2011 - March 21Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
March 21, 2011
Page 1 of 8
March 21, 2011
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson, and Merino
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
Vice Chair Buttress opened the Administrative session with a review of the Agenda.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated that the Agenda contained
a resolution for Robert Imboden and Vice Chair Buttress would present that and also
introduce the new member of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Gladson. He
stated Commissioner Gladson could also make a statement that she had reviewed the
videos that pertained to the agenda item on zoning.
Commissioner Gladson stated she had reviewed the DVD's and the meeting minutes and
was comfortable in participating in the discussion. Mr. Knight stated there would be the
presentation, approval of the minutes and then the agenda item would be opened.
Commissioner Gladson stated she would abstain from voting on the minutes.
Commissioner Merino stated he and Vice Chair Buttress would make up the majority of
those present at the meeting of February 23, 2011 and could approve the minutes.
Commissioner Buttress stated it appeared that they were all up to date on the Agenda
item, as the tapes and minutes had been reviewed for any meetings that had been missed.
She stated that she would focus on the issue areas and the discussion should be very
expedient.
There was no further discussion.
Administrative Session adjourned @ 6:50 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2011
Page 2 of 8
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None
REGULAR SESSION
Vice Chair Buttress welcomed Commissioner Gladson to the Planning Commission.
Presentation by Vice Chair Buttress:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -11 expressing appreciation to
Robert R. Imboden for just shy of six years of exceptional and dedicated service
to the City of Orange Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Buttress read the Resolution and presented it to Mr. Imboden.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 05 -11 expressing
appreciation to Robert R. Imboden.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Gladson and Merino
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 23, 2011.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of
the Planning Commission on February 23, 2011, as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress and Merino
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gladson
ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
Commission Business:
March 21, 2011
Page 3 of 8
(2) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1258 -10 — MIXED USE ZONE STANDARDS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Continued from Planning Commission meetings of February 23, 2011, January 17, 2011,
October 4, 2010 and September 20, 2010. An Ordinance Amendment adding new Mixed
Use Zoning Standards to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to establish Zoning and
implement the new Mixed Use Land Use designations of the 2010 General Plan and Zone
Change 1258 -10 applying new Zoning classifications in order to achieve consistency
between General Plan Land use designations and Zoning in accordance with state law.
The City of Orange General Plan update was adopted in March 2010. The Land Use
Element establishes new Mixed Use Land Use designations in four areas of the City. The
supporting General Plan Implementation Plan identifies the need for the City to establish
Zoning and development standards to be consistent with, and implement, the Mixed Use
Land Use designations. Therefore, the City has developed new Mixed Use Zoning
Standards for these areas. The subject Ordinance Amendment represents implementation
of the General Plan and associated Implementation Program I -1. The Amendment adds a
new Chapter 17.19 to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code, as well as new definitions
to Chapter 17.04 of the Orange Municipal Code.
State law requires consistency to be established between the General Plan Land Use
Designation and Zoning classifications. The City's Zoning classifications do not include
mixed use. Therefore, Zone Change 1258 -10 is needed to apply new Zoning
classifications that correspond with the mixed use General Plan designations.
LOCATION: City Wide
NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1815 -09
for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was certified on
March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The proposed activity is 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 No. 33 -10
recommending City Council approval of an Ordinance
Amendment adding new Mixed Use Zoning Standards and
definitions to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to implement
the new Mixed Use Land Use designations of the 2010 General
Plan.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 34 -10 recommending City
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 2011
Page 4of8
Council approval of Zone Change 1258 -10 establishing
consistency between General Plan Land Use designations and
Zoning classifications in accordance with State law.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Mrs. Pehoushek stated that the City's consultant Ron Pflugrath would provide
further information on the City's decision not to incorporate a sliding scale into the
provisions of the ordinance.
Mr. Pflugrath stated at the last meeting he had proposed looking at the idea of a sliding
scale; as there had been some indication from the members of the audience that some
smaller lots vs. larger lots might have difficulty meeting the 50% requirement. He and
Staff had reviewed different sizes of lots that would be affected and had come to the
conclusion that it would be very difficult to draw a hard line between what would be
considered a small lot and a large lot. Once lines were drawn there would always be
situations down the road where there would need to be deviations.
The other thing they had looked at was what would be the appropriate frontage setback,
would it be 30 %, 40% or would it be 70% because smaller lots had a bigger opportunity
to provide buildings that would be adjacent to the street. The conclusion that had been
arrived at was that 50% was still a good number for the long term and in some cases they
would want to see 100 %; but for now 50% would provide for a street wall that the City
was looking for. They looked at areas that deviations could be achieved and they came to
the conclusion that an Administrative Adjustment would be a vehicle that could be used
in the process that would provide for a 10% adjustment. A 10% adjustment in laying out
a property with parking and aisle widths would require a little bit of flexibility; if they
were to state 50% was it, it could be 50' of parking and 50' of building and maybe 50' of
parking would not work and a 10% deviation would work well in that situation. There
could be situations where the property was so unique that a variance would be able to
modify the deviation greater than 10 %. Those two avenues would provide greater
flexibility; rather than drawing a conclusion on small vs. large lots.
Vice Chair Buttress asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Gladson stated she wanted to share with her colleagues that she was up to
speed on the issue and had the benefit of reviewing all 4 meetings on DVD as well as
reviewing the minutes.
Vice Chair Buttress opened the hearing for public comment.
James Potter, address on file, stated he appreciated the opportunity to speak and he had
spoken about his concerns with not only the 50% but also the FAR regulations of 1.5. At
the last Planning Commission meeting he had found out that the FAR was not something
that was available to the Commissioners to modify; but was part of the zone change that
he had not been quite aware of when it had been discussed and the impact it had.
Because of the ramification that it caused to certain parcels and in his opinion created a
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2011
Page 5 of 8
bit negative to some sites and future developments, they looked at some particular
situations of parcels and the ability to building on some sites. He asked if there was a
way that they could structure some exemptions to uses that the FAR's would not apply
to? Specifically to restaurant uses and with Katella Grill if another restaurant wanted to
take that spot they would not be able to with a 100 acre lot it could not be done as it
would require a roughly 60,000 square foot building and a 3 story parking structure. In
reviewing the individual parcels that were in the area it made them almost unable to be
developed. If there was a fire or involuntary destruction on the property and to rebuild
something similar; he was not certain it could be done. With reclassification, in leaving
one wall up would a property owner be able to build something else? He saw the project
as having two development potentials, either there would be a high rise building or a
project with businesses below and residential above and he was not certain those would
be feasible projects, even in the near future. He wanted to look at ways to mitigate the
FAR at 1.5 on some parcels. That would be a great help to the community and to the
City; otherwise the properties would be devalued.
Vice Chair Buttress asked Mr. Potter if he had spoken to Staff about his concerns.
Mr. Potter stated briefly.
Vice Chair Buttress closed the public hearing and asked Staff to address the comments
made by Mr. Potter.
Ms. Pehoushek stated she understood the issue to address would be if there was a
potential for exemptions related to FARs based on particular uses? That would become a
bit problematic from the standpoint that the zoning allowed for a variety of uses and so
there might be a building built for the purpose of retail and then the business went away
and then a restaurant went in and then if a restaurant went away, it could be re- tooled for
a different type of use. With the number of uses that could occupy a building she was not
certain how they could work with an exemption for particular types of uses and it would
almost lock a property into being stuck with a particular use over the course of a
particular time. As far as the FAR range, it was something that had been established
when the General Plan was adopted. The item that they were discussing, the Zone
Change, was not the proper mechanism for making a change to the General Plan's FAR.
Commissioner Merino stated what Mr. Potter needed to hear, that there was a
methodology that if an applicant came to the City with a project, that there was an appeal
process. An applicant could bring in a development to Staff for approval and there was a
process to request for exceptions.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there were a couple of different scenarios. If a project came
forward with some level of redevelopment on an existing site, such as an in -fill or a re-
tooling of existing buildings, there were provisions built into the proposed standards that
spoke to working to bring a site into closer conformance with the General Plan FAR
range or closer to the building frontage requirements. Staff's intention was to work with
people who wanted to re- invest in their properties and to encourage positive change
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2011
Page 6of8
without requiring hard and fast situations on a property renovation. If there was a piece
of property with a total tear down with the intent of redevelopment, not caused by an act
of fire or weather; in that situation that development would be held to the new standards.
If it was a situation where there was a disaster that caused a building to be gone, the legal
non - conforming provisions of the codes had been amended during the General Plan
adoption stating that any property made legal non - conforming due to the General Plan
changes would be allowed to rebuild what had previously existed.
Commissioner Merino stated what he was getting at, and what Mr. Potter had been
attempting to state, was that if he did a complete tear down and he was attempting to
leverage the lot for a new type of use with a more limited FAR, he would have the right
to ask for a Variance or some type of consideration. He would have the right to come in
and appeal the standards through the hearing process through the City.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct and there would need to be a finding of a special
circumstance made.
Commissioner Merino asked it was not a process that would prohibit a property owner to
ask for a hearing to complete a project with changes that had not existed in the standards?
Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct.
Commissioner Gladson stated the question had been raised during prior hearings and she
asked Staff if they had run the numbers.
Ms. Pehoushek stated they had not run the numbers as it would depend on size and
details of the site. They had spoken about FAR and what type of development that
would lead to.
Commissioner Gladson stated it could be something that Mr. Potter could do, to work
with Staff and Planners and get through the number more precisely and specifically. If
the item moved forward, he would also have the opportunity to raise the issue with City
Council.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the area of the City that they were referring to has a designation of
Urban Mixed Use, which was intended to encourage and accommodate more
development and intensity. The feedback that had been received over the course of the
hearings about multi -story developments and parking structures had been discussed
during the development of the General Plan and in developing those standards.
Commissioner Merino stated, to summarize, there were two issues at work; first they
could not go back and re -do the Zoning that had been approved with the General Plan and
adopted. In order to address Mr. Potter's concern there was a method of appeal and he
was hearing that somehow he felt it was the end of the story for him, but there would be
the ability to influence change in whatever he brought forth. Those were the issues as he
viewed them and there was a method for any applicant to address concerns they might
Planning Commission Meeting
have.
March 21, 2011
Page 7 of 8
Vice Chair Buttress brought the item back to the Commission for any further discussion
or a motion.
Commissioner Merino stated he felt Staff had made every effort, over the last 3 to 4
hearings, to address the concerns of the public and the business community. In the end
there was the opportunity for anyone with a particular concern on a particular project to
address that on an individual basis. In understanding that and with the proposed changes
that Staff had made and with the input from the City's consultant regarding the sliding
scale, he was prepared to make a motion to adopt the resolutions before them.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of PC
33 -10 and PC 34 -10, Zone Change No. 1258 -10 -Mixed Use Zone Standards Ordinance
Amendment, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Cunningham, and Merino
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioner Merino stated he was prepared to move the item forward as he had made
the motion; but one of the things he had heard during the process was that there had been
a certain level of frustration from the public and business community in the initial
General Plan adoption process. There had been some folks that had expressed frustration
that things had not gone their way. He wished that everyone would have taken the
opportunity during the process, and he came to all the City Council Meetings, and that
process had not been as well attended and people were not as involved, and he had
wished that they had been. They were now asking for changes after the train had left the
station. As much as he had not wanted it to be that way, he felt Staff had done a good job
understanding the concerns that had been brought forth and how to mitigate those.
Commissioner Gladson stated she concurred and had supported his motion as she had
been a person who had watched the meetings and watched last year when the City
Council adopted the City Plan; established mixed use land use and she felt that the
Planning Commission deserved a nice thank you for the work that had been done to get
them to the point they were at. It had been a lot of work to go through the details of
crafting new zoning. It had not been an easy thing to do. They had to get it out there to
test in terms of development opportunities. She was excited to see new development and
creative mixed use and she whole heartedly supported the item.
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
(4) ADJOURNMENT:
March 21, 2011
Page 8of8
Adjournment to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday,
April 4, 2011.
Commissioner Merino made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on April 4, 2011.
SECOND:
Commissioner Gladson
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Gladson and Merino
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 7:36 p.m.