Loading...
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 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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