Loading...
2012 - December 3Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 APPROVED Pa 1 of 9 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange December 3, 2012 Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Jennifer Le, Senior Planner Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll Call All Commissioners present PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None PLANNING MANAGER REPORT: Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was nothing additional to report. Chair Steiner provided an overview of the City's appeal process. Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 2 of 9 Consent Calendar: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2012. Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the November 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting as written SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 3 of 9 New Hearings: (2) ZONE CHANGE 1267 -12 The City of Orange General Plan update was adopted in March 2010. The General Plan made changes to the City's Land Use Plan re- designating portions of the residential quadrants of Old Towne to LDR (low- Density Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre). The City's General Plan identifies R -1 (Single Family Residential) as the corresponding zoning district for the LDR General Plan land use designation. State law requires consistency between a property's General Plan land use designation and its zoning. In order to establish the required General Plan zoning consistency, Zone Change 1267 -12 is proposed to rezone Old Towne properties with an LDR General Plan land use designation to R -1 -6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). LOCATION: Certain Old Towne Properties West of Glassell Street NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1815 -09 for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was certified on March 9, 2010 and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed zone change falls within the scope of the previously approved General Plan and is adequately described in the previously certified General Plan Program EIR for purposes of CEQA. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 49 -12 recommending the City Council approve and adopt the draft ordinance rezoning certain properties in Old Towne Orange west of Glassell Street to Single Family Residential (R -1) in order to establish consistency between the Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan Land Use Designation and the Zoning classification in accordance with State law. Jennifer Le, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff and asked if any additional communication had been received? There was none. Chair Steiner opened the hearing to Public Comment and stated the Commission had received communication from the following individuals: Dan Slater Leason Pomeroy Casa Teresa Michael Sivak Ross Chichester Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Chair Steiner invited the public speakers to address the Commission. Ralph Cortez, address on file, stated he was opposed to the down zoning. The Mayor had told him that she would respond to him and he received a letter that stated his property was not included in the zoning, but he got another letter that said it was. He was present to oppose it. Chair Steiner verified the applicant lived at 168 S. Parker? Mr. Cortez stated that was correct. He was opposed to the zoning. Amendment One of the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States already made a decision that there had to be a court hearing to change any zoning and that was where he would leave it. He misplaced the Mayor's letter that stated that his property was not affected. Chair Steiner asked Staff if Mr. Cortez's property was included in the zone change. Ms. Le stated she had reviewed the maps and 168 S. Parker was an address that would be included in the zone change. It was currently zoned R -3 and it was proposed to be R -1 -6. Michael Sivak stated he was an out of state real estate investor and he traveled from Salt Lake City just for the Planning Commission Meeting. He owned several properties in Orange and one of those was a duplex that the City wanted to re -zone R -1. The zone R -1 was a redefined number; there could be a main house with a second house in the backyard. He owned properties in 3 states and 8 cities and he had never seen an R -1 such as proposed; he understood it as one house per lot. The City was starting out with wrong information if they wanted to zone everything R -1, which meant 1. Jennifer Le had stated that the zone change would clarify everything for the contractors that wanted to come in and develop Orange, he had not thought so, he was all for clarification but they were furthering muddling up an already muddled situation. One means one, two means two, simple. If the City wanted to go property by property and apply zoning to existing usage, that would be great. Reducing density seemed to be their agenda and Orange was a densely developed City; the houses had houses in their backyards and there were apartment buildings that were strangely not addressed. He assumed the City had given permits for everything that was built in the City, they had what they had and it could not be changed. Two to six dwellings per acre was laughable, he lived in a neighborhood of two to six dwellings per acre and those were 3'd and % acre lots; it would never happen in Orange. As of 2010 the City of Orange had 45,111 dwellings and only 43,367 were occupied. That was 1 in 20 dwellings empty and that was their density reduction. Keep the high taxes, repressive ruling class government, spray paint, gangs and trash and lower their density even more. Growing Cities and States were thankful for the good people the City of Orange was sending them. In closing he thought the proposal was an agenda for something else. People's property rights were not being respected and he was against the zone change. The City was artificially depreciating his and other people's properties. How could he sell a duplex that was zoned R -1; would the City make up the price difference to him? Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Stacy Proctor, address on file, stated she represented Casa Teresa and she was opposed to the re- zoning of 223 N. Olive Street as well as 215 N. Olive Street. They were contiguous properties to Casa Teresa. They occupied 223 N. Olive Street as a residence for mothers and re- zoning that site would remove their ability to do that. The mission of Casa Teresa was to provide temporary homes for pregnant women 18 years and older. There were 3 phases to the program. 223 N. Olive was the 3 rd phase of their program and by changing that it would make that property inconsistent with the other properties. Casa Teresa was opposed to the zone change as it would make expansion difficult and create inconsistencies in their program. The information was outlined in the letter that had been sent to the Planning Commissioners. Cindy Wetzel, address on file, stated she was representing her 90 year old grandfather and his daughter who owned the property at 430 N. Cypress. Her grandfather purchased the property in 1923 and it would be a shame to change that zoning as he would leave the property to his children. She opposed the R -1 zoning. There were 3 properties on that lot and a zone change would not allow them to add on or possibly placing another unit on that lot; at one time the property had 4 units. Even though it would be grandfathered in the site would still be affected in regards to adding onto the property. Connie McKay, address on file, stated she had lived at her residence for 45 years and in the City of Orange for 62 years and she knew the area quite well. She called the Planning Commission as she had received a letter and she was in support of the re- zoning. Her quadrant was inundated with cars and people. Nobody got along on her street because they were always fighting for parking. Trash on Tuesdays' was a nightmare and she had seen the neighborhood deteriorate. She had the Hope house behind her and she was constantly hearing noises. She lived in Orange all her life and she knew Cypress Street and that street was a lot better and the City had cleaned up that area and she was in support of the re- zoning because things had gotten so much better on Cypress Street and she would want the same to happen on Olive. She was upset that the re- zoning would not apply to her street and had been told it would remain an R -4. Sandy McKenna, address on file, stated she was opposed to the re- zoning. Her family lived in the City of Orange for over 100 years and she had been on Cypress Street in a historic, traditionally Mexican American neighborhood. Her mother passed away last year and if she would have lived she would have been 99 years old in December. She was an old time, life long resident of the City of Orange. She had experienced very unique things such as segregation which was in a school house that was now on the Chapman University property. Ironically she learned about the history when she was a student attending Chapman University; she further went to USC and graduated with a Masters in Social Work. The point was that her family had the property since 1923 and it was due to hard work, sweat of the brow work, that her family was able to purchase the property and maintain it through picking oranges and also by working at the Villa Park Orchard packing house. It was her mother's dream that they wanted to keep alive; the property was a family dream and the American dream. Her family experienced upward mobility within the first generation. Both her parents were migrant farm workers were able to have upward mobility due to her father going into the military. He was eligible Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 6 of 9 to apply for a civil service job and her family began to move upward. It was very heartfelt for her family to continue the dream, to rebuild and the homes were in need of repair. But if they were not able to rebuild what would happen was that they would be condemned and she implored the Commission to reconsider the zone change. Salvitorri Pezzula, address on file, stated he spoke for his mother. His sister and mother lived at 405 N. Lemon Street and the property had been in the trust for many, many years. He was opposed to the re- zoning. His sister would like to put a duplex on the site, she was disabled and if re -zoned that could not happen. With parking and everything else they took into consideration, their intent was to tear the existing house down and put up a historic house in its place that met the criteria and not be a sore thumb in the middle of no where. Everything seemed to be taken over by Chapman University, and he had not had a problem with that as long as they were cleaning up the neighborhood and making everything nice and they had done quite a bit in making properties very nice. The house right next door to his was owned by Chapman University and it added value to the home. He was opposed to the zone change and he wanted at least an R -2 and there was enough room on their corner lot to build a duplex. Chair Steiner asked Staff about Ms. McKay's inquiry about the S. Olive property and if it was or was not being re- zoned? Ms. Le stated she had taken a look at the zoning map and the area Ms. McKay spoke to was outside of the area to be re- zoned. It was a decision that came out of the General Plan hearings and the direction of the City Council. Chair Steiner asked Staff to respond to the speakers comments? Ms. Le stated she would go through the list of speakers and address their concerns. For 168 S. Parker, the property would be re -zoned from R -3 to R -1. In that particular area, the block was R -3 and proposed to be re -zoned to R -1. Staff's recommendation would be for the re -zone and the Planning Commission had the option to make a recommendation to City Council for something different. For the comments from Mr. Sivak; she had the opportunity to speak with him at length about his property. The current zoning for his property was R -2 -6 and the lot was approximately 6,000 square feet and proposed to be re -zoned to R -1 -6, similar to other properties in the area. The existing R -2 -6 was intended for duplexes and the proposed R -1 -6 zoning allowed for a single family dwelling as well as a second unit. In terms with what was on the property currently, there were two units. Properties that had two units, if the property was re- zoned, could continue on in its current state. Chair Steiner asked if the property would be considered legal non - conforming. Ms. Le stated no, it would be permitted. For permitted uses, alterations or reconstructions or additions would be allowed. For Cindy Wetzel on Cypress Street, that property was zoned R -2 -6 and she understood Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 7 of 9 that there were 3 -4 units on that lot and the proposal was for R -1 -6. The re- zoning would be consistent with what was proposed for the surrounding area. She would refer to the permitted uses clause in the zoning code, in that existing units could remain on that site and could be added on to, rehabilitated or reconstructed in the future. For the property at 356 S. Olive, and the speaker Connie McKay, as was discussed that property was outside of the re -zone area and the entire area was zoned R -4 with no proposed changes. She would suggest that if Ms. McKay could gather the neighbors and come to a consensus and they could submit an application to the City for re- zoning. It was something that could be considered. Sandy McKenna at the property on N. Cypress, it was similar to other properties discussed. It was a property that was currently R -2 -6 and re- zoning proposed for R -l. With that new zoning, it would allow for one single family home and an accessory second unit. Lastly for Casa Teresa, they had also submitted a letter addressing two sites. The first was at 223 N. Olive. As was stated, that property was used by Casa Teresa and was operationally related to the adjacent property that was zoned Old Towne Mixed Use 15. From Staff's perspective, if the Commission wanted to consider asking the City Council to zone that property Old Towne Mixed Use 15, that would be consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Casa Teresa properties. The property was already operating as one functioning use with the adjacent properties, so it made sense. Also, it appeared that Casa Teresa had an agreement with the property owner to purchase the site at some point in the future, and all of those things would point to a recommendation for Old Towne Mixed Use 15. On the site at 235 N. Olive and it was referred to as 215, but was 235; it was proposed to be re -zoned to R -1 and was not owned by Casa Teresa. Although they might be considering a future use for that site, because it was not operated or owned by Casa Teresa, Staff recommended the property be re -zoned to R -1 with the option of the Commission requesting something different as a recommendation to the City Council. A speaker in the audience asked about 405 N. Lemon? Ms. Le stated that property was zoned R -2 -6 and it looked to have a single family residence on that site. As with other R -2 -6 properties, if re- zoned, the property owner could have a single family home plus an accessory unit in the back of up to 640 square feet. 2 units technically would be allowed, with a size limit on the second unit. Commissioner Gladson stated on the inquiry from Casa Teresa, was their a Conditional Use Permit for that use? Ms. Le stated they had researched the property and she asked Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, to address the Commission on that property. Ms. Pehoushek stated the Woepse property had not contained a CUP, but it was being occupied as apartments and an apartment building and in fact, Casa Teresa as it had been there for such a long time had not had a CUP. The property was one of those uses that had been in the community, an institution of the community, and over the years it had continued to operate in its present form. Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 8 of 9 Chair Steiner closed the hearing to Public Comment and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or action. Chair Steiner stated the discussion was for 385 parcels and of those 248, 64% currently contained single family residential uses and were consistent with the R -1 zoning. There were another 137 parcels and 126 of those had multi - family residential uses, some between 450 and 640 square feet and those units being considered accessory second units and that had been the situation in the City of Orange for a long time. Those units were consistent with the proposed R -1 -6 zoning. The remaining multi - family parcels contained duplexes or other multi -use units and would not be consistent with the proposed R -1 re- zoning. There were another 11 properties that were referred to in the Staff Report. Discussion of the development on those properties would be continued, if they would be grandfathered in or be legal non - conforming; the City Council had settled that and he asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, for clarification? Mr. Sheatz stated there was an ordinance adopted, and cited in the Staff Report, Ordinance 17.14.05 Sub G. Chair Steiner stated he was struggling with how this was so adverse to what was being proposed as it had been expressed to the Commission. Commissioner Gladson stated he hit the nail on the head, the bottom line was that the majority of the land use in the quadrant they were speaking to was primarily single family residential units and Chair Steiner had counted out the units. There were many second units, or granny flats that were part of the equation and certainly appropriate uses in an R -1 neighborhood. Having the zoning go to R -1 would be totally appropriate and the council with their wisdom to allow for the legal non - conforming units with the structures in the quadrant would allow protection of those properties and property owners to allow those properties to remain indefinitely. That provided a level of comfort for her that those sites were protected. If those sites required rehabilitation it would be allowed. The big issue was that the City had not wanted more units to occur in the district and to not allow for a major apartment complex or things of that nature, due to the legacy and association with Cypress Street. They were things that were important to the City and it was heard during the General Plan Update of 2010. Because the Planning Commission was charged with ensuring the zoning matched up with the General Plan, the General Plan that was adopted in 2010 stated that the Land Use for the area that was being considered tonight was recommended as the most appropriate use to be single family low density residential on smaller lots, 6,000 square feet on average; they had no choice but to match up the zoning with the General Plan. State Law mandated that and there were protections in place to allow the non - conforming uses to continue in perpetuity. The other issue with Casa Teresa, Staff had presented some good options for that property site and those recommendations could be included in any action the Commission took and to ask the City Council to consider a more appropriate zoning for that use. The item needed to go from the Planning Commission, the Land Use experts, to the City Council and they would want their input and she supported the draft ordinance as crafted by Staff. The provisions provided would allow for property protection. Planning Commission Meeting December 3, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Grangoff stated for a property that was currently multi - family that would be under the R -1 -6 zone would remain multi - family with the current owner, but if the property was sold the zoning to the property would change, and he asked if that was correct? Ms. Le stated the permitted status of the property, even if sold, would remain. The status would stay with the land. Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 49 -12, recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change No. 1267 -12; to rezone Old Towne properties with an LDR General Plan land use designation to R -1 -6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size), subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz on the other 11 properties that would be affected, one was a Southern California Edison sub station and would that disqualify Commissioner Buttress, a representative of that company, to vote on the proposed re- zoning before them? Mr. Sheatz stated Commissioner Buttress should abstain from the vote. SECOND: Commissioner Grangoff AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Buttress MOTION CARRIED (3) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, December 17, 2012. SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, Grangoff and Steiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Meeting Adjourned @ 7:45 p.m.