2006 - July 5
~500.G..;).3
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
5 July 2006
Wednesday-7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett
None.
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF
JULY 6, 2005 and JUNE 19, 2006.
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to approve the consent calendar with approval
abstentions due to absenteeism as listed below.
July 6, 2005: Commissioners Bilodeau and Pruett
June 19,2006: Commissioner Enderby
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioner Enderby
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.
Planning Commission Minutes
5 July 2006
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS:
(2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-0002, ZONE CHANGE NO.
1235-06, AND NEGA TIVE DECLARATION NO. 1760-05 - BOB CAUDILL
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for three landlocked parcels.
The proposal is to change the General Plan designation of the parcels from Low Density
Residential (LDR) to Office Professional (OP). The Zone Change request involves
changing the classification from Single Family Residential to Office Professional. The
proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes will result in creating
consistency in the classification of uses and development standards between the subject
parcels and the larger O-P parcel along Chapman Avenue (1334 E. Chapman).
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1760-05 was prepared for this project in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 25-06 recommending that the
City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005-0002, Zone Change No. 1235-
05 and Negative Declaration No. 1760-05.
A project overview was provided by Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur during which she
advised:
. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for three (3)
landlocked parcels.
. The three parcels are currently owned and operated in association with the office
professional development at 1334 E. Chapman.
. The two most western parcels are currently being used as a parking lot.
. The eastern most parcel is currently vacant with the exception of a wood shed.
. The Zone Change proposed is from R-I-6 (single family residential) to Office
Professional which would also result in a decrease in the FAR from 0.6 to 0.5.
. No construction is included in the proposal.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Thakur what is the required setback from the common property
line between the existing residential and the proposed re-zoned area? Ms. Thakur
replied the required setbacks for the front would be 10 feet; the side would be 5 feet; and
the rear would be 10 feet. The existing setback (with the R-I zone) is 20 feet.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry was asked to clarify what the setback would
be with the introduction of a granny suite.
The applicant's representative, Jim Marquez advised that the owner would like to
establish a zone pattern on his property that would allow him the full use of his property.
He added that he concurred with the statements made by Staff.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked Mr. Marquez to elaborate on his client's intent for the
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
5 July 2006
property. Mr. Marquez responded that the owner wishes to build a detached single
family home with the same architectural character as the two office/residence buildings
that face Chapman, as well as a detached two car garage. This would be situated at the
southeast quadrant of the property and there would be no changes to the driveway or
existing parking layout.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked for clarification that the current zoning wouldn't allow
this. Mr. Marquez responded the current zoning doesn't allow it because you have
multiple parcels of land that don't have a consistent zoning designation and to access
them and build across them would result in Code compliance problems. The change is
therefore required to build. Ms. Roseberry interjected "the parcels that front Chapman
are zoned OP and the three small parcels behind them are zoned residential (R-I-6).
They are all separate parcels, so you would not be able to build across the property or
zoning lines. The Zone Change and General Plan Amendment are necessary as a first
step before they come forward, combining the parcels into one and then move forward
and look at constructing a home for residential use and the other buildings that could be
used for offices. Otherwise, the residential lots as they currently exist are landlocked (on
paper)."
Commissioner Bilodeau asked the applicant if they would be abiding by the front setback
when they do come forward with the single-family home. Also, would they be looking
for a 10' or 20' setback? Mr. Marquez responded this would rest with the City's Design
Review board. His client is aware there is a neighbor to the south stating she does not
want a building. He has spoken with her and learned she doesn't want an overbearing
structure that would result in loss of her privacy. Mr. Marquez agreed this is very
appropriate request and advised the architects will look at that.
Ms. Roseberry interjected that site plans were not included in the packets, as the applicant
did not intend to move forward with Design Review at this time.
Chair Bonina asked if the project is before the DRC now? Ms. Roseberry replied, "No it
is not."
Mr. Marquez responded his company was referred to assist the property owners as
planning consultants and expeditors. The owner felt more comfortable separating the two
components - getting the property legal (as the owner called it); bringing it to a level
where the zoning is consistent with the General Plan and then when he knows what the
development standards are they would engage the architect to design something that
meets the Standards. There were too many uncertainties without having this portion
approved first.
After clarifying the easement and community driveway placement with Mr. Marquez,
Commissioner Pruett stated he is a little confused by the proposal for residential property
and the request for OP zoning. Commissioner Pruett asked why the residential
component wasn't brought forward and if there was any consideration to basically set up
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
5 July 2006
two lots - one OP and one residential. Mr. Marquez replied "as the Planning Director
stated earlier, frontage onto a street doesn't exist for the back lots and as a result of that
they can't be built on." Commissioner Pruett responded you're talking about access now,
which can be created through the right-of-way. Mr. Marquez responded you have a
reciprocal driveway. Further Mr. Marquez stated the rule that umbrellas all of these
properties (and is fairly common to the Resolutions that are approved by the
Commission) is that there should be consistency between the Zoning of the City and the
General Plan. Mr. Marquez also stated that as it stands, they have zoning that doesn't
match the General Plan and as a result of this, he doesn't think they can do anything until
that is remedied.
Public input was provided as follows:
Gloria Culver. address on file stated she was delighted with the Commissions questions
as she believed they were hitting the point she is present to discuss. Further she added:
. She owns the property directly behind the properties in question.
. Out of five people that own properties circling the subject property, only two were
notified. No one else was notified by mail.
. She worries about her property values and privacy that would be impacted by private
and professional development.
. Within the last year the owner of the property has erected a 6-1/2 foot fence behind her
fence.
. The owner has closed off the neighbor's fence.
. The owner has painted the back of the neighbor's garage.
In summary Ms. Culver stated the possibility of changing the subject property may result
in a lot of changes that would devalue her property and she is opposed to any professional
or residential development.
No other public input was provided; however, Chair Bonina commented on an email
received from another Property Owner, Rebecca Ishii.
Ms. Culver made one additional comment relative to the setback where she asked for
clarification that there is only a 10' setback for OP zoning as opposed to a 20' setback for
residential. Chair Bonina stated there is an opportunity to get closer with an accessory
unit. Ms. Roseberry clarified that it must be non-habitable and it can then go right up to
the property line as long as it does not exceed the height restriction.
Mr. Marquez stated:
. The items relative to the fence and painting are new to him.
. He certainly wouldn't want to lower the value of the subject property by building
something that doesn't work.
. He certainly doesn't think that with the care the City of Orange exerts with the Design
Review process there would be approval of a structure that lessens the value of the
property.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
5 July 2006
. They are being respectful of the neighbors.
. There are no drawings yet but they will be going before the Design Review board and
Staff will ensure there is care in how it all comes together.
Commissioner Imboden commented that he is not entirely comfortable yet with the idea
that is before them. He added that when people purchase property they look at the zoning
around them to see what potentially could happen. Commissioner Imboden stated the
Commission is being requested to make a significant enough change that it could impact
the neighboring properties and without having the big picture plan it is difficult to assess
what the impact would be. Commissioner Imboden concluded by stating he is not
opposed to residences being built at all, the question he had was if the use is going to be
residential then why move to OP zoning rather than residential?
Commissioner Pruett questioned Staff about splitting the lot into two with the OP being
accessed through an easement or drive off Chapman if that required OP because it was
ingressed and egressed off Chapman or if there could be a residential lot in there. Ms.
Roseberry clarified splitting the front lot from west to east and joining the back lot that is
residential would be unique and probably not something seen in the past. Further, it
would still be landlocked and the residential portion would have to be 6,000 sq. ft. Chair
Bonina interjected that you would do some lot line adjustments within all three parcels
and if you needed to you could go into the current OP zone to create the 6,000 sq. ft. lot.
Ms. Roseberry responded, "you'd then start to look at some subdivision issues."
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz interjected that you could not carve the lot line into
different zone district designations and have split zoning just to create a larger lot size to
accommodate the structure. A Zone Change to make it uniform would be required so you
didn't have split zoning. Chair Bonina clarified "so in addition to a lot line adjustment
you'd have to pursue a rezoning of that portion of the property that you've taken from the
OP." Ms. Roseberry added it is also important to remember in a residential zone you can
place a garage all the way up to the property line (based on the height of the structure) so
by flipping the zoning from OP to residential you're not getting rid of the issue of the
possibility of a building being closer to the property line than you'd like. Commissioner
Pruett agreed and stated that he does think there are still some issues remaining i.e. open
space.
Commissioner Pruett stated open space is well defined in the residential zone where it's
not in the OP and the open space in this instance could be less than what is normally
achieved for the residential sector. He added that by taking away the open space the
end result could be a residential home adjacent to OP space where children are playing in
the office parking lot. Commissioner Pruett stated that since it is more than just the
setback that is an issue his personal opinion was he'd rather see the item continued and be
brought back to the Planning Commission with a package that provides some indication
as to what's going to occur next to a residential unit and how the whole thing is being laid
out.
Commissioner Bilodeau agreed. He stated although he's sure Mr. Marquez IS very
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
5 July 2006
sincere in terms of the design of the proposed structure on the property, he didn't think it
was appropriate to move forward at this time.
Commissioner Enderby stated he tended to agree with the other Commissioners.
Chair stated for the most part all the Commissioners agreed and on this particular issue he
thought a consolidation of the parcels and consistent zoning made some sense; however,
what was lacking is visibility into what ultimately would be developed on the property.
Further he advised the applicant that as that information is very important in terms of the
residential aspect, for the Planning Commission to make a determination to move
forward in one fashion or another that information would be required as a package for
revIew.
Mr. Marquez interjected that he would like to comment. Chair Bonina responded that the
public hearing was closed and asked Mr. Marquez to speak directly with the Planning
Director after the meeting. Mr. Marquez interjected "this is a point of order because it
feels like you're conditioning a change of zone and that isn't something allowable under
the law. What is allowable under the law is that you take the application that's before
you on it's own merit. The development standards you're discussing are something that's
already written in the Code, we're not changing those. So what you're asking us to do is
give you exhibits and maybe this is where the continuance should take place. We accept
a continuance and come back with diagrams that show you how the garaging is or the
location where the house is going to be." Chair Bonina asked Mr. Marquez one more
time to please be seated and asked the Commissioners for further discussion or a motion.
Mr. Sheatz suggested to Chair Bonina there might be an opportunity to ask the applicant
if he would consent to a continuance based on the reasons cited by the Commissioners.
Other options available to the applicant were discussed by Mr. Sheatz, including
proceeding to City Council with a denial ofthe application by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Pruett interjected that he thought posing the question to the applicant was
preferred and that by the applicant stepping forward and giving his view the Commission
would know what the alternatives are in terms of taking action-continuing or denying
the application. Mr. Sheatz interjected that the Commission had been put in an
unfortunate position as they were being asked to read the tea leaves based on the
conversations of Mr. Marquez with his client as to what they wanted to do. If there was
nothing they wanted to do and it was just a straight General Plan Amendment (GP A) and
Zone Change there could have been a thumbs up or down on the GP A and Zone Change;
however, unfortunately there has been some inclination as to what they mayor may not
want to do and as it was appropriately pointed out it may be subject to change.
Mr. Marquez replied that he liked the tea leaves analogy; they had intentionally separated
the project into two processes and now after having the input from the Commission he
would like to have a couple of weeks to meet with his client and to work with Staff to
discuss how they would like to proceed.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
5 July 2006
Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to continue the item and asked if they required a
date certain. Chair stated the applicant and Staff should work it out. Ms. Roseberry
interjected that if they don't have a date certain they would simply have to re-notice.
Chair Bonina reiterated that with the continuance, the information they were asking for is
some clarity as to what is being proposed for development on the property.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Enderby
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Bonina referred the adjournment process to Commissioner Pruett.
Commissioner Pruett stated this was his final meeting on the Commission and he had
enjoyed working with each of his fellow Commissioners; it had been a adventure at
times, very exciting at other times and overall a very pleasurable experience. He
encouraged others that had an interest in doing something to serve the community to get
involved.
Mayor Mark Murphy and Councilman Jon Dimitru attended the meeting. Mayor Murphy
acknowledged Commissioner Pruett's contributions to the City, thanked him for a job
well done and acknowledged there will be a presentation at the City Council of a
Resolution in recognition of Commissioner Pruett's years of service.
Commissioner Bonina advised there is also a Resolution from the Planning Commission
being formulated.
Each of the Commissioners expressed their personal appreciation for various facets of
their interaction with Commissioner Pruett.
Commissioner Pruett thanked Mayor Murphy and all of his esteemed colleagues then
moved to adjourn the meeting until the next scheduled meeting on Monday, July 17,
2006.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:02 p.m.
Page 7