he i s not proposing to i nterfere with the natural drainage which already exists on these two pieces of property. Commissioner Mickelson asked i f the water on the west side of the property, on the two lots to the north, is flowing across the appli- cant's property or flllowing the fence around the property. Mr. Dorsey explai-ned that it is apparently following the swale line along the north and west side of the property. The driveway to the north actually slopes to the rear of the property rather than to the street. Chairman Mickelson thought that it was reasonably safe to assume that if the water was flowing across the property, it is the property's res ponsi bi 1 i ty to allow i t to continue to the street. Mr. Johnson thought that this statement was true. However, for a brand new development, if the water had to drain across another piece of property, there would have to be some type of agreement. It looked to him that it should be possible to drain the property to the driveway that is being proposed, and with a small amount of grading the property to the north coul d drain to the driveway . Mr. Dorsey explained that when they looked at the property with one of the city staff members, they recognized that they would have to slope the little private driveway they are putting in toward Rose Street. It is 107 ft, long and would probably be about a foot higher than the northern property. He further explai ned the things that could be done to alleviate any problem with water flow. There being no one else to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ~' Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negative Declaration 672. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioenrs none ABSENT: Commissioners none Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to recommend approval of Tentati ve Tract 11406, Condi ti onal Use Permit 1088, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report and Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Chairman Mickelson explained that a standard condition is that a grading plan should be approved by the City Engineer. He then asked the Staff i f the Design Review Board had the authority to require a setback for landscaping and archi tectural features on the north side. Mr. Murphy explained that ordinarily the Board does not get involved in moving buildings any substantial distance. However, in this case, it might be that they can handle it with minor modification to the plans, with changes that would not affect the plans significantly. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Five Chairman Mickelson stated that he would have felt better if they could have seen an elevation to see how large a slab of wall is going to be exposed to the adjacent property. However, he likes the plan and did not want to suggest a condition. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Cooi NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Commissioner Coontz asked if synopsis of the minutes or a Murphy replied that he woul d entire minutes in this case. Utz, Ault, Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED the Design Review Board gets a copy of the entire minutes. Mr. see that they get a copy of the TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-751, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1089, VARIANCE 1622 - YANIK: Request to allow development of an office condominium with more compact parking spaces than is permitted by code on the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of Prospect Street (344 5 East Chapman Avenue.) (NOTE: Negative Declaration 673 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this proposal to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow the construction of four two-story condominiums at the rear of the subject property. A variance is required to allow a greater number of compact car stalls than are permitted by Code. He explained that the property contains 2.17 acres of land and is located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, approximately 550 feet east of Prospect Street, being the west half of a vacant lot which presently exists just west of Kelly Stadium at El Modena High School. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant i s reques ti ng approval of a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map to develop an office condominium and to develop a savings and 1 oan bui 1 di ng, as wel 1 as a vari ance to permit provision of 36% of the required parking i n the form of compact parking spaces. Specifically, the applicant proposes to develop four office structures contai ni ng 33,500 square feet of floor area on the mai n lot to be divided into 25 condominium units. In addition, the southwest corner of the site would be subdivided from the balance and woul d contai n a 3, 200 square foot savings and 1 oan faci 1 i ty . Sixteen parking spaces are to be provided for the savings and loan and 134 spaces for the balance. The number of parking spaces meets code requirements. However, due to the fact that 53 spaces (35.3%) are proposed as compacts a variance is required. Twenty percent (30 spaces) is the maximum number of compact spaces allowed by ordi Hance. Mr. Murphy stated that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Police Department i ndi Gated a concern relating to the creati on of a long corridor between the block wall proposed at the west property line and the existing commercial building on the property to the west. This concern was especially significant since several rear access doors are located in this area which would provide an ideal situation for undetected illegal entry. Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 673 be accepted. r~ U Planni ng Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Si x ~ Staff feels that this is an appropriate location for condominium offices and, therefore, recommends approval of the conditional use permi t and tentati ve parcel map. In addi tion, Staff feel s that experi ence has demonstrated a signi ficant increase i n the usage of compact cars and that this trend is growing. It is, therefore, recommended that the request for provision of 36% of the required parking in the form of compact spaces be approved. Staff recommends approval of this proposal for the reasons that: 1. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zo ni ng . 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. 3. The use of compact automobiles by the general public has significantly increased and should further grow in the future. In addi tion to the conditions set forth i n the Engi neer's Plan Check Sheet, Staff recommends the following two conditions: 1 . That reciprocal access agreements be executed between both proposed parcels, as well as wi th the lot to the west. 2. That the applicant shal 1 consul t wi th the Police Department to seek a solution to crime promoting physical features of the proposal. Commissioner Hart asked a question regarding reciprocal access. He wondered if it was feasible to ask someone else to give up part of their property. Mr. Murphy replied that he believed that at the present time there is reciprocal access for the front por- tion of the property. He thought that perhaps the applicant was going to try for the same arrangement for the rear. Apparently this has all been worked out. Commissioner Coontz questioned Condi tion#2. She thought that some thing more speci fi c should be indicated here as to the sol ution. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Gary Yanik, 11411 Orange Park Blvd., Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He explained that they have done a number of projects i n the past i n this area that they are quite proud of. They have done a lot of research on this particular parcel and he had been surprised that the parcel has remained vacant this long. But now he understood because of the various setbacks and easements originating back to 1964. However, they have been able to work these out wi th the adjoi ni ng property owners . Chairman Mickelson asked if the various setbacks and easements are part of the deed res tri cti ons and Mr. Yanik replied i n the affirmative. Mr. Yanik then explained that the major concern of the Police Department is where the existing shopping center is now, they built according to the rules back in 1964. He is proposing that wi th the block wall , which is part of the condi tions, they have had some discussions with the Police Department and they have now started to think thei r way, that i t woul d make i t very di fficul t for a thi of to get out, since there i s only one way out wi th the block wall that is proposed. This is more a plus than a detriment. They plan to spend quite a bit of money to landscape that side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Seven Karen Galeska, 3114 E. Maple, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she lives behind this property and is concerned about what is being built. She explained that the property has been vacant fora long time and always looks very bad. She is concerned with how close the bui 1 di ng wi 11 be bui 1 t to the property 1 i ne and how close parking wi 11 be to her property . She pointed out that this can affect her property values and she is concerned. Chairman Mickel son pointed out that the closest bui 1 di ng two stories high will be approximately 60-64 feet to the property line. In between that building and the property line will be a row of parking spaces, but there is a 6 foot landscaped area there. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 673. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 81-751, Conditional Use Permit 1089 and Variance 1622, for the reasons given by Staff, with the conditions suggested by Staff, Condition #1 as stated and Condition #2 stati ng that the applicant wi 11 consult with the Police Department to seek to provide a possible separati on between the rear adjoining buildings in this project, in order to seek a solution to possible crime promoting physical features, and the conditions as set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners NOES : Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: DISCUSSION OF DENSITY BONUS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING: Kathy Braden presented the Staff study and memorandum with regard to density bonus for low and moderate income housing, explaining to the Commission that according to a 1979 State law, AB 1151, local officials must grant a 25% density bonus or similar incentives to developers who set aside at least a quarter of their housing project for low or moderate income people. This provision applies to any housing development consisting of five or more dwelling units. "Low and moderate income" is defined as persons and families whose incomes are 1 ess than 1 20% of the median income i n the area. The Department of Housing & Communi ty Development reports this data for different size fami 1 i es i n each county and the rent or sales price of a unit which can be afforded by each income category is cal- cula ted from this data. Ms. Braden explained that the density bonus refers to a density increase of 25% over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. When a developer agrees to construct at 1 east 25% percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate income, the City must enter into an agreement with the developer to ei ther grant a density bonus or provide not less than two other bonus incentives for the project. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Eight ~. Some of the al ternati ve incentives , two of which may be provided instead of a density bonus , are: 1. Waiver of park and recreation fees and dedications under the "Quimby Act". 2. Construction by the city of such public improvements as streets , sewers , and s i dewa 1 ks . 3. Use of federal, state, or local funds to reduce property costs (includes sale of city land at below market value}. 4. Exemption from 1 ocal ordi nances that indirectly i ncrease housing costs . In addition, the state Attorney General has listed other similar incentives which he sees as being legal alternatives to what has just been mentioned. These are 1 fisted i n the Staff's memorandum to the Commission. Ms. Braden pointed out that another big question to be faced, once the project is built and the tenants are i n who fit into the low or moderate income category, is whether the next tenants to come into this low income project would have low or moderate incomes. She explained that i f the city has used its own money i n the project, the s tate 1 aw requires that this housing remai n for 1 ow or moderate income people fora period of 30 years. However, it is not clear whether continuing control of occupancy is required i f the density bonus incentive alone is used. Some devices which coul d be used to ensure continued avai 1 abi 1 i ty of low and moderate income units include deed restrictions, right- of-first refusal, and purchase by non-profit corporations. However, these types of control s are relatively untested i n the density bonus si tuati on and could pose 1 egal as wel 1 as administrative problems. The law does specifically state that no developer shall be required to enter into an unacceptable agreement as a pre- requisite of approval. Disagreements between cities requiring controls for long term availability for low and moderate income housing and developers who feel that the law does not require them to enter into agreements for such controls will most likely require court action before this area is clearly understood. Ms. Braden explained to the Commission that in order to proceed with the implementation of this new law and to respond to questions whic h are already being asked regarding a density bonus program, some areas need further study, such as: 1. Amendments to incorporate the density bonus concept into the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Zoni ng Ordinance and to establish a procedure for processing applications and administering agreements for low and moderate income housing. 2. Completion of the multi-family condominium development standard study and establishment of density standards for mul ti pl e-family zones . 3. Exploration of the use of other incentives for low and moderate income housing in lieu of, or in addition to, the density bonus. These would include reductions of development standards and the use of public funds for projects. 4. Study of mechanisms to control long term availability of density bonus units for low and moderate income people. l Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Nine Upon the completion of the report, Commissioner Coontz asked if the state and federal governments have decided what the low to moderate income is and relative to that, what is the definition of the housing that is to be provided. Ms. Braden replied that one way of doing this is that low or moderate income is based on the median income. When this is determined, then the price of the unit which they can afford would be 25-30% of thei r monthly income. She pointed out that as of January, the median income is $24,250 in Orange County. So 30% of that income per month would be $600 which could be used as the price of their rent or a house payment. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the developer is held to a certain price, then, or how is this worked. Ms. Braden did not know whether the developer must go through a certain process or at what moment the price is set. The price is adjusted every month, depending on inflation, etc. She assumes that when the unit is sold is when the price is set. Commissioner Coontz wondered what the reality of thi s is - whether there are people who are going to come to the city of Orange and ask for the density bonus. Ms. Braden pointed out that there have already been several calls on this. Commissioner Hart saw a problem in this area already. He thought that it doesn't do any good to give a density bonus if you have no parking and green areas. How can it be made to work if it is tight already? He went on to explain that IRvine did this and before the escrows were closed, people turned around and sold their units and made 100% profit. Mr. Murphy explained that they do not have all of the answers on this. Staff thinks that this deserves a lot more study, particularly in the area of the housing consultant, if he is hired by the City Counci 1 . He wi 11 have to address thi s i ssue along with other i ssues related to housing and hope he will come up with some suggested programs and ideas which can be related to this density bonus system. Staff is especially asking the Commission to confirm their working further in this area. He explained that the Commission may just want to pass this on to the City Council as an information report by the Staff. Commissioner Coontz stated that she realizes that thi s must be addressed, since it is a state law, but she wondered how many developers would be interested in utilizing it. Chairman Mickelson wondered, in regard to the General Plan, if Staff had discussed the meri is of allowing density bonus projects to exceed the current General Plan vs. losing the whole value system in the General Plan if they design zoning ordinances that won't quite come up to that unless the developer gets a density bonus. Ms. Braden answered that rather than require a General Plan amend- ment every time they raise all of their levels, that they would just make some kind of provision i n the housing, saying that i f they are doing the density bonus, they will be allowed to exceed then e particular standards . Most of their zoni ng densities come in under the General Plan anyway. This might be something to keep in mind when writing the multi-family one. ^~ I J Planni ny Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Ten After further discussion among the Commissioners, Mr. Murphy pointed out that it was assumed that the density bonus would be accompanied by addi tional parking or other standards . The intent there would 'be to allow for a hi gher density to reduce i ndi vi dual unit costs by allowing more units on the same piece of ground. Also, if you are talking about low income people, you may have 1 ess parking required. He felt that there are some trade-offs . There was further discussion among the Commissioners wi th regard to the fact that nothing is solved by putting the units back on the market at normal value. Mr. Murphy explai ned that at 1 east the people get something for twenty years or some more limited time. The problem can be solved fora period of time. Their concern is with not putting any limitation on the occupancy and then having them turn around and sell in a two or three year period of time at the market rate. Chairman Mickelson stated that this ties into the study which he has not yet completed. He poi nted out that he has been moni tori ng Anaheim's agony in this same area. He is also on a committee of the BIA, working i n the city of Hunti ng Beach, and they are asking a lot of those same questions. He is finding out that his idea, although he thinks it is a great one, is not very acceptable at this point in time. His idea is to put the same standards within the zone and allow them to be ei ther condomi ni ums or apartments . He keeps running into the thought that the ci ti es are not ready for this yet. They have spent these last two decades setting up their condomi ni um standards and they still believe that i f you own your unit you gather more cars, more clothes and more possessions than if you are renting an apartment. Therefore, something different is needed. Chairman Mickelson also wondered if the Commission had not gone on record as supporting some kind of consultant or housing expert on the Staff. Isn't the consultant the City is asking for now the same thing? Commissioner Coontz explained that the criteria had not been set defi ni ng just what this person was goi ng to do. She felt that the Commission should know just what the Council had in mind. Chairman Mickelson suggested that the Commission do as Staff has suggested and pass this on to the Ci ty Council , stati ng that this and that area of standards of condos vs , apartments and the parking standards for various densities be of prime concern for this con- sultant when he or she is hired. Mr. Mickelson definitely feels that they need a consultant to tell them what they can do. He thought that they should include i n their moti on the fact that th ey need this consultant. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to pass this study to the City Council for their i nformati on, re- emphasizing the Planning Commission's position that a housing expert is needed i n the city, whether i t be a consul tant or a Staff member; that the consultant should specifically study these density bonus provisions and also specifically study the equilization of the standards of condominium and multi-family zones. Chairman Mickelson explained that the thrust of the motion is to get someone's attention. If it turns into something a little di fferent, that's all right. C7 ~ ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Eleven AYES: Commissio Hers NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson mentioned that the BIA put together a consortium that did an "affordable housing project" in the county. This is a demonstration project to determine where you can cut costs related to building codes, zoning codes, etc. They went through and studied this intently. Mr. Mickelson thought that they could get someone to come in and give a presentation on this project. STAFF STUDY OF SB 1960; MOBILE HOMES ON R-1 LOTS: Ed Deacon, of the Planning Department, presented this study to the Commission for consideration, explaining that this con- cerns placement of permanent mobile homes on multiple family lots, The law prevents a city from prohibiting mobile homes on single family lots. It also allows a city to designate single family lots for the placement of mobile homes, which presents the city with a bas i c choice: either allow a mobi 1 e home on any single family residential lot, or specify which single family residential lots they are allowed on. If the latter alternative is chosen, then the city must decide how to determine which lots will be designated for mobile homes, Mr. Deason pointed out that there are several concomitant regula- tions affecting the discussion of SB 1960. The law only permits architectural review of roof overhang, roofing material and siding material. Further, SB 1960 states that a city may only apply a development standard i n those three areas i f the same standards are applied to all conventional single family dwellings. Essentially, these rules mean that the Design Review Board will not be able to review single mobile homes unless that same review is extended to single family homes; and even then, only to a limited extent. This would entail an expansion of Design Review Board authority for they currently do not review individual s i ngl a family homes . The review of 1 or 2 custom bui 1 t homes per month should not provide insurmountable problems to the Design Review Board. Mr. Deason explained that a simple solution would seem to be to require a conditional use permit for mobile homes on single family residential lots. However, SB 1960 does not allow treating mobile homes on single family lots any different than single family residences. It does not appear to authorize a city to require a conditional use permit for placing a mobile home on a single family lot unless conventional homes are also subject to the same requirements. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council: That a determination be made allowing mobile homes on any residential lot. 2. That the Design Review Board be directed to review all si ngl e fami 1 y homes to insure compati bi 1 i ty of mobi 1 e homes with surrounding residences, reviewing such things as roof overhang, roof materials and siding materials. Mr. Deacon pointed out that the law goes i nto effect July 15, 1981 . ^~ f ~ 6 'r Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Twelve Commissioner Coontz asked if review of these items which Mr. Deason mentioned was for safety rather than esthetics. Mr. Deason replied that it is basically for esthetic reasons. Commissioner Ault felt that we are asking for trouble here. If this is a law that every single family lot can put a mobile home on it, then everyone must comply. But if we start designating which family lots and getting the Design Review Board in, this can cause trouble for the city. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that there could certainly be trouble from neighbors when they get some thing next door that they don't like. You are in trouble either way. Commissioner Master stated that you cannot, by architectural design, prohibit a particular type of building in an area. Mr. Murphy pointed out that there is no other way in which we can control the 1 ocati on of mobi 1 e homes . The s tate 1 aw says that you may architecturally review mobile homes i n three specific areas. The Staff's statement is that we should review single family housing total ly - otherwi se they have no control . It is al l gone. The state has taken it away. Commissioner Hart felt that the whole purpose of this is to get some low cost housing. Now we are going to tell them they cannot put this unit i n a specific place because i t does not meet our standards. He pointed out that mobile homes are mass produced and they are not going to build custom mobile homes to meet Orange's Design Review Board s tandards . Mr. Murphy pointed out that there are homes built in the local area which are probably acceptable to our standards. These mobile homes are in that area because of the demand for that type of housing. Mr. Hart explained that he had run a cost analysis on the mobile homes in Corona and he felt that they could duplicate their cost with a conventional house. He stated that he agreed with Com- missioner Ault in that when you start placing restrictions those neighbors wi 11 be up i n arms . There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to placing mobile homes in more affluent areas. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that this legislature was put through to help the mobile home industry and also a token to low and moderate income housing. There was more discussion among the Commissioners with regard to this 1 egisl ature and the effect i t wi 11 have on the communi ty. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to recommend to the City Council the following alternative: 1. That a determination be made allowing mobile homes on any residential lot. 2. That the Design Review Board be directed to review all single fami 1 y homes to ins ure compati bi 1 i ty of mobi 1 e homes with surrounding residences. ^~ ~.. . Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1981 Page Thirteen One reason for this recommendation being that the Design Review Board is already looking at tract homes and the Planning Com- mission feels that it would not be an undue hardship to review a minimal number of custom homes. Mr. Murphy pointed out that we must take some action because the 1 aw goes i nto effect i n July. Chairman Mickelson wondered if perhaps members of the Commission would feel better if Staff came back at the next meeting with some examples. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners Ault, Hart ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson commented that he would like to amend his previous motion to read that they urge the City Council to proceed with hiring a consultant and he should be directed to study the following four areas: 1. Amendments to incorporate the density bonus concept into the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and to establish a procedure for processing applications and administering agreements for low and moderate income housing. 2. Completion of the multi-family condominium development standard study and establishment of density standards for multi-family zones, with consideration for equalization of the standards be- tween apartments and condominiums. 3. Exploration of the use of other incentives for low and moderate income housing in lieu of, or in addition to, the density bonus. These would include reductions of development standards and the use of public funds for projects. 4. Study of mechanisms to control long term availability of density bonus units for low and moderate income people. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to reconvene on Monday, March 16, 1981 at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 2, 1981. ~~~ ~J The regular meeti na of the Orange City Planning Commission was cal led to order by Chairman Mi ckelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that this meeting adjourn at 9:05 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, March 16, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certi fy that the foregoing i s a true, ful 1 and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, March 2, 1981, Dated this 3rd day of March, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. Jei^\e P, Murphy, l;i~ Plann r ana Sec\ etary to the Planning ommission of ~he Ci ty of Orange C STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS OF ADJOI.!RNMENT Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the P1 anni ng Commission of the Ci ty of Orange was held on March 2, 1981 ; said meeting ,~ was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on March 3, 1981 , at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which sai d meeti ng of ~1arch 2, 1981 was held.