Loading...
2003 - January 20 MINUTES APPROVED Planning Commission City of Orange January 20, 2003 Monday - 7:00 p.rn. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-01, ZONE CHANGE 1208-00, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15750, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 249-02, VARIANCE 2113-02, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 30-02, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1647-00 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. The project is the subdivision of 109 acres into 183 dwelling units with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft., providing a 6 acre park site, adding a bridge for a recreational trail over Santiago Creek and reserving land for a grade- separate recreational trail crossing for Santiago Canyon Road. The proposal includes a project alternative that dedicates 2 acres for a private equestrian center and reduces the size of the proposed 20,000 sq. ft. proposal to 8,000 sq. ft. The zoning classification for approximately 12.60 acres located in the central area of the northerly half of the site is zoned Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft. (R-I-8), while the remainder of the subject site is zoned Sand and Gravel (S-G). This item was continued from the October 7, 2002, October 21, 2002, November 18, 2002, and December 2, 2002 meetings. This item is proposed to be continued to Wednesday, February 19, 2003 per applicants request. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1647-00 was prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Article 7 - EIR Process. The Planning Commission's review will include consideration of a statement of overriding consideration for environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the item to the meeting of February 19,2003. Chair Smith addressed the item for a continuance. APPROVED January 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue the agenda item to the February 19,2003 meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2002. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina approve the Minutes from the November 18, 2002 meeting as submitted. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: (3) Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: VARIANCE 2114-02 - TONY & LETICIA TRABUCCO A request to allow the expansion of an existing single-family residence without the required on-site parking that would cause the demolition of an existing historically contributing garage structure. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential - 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LDR). The zoning of the site is Duplex Residential (R-2-6). The site is located at 450 South Orange Street. This item was continued from the January 6, 2003 meeting. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities Accessory Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 02-03 approving Variance 2114-02. Mr. Rice presented project by recapping what had happened during the last meeting concerning this item. Based on the last meeting's split vote, the staff had prepared four (4) optional designs that the Commission had requested for consideration. Mr. Rice explained the differences between the four (4) options. Chair Smith asked for clarification as to why item was continued. Mr. Rice explained that the result ofthe voting for the item was a split-two (2) votes for approval and two (2) votes for denial. Procedurally, a tie vote is considered as a denial. The applicant had 2 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes January 20,2003 the option to request to bring the project back to the commission with a five (5) member attendance to break the tie, which he chose to exercise. Commission Bonina asked ofMr. Rice if the applicant is aware of the four (4) options available to him; Rice replied that Project Manager Chuck Lau has worked with the applicant and the applicant is aware of his options. Commissioner Pruett asked what the code requirement is for the minimum distance between the garage and the house structure. Mr. Rice replied that it is five (5) feet. Commissioner Brandman asked if Chuck Lau could discuss the decision with the applicant. Mr. Rice replied that Chuck Lau is not available to speak, Commissioner Brandman may ask the same question of the applicant later. Commissioner Bonina asked whether the drawing is indicating the required set back for the garage off ofthe alley, on the side, in option number four (4). Mr. Rice replied that the zoning code does not have a required set back; however, in the Old Towne area, because of the architectural requirements for wood siding, from a building code standpoint, the three (3) foot side and rear yard set back for the structure would satisfy California building code requirements. Chair Smith invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Tony Trabucco (450 S. Orange St.) explained that there was opposition to the project previously because of the parking situation. Mr. Trabucco presented some data he had collected on the number of cars parked on the street between 9 am and 10 pm for about two (2) weeks. He concluded that since there are a total of forty-six (46) parking spaces and he observed a maximum of twenty-five (25) parked vehicles, there is not a big parking issue. He explained that the original intention is: 1) To restore the front porch of house and losing a bedroom. 2) Keep the original single-ear-garage, with some storage space added. 3) Add an additional single parking pad in the back of the property. Mr. Trabucco confirmed that he did speak to Chuck Lau concerning the options. His preference is to keep the project as the way it was originally presented. His second preference would be to put a driveway on the side of the house, which is not an option offered by staff, but he is proposing, presenting new drawings to the commission. He added the obstacle with this option is the fire hydrant that is currently located in front of his house, which would require to be moved in order to accomplish the addition ofthe driveway. Chair Smith asked several questions of Mr. Trabucco: 1) The age of the garage. Mr. Trabucco expressed that he believes it's around eighty-nine (89) years old, he's assuming it's the same age as home. There have been some modifications to the garage. 2) Number of cars in his household. Mr. Trabucco replied that there are two (2). 3) Will the current garage hold a car? Mr. Trabucco replied that it would hold one of the two cars they own; one of the cars is too large. Commissioner Brandman explained that whatever the commission approves, it has to go with the lot, so if the owner moves, the rules goes for the next tenant. She continued to ask if there was a hypothetical driveway in the front, how many cars could be accommodated on that driveway. Mr. Trabucco replied that he believes three (3) or four (4) cars can be accommodated. Commissioner Brandman continued to ask if the fire hydrant is directly in the way of the driveway, or what would happen to the number of parking spaces ifthe hydrant was moved. Mr. Trabucco replied that the fire hydrant is ten (10) feet on the inside of his property line. Mr. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2003 Hohnbaum continued to explain that Mr. Trabucco would have to move the hydrant to have enough space to accommodate a driveway. One option is to move the fire hydrant across the street, where there is already a red curb, which will negate the need for deleting an additional parking space. The presence of a parking spaces causes a parking space to be lost because of the set back requirements, so where-ever the hydrant gets moved to, it will take its lack of parking space with it, so there would not be any net loss of parking spaces on the street. Chair Smith asked who would be responsible for paying for the moving of the hydrant. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that ifMr. Trabucco desires to have the hydrant moved to gain the driveway, he would be responsible for the cost. Mr. Trabucco added that he was informed the cost would be around $6500 or more. Chair Smith asked Mr. Trabucco ifhe would like to give the alternative he has presented as an additional option to what the staff has presented. Mr. Trabucco replied that he would like his newly presented option to be considered, but only if the city would share in the cost for moving the hydrant. Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Trabucco ifhe had a preference, first or second choice, of the four (4) options presented by staff. Mr. Trabucco replied that he would prefer to go with his original proposal because the four (4) new options presented by staff requires him to lose a good portion of his backyard, which he feel strongly about keeping. Mr. Trabucco suggested another option, which is to put a parking strip on the south side of the property. Chair Smith asked for advice from staff concerning code regarding stacking or tandem parking. Mr. Rice explained that the zoning requires that a driveway be provided from a street to a required parking. Required parking is a two-car garage, then the driveway would come into that garage. The alternative would keep the existing garage and have a driveway go down the north side or the south side, which is another variance issue--a driveway that does not lead to a required parking stall. Commissioner Pruett commented he feels the commission is making this an unusual complex issue when it's not. The applicant wishes to request for the variance because he wants to keep the character of the house, as it relates to the neighborhood of Old Towne. All the discussion concerning cutting into the driveway and such will have significant change to the neighborhood. Commissioner Pruett is concerned about the nature of the changes staff has presented. He feels the focus should be on the applicant's original proposal-the commission should vote yes or no on the applicant's original applicant. If the vote is no, then the applicant will have the decision to either build a two-car garage as required by code, or to appeal. Chair Smith asked for clarification concerning the presence of a variance request and four (4) additional options to the design. Mr. Rice replied that the original request is just for the variance to the two-car garage code requirement. The four (4) options were presented in response to the previous meeting's discussion concerning parking and design options the commission had explored. Staff recommends approval of the project based what is submitted in exhibit 3-29. Chair Smith asked Mr. Trabucco ifhe is losing some of the backyard space is because the proposal includes an addition to the house at the backyard. Mr. Trabucco replied that he would lose both the backyard and front yard. Commissioner Bonina asked staff where would the applicant bring the project back to in the event that the variance gets denied, back to the Planning Commission or to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Rice replied that if the new proposal meets zone codes, then it does not come back to the Planning Commission. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 Commissioner Brandman expressed that she thought the purpose was to provide additional parking to the property that would enhance the applicant's property, along with the changes the applicant is requesting. She asked if the applicant has the option to put bricks down on the proposed pad so it can either be used as a parking space or as a patio. Also, she inquired whether the Design Review Committee had reviewed this project and had they determined that the existing garage should be demolished. Mr. Rice replied that the charge of the DRC is an architectural review board. They have reviewed the project as presented and recommend the approvalofit. The policy call about should this property, the circumstances of this property in Old Towne, at this location, are such that the granting of the variance of reduction from city's development standards is the purview of this body only. Chair Smith asked why the applicant's proposal is not included as a proposal. Mr. Rice replied that it should be the primary option. Chair Smith asked Mr. Trabucco what his favorite choice would be. Mr. Trabucco replied his preference would be the original proposal. Chair Smith invited for comments from the public. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED: Janet Crenshaw (464 N. Shaffer) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . In favor of project because precedence has already been set, it limits FAR, and it maintains a historical structure. Chair Smith closed the public hearing and brought the discussion to the commissioners. Commissioner Pruett expressed that he does not have any problems with this project, he has a question for staff concerning what would happen if the historical structure in question "goes away", what would be required after that. Mr. Sheatz replied that a new structure would have to be reconstructed to current code, which is a two-car garage. But there is a time frame to rebuild under the pre-existing code if the structure were to be demolished by force of nature. If that time lapse, then the new structure has to comply with current codes. Commissioner Pruett added he wanted to bring that up so the property owner would have incentive to maintain the structure in question in good condition or he would be subjected to the new requirements. Commissioner Bonina asked what the size of the basement in the house was on the report. Mr. Trabucco replied it's around eight feet by eight feet. Commissioner Bonina continued and expressed his concerns pertaining to this project: 1) The possible contribution ofthis project to the parking problem in the Old Towne area. The increase square footage of the home is going from 884 sq. ft. to 2400 sq. ft., increasing the footage by 1471 sq. ft., yet not allowing the proper number of parking spaces. 2) The alley is small and it is close to commercial areas, with a lot of traffic around the area, which could be a contributing factor to the parking problem. Commissioner Romero expressed he can understand Mr. Bonina's concern about parking. He also had concerns with the parking situation and the question whether the garage is being used for storage or for parking. But he expressed he trusts the opinion of the professional architects and the residents of Old Towne, as expressed by Ms. Crenshaw, who are in support ofthis project. So in conclusion, he supports this project. 5 APPROVED January 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Brandman expressed that her position is based on the parking situation, which she feels is very important-which looks at the benefit of the many versus the few. Commissioner Bonina wanted to clarify if this variance is allowing for one (1) covered and one (1) uncovered parking space; in which Mr. Rice replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Pruett commented that this creates a problem because there are a lot of properties in the city that are non-conforming. Commissioner Brandman commented that the two (2) projects that were approved had a total of four (4) available parking spaces on site. Chair Smith expressed her opinions concerning the project: 1) She is fine with the plans the applicant has submitted because it allows for three (3) parking spaces. 2) She supports the project because the applicant has done extensive work to get the house back to the original form, as support by the original owners who are now in Oregon, and presented pictures and many details. 3) There is value in retaining the existing garage. 4) She does not agree with Commissioner Bonina concerning the increase in footage since a large part of number was for the attic, which is left with 885 sq. ft. of living space. 5) She commends property owners who invest in properties next to an alley and commercial properties. 6) Her understanding is that the commission is not supposed to do tandem or stacking parking, so she would support the applicant's original proposal. Commissioner Brandman expressed that she does not see the three (3) on-site parking spaces that Chair Smith had expressed in her comments. She believes the garage is too short and the parking slab space behind the garage is also too short. She feels the garage may be able to accommodate a small or compact car, which the applicant does not have. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adopt resolution PC 02-03 approving Variance 2114-02. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioners Bonina, Brandman None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Rice explained the policy for appeal is the applicant or any interested body may apply for an appeal by contacting Mr. Chuck Lau, the case planner, and file with the Community Development Department within fifteen (15) days. 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS (4) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16332, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2420- 02, AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 233-02 - FIELDSTONE / HElM STREET A request to subdivide a 5.7 acre site and allow for the development of approximately 3 acres with 24 single-family residences. The proposal includes an application to create a PUD (Planned Unit Development). The zoning of the site is R-2-6 (Residential, Duplex, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet). The General Plan land use designation for the site is LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential, 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre). NOTE: The environmental impacts of the proposal have been reviewed per approved Negative Declaration No. 1560-99. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 07-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16332, Conditional Use Permit 2420-02, and Minor Site Plan Review 233-02. Chair Smith addressed this item and asked ifthere were any opposition to this project. Since there were none, Mr. Rice was waived from reading the full staff report. Mr. Rice read the proposal as presented in the agenda item. He introduced Mr. Chris Carnes, the case planner, to continue to explain the project. Mr. Carnes explained that the proposal before the commission is the development of half of the vacant parcel up at the southeast comer of Heim and Canal. The tentative tract map proposes to divide the tract map into twenty-five (25) lots. Lot twenty-five (25) is the westerly half, which is being reserved for some future development, either as residential, as allowed by the general plan zoning or by the church, which owns the property. Staff recommends approval of proposal with thirty-three (33) conditions. There is a request for change to condition number twenty-six (26), if the project is approved, to be revised to read, "dedicate Canal Street to the City of Orange for street and utilities purposes", but currently reads, "dedicate and construct Canal Street to the City of Orange for street and utilities purposes." Mr. Carnes concluded his presentation and invited questions. Commissioner Pruett asked of Mr. Carnes: 1) Is lot number twenty-five (25) is included in the CC&R, which is an agreement for the entire site outlining specific responsibilities? Mr. Carnes replied in the affirmative. There is a ten (10) foot wide landscape easement to buffer the appearance of the proposed property and lot twenty-five (25) and there is a drainage easement that goes across the south side oflot twenty-five (25) that is being developed for the proposed dwelling development. They are all tied together. 2) Is there shared parking. Mr. Carnes replied that staff does not know what lot twenty-five (25) is going to be developed as. 3) Is there access between the proposed project and lot twenty-five (25)? Mr. Carnes replied that there isn't. Commissioner Bonina asked ofMr. Carnes: 1) These are two (2) separate lots? Mr. Carnes replied that it is not currently, but is being proposed as two (2) separate lots. 2) Why would the city require a dedication of Canal Street, as stated in condition number twenty-six (26)? Mr. Carnes replied that it is because the total proposal includes both the 7 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2003 twenty-four (24) lots for the homes and the undeveloped lot, which would require development at a later point in time, which will relate to Canal Street. 3) Would the dedication along Canal Street also affect the lot that is not a part oflot twenty- five (25)? Mr. Carnes replied in the negative. Chair Smith invited applicant to speak. Mr. David Greminger (14 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach) the project manager for project used a power point presentation to present the project. He gave a quick overview of the project, including: 1) The location of the project. 2) A comparison of the newly proposed project and the previously proposed project (approved in January 2000.) 3) The site engineering: a. Site entry. b. Improvement of Heim and Canal streets c. Addition of storm drain. d. Improving on existing boundary walls. e. Study of traffic, which states no significant impact. f. Meeting the parking requirements. g. The landscape plan. 4) The architecture of the project--two (2) floor plans, with three (3) elevations. 5) Project benefits: 6) Down-zoning of previous plan, 7) Installation of street improvements on Heim Ave., 8) Enhanced landscaping, 9) Diversity of architectural styles, 10) Quality single-family housing. Mr. Greminger concluded his presentation and invited questions from the commission. Chair Smith asked: 1) What is the approximate square footage of the houses? Mr. Greminger replied 2,449 to 2,686 sq. ft. 2) What are the minimum and maximum lot sizes? Mr. Greminger replied that average lot size is 3,775 sq. ft. Mr. Rice added that the smallest lot size is 3,344 sq. ft., and the largest is 5,848 sq. ft. 3) Concerning the landscape that is running north and side of the property, in light of the increase in crimes, she would like to address the landscaping with that issue in mind. Commissioner Bonina asked: 1) Is there any kind offencing on lot D? Mr. Greminger replied that there is fencing along the backside of the tot lot, but the front of the tot lot is not currently planned to have fencing along the street edge. 2) What improvements are planned for the tot lot? Mr. Greminger replied that there is play equipment planned for the tot lot, and then there are some passive areas-turf and such. 3) Concerning lot number twenty-five (25), once the development has commenced, is there any provision to have the larger lots fenced off? How will it remain? Mr. Greminger replied that the church will continue to have ownership oflot twenty-five (25) after the proposed development, and he can not speak on their behalf and do not know what the church's plans are, other than their plans to keep the site fenced off until it is developed. 4) Concerning the average lot being 3,775sq. ft., does the design allow enough space for a two (2) car garage and two (2) driveway spaces? Mr. Greminger replied in the affirmative. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 Commissioner Romero asked what the proposed refurbishment to the block wall on the south and east would entail. Mr. Greminger replied that it would be either sandblasted or added stucco for aesthetics, but the structure is sound and there are no plans to change the height of the structure. Chair Smith asked for the location of the ten (10) additional parking spaces on the street, and the length ofthe driveway. Mr. Greminger pointed them out on the drawing and added that the length of the driveway is a minimum of twenty (20) feet. Commissioner Brandman asked the applicant ifhe was making any adjustment for security on the wall that backs up to WalMart. Mr. Greminger replied that the project is not offering any sort of fencing for those homes, but offer a security system that can be added during construction. Chair Smith reminded everyone that the action of the commission concerning this project is to decide whether they recommend the project to City Council or not, the Commission's action is not final. She also commented that she would like to add to the conditions that the tot lot on the curve be required to have fencing for safety concerns. Chair Smith invited comments from the public. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetical Order): H. A. Boehner (8891 N. Canal St.) June Kunkel (2592 N. Canal St.) Pastor Martin (1250 E. Heim Ave.) Trip Reinke (15666 Hesse Dr., La Mirada) Joyce StOry (2525 N. Bourdon) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . This is the best project out of all the ones that have been seen. . This proj ect will enhance the land value in the area. . Would prefer to see lighter colors on the exteriors of the properties. . This project could potentially create a lot of income for the city. Mr. Greminger addressed the public's comment concerning the color, stating that the color scheme presently shown, which are light in tone, has been reviewed and approved by the DRC, and they are indicative of the architecture. Chair Smith asked if the applicant is open to putting a fence at the tot lot. Mr. Greminger replied that he is. Comments from the commission included: . Commissioner Bonina is pleased with the proposal. He does not see any issues except the fencing at the tot lot area. . Chair Smith asked for staffs opinion of the addition of the fencing to the tot lot. The consensus is that other commissioners agree. . Commissioner Brandman echo the sentiment of Mr. Bonina. . Commissioner Romero concurred. . Commissioner Pruett concurred. 9 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20,2003 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to City Council the adoption of resolution PC 07-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16332, Conditional Use Permit 2420-02, and Minor Site Plan Review 233-02 with these modifications to conditions: 1) Condition number twenty-five (25) to read, "dedicate and construct Heim Avenue frontage to city standard." 2) Condition number twenty-six (26) to delete "and construct", to read, "Dedicate Canal Street to the City of Orange for street and utility purposes." 3) Amending the landscaping and irrigation plan to include fencing of the exterior perimeter to lot D. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED (5) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-0002, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1214-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428-02, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 259-02, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1704-02 - ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ROBERT MICKELSON) WITH COOPERATION FROM THE CITY OF ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CITRUS COMMUNITY APARTMENT) The proposed project involves the construction of a 29-unit multi-family affordable housing development on property involving six parcels, two of which are presently vacant. Total project site area is approximately 1.45 acres. The project is intended to provide housing for low- and very-low income residents. Based on State guidelines, a four-person household in Orange County with a household income of $54,400 is considered low income. A similar size household with a household income of$37,800 is considered very-low income. Project implementation would involve the demolition of two small commercial buildings at 1005 and 1031 W. Chapman Avenue, a single-family residence at 1037 W. Chapman Avenue, and a residential duplex at 112-116 N. Citrus Street. A total of 62 parking spaces would be provided to serve the site. A common open space area would be provided as an amenity for the apartments. The site is located at the northwest corner ofW. Chapman Avenue and Citrus Street (1103 W. Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1704-02 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is December 21, 2002 through January 10, 2003. Written comments must be received in the office of the City of Orange Community Development Department by 5:30 p.m. January 13,2003. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 06-03 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2002-0002, Zone Change 1214-02, Conditional Use Permit 2428-02, Major Site Plan Review 259-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1704-02 10 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 Because there was opposition from the public regarding this project, a full staff meeting was required. Mr. Rice introduced the item, then Ms. Karen Sully, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Sully gave a power point presentation of the material that is presented in the staff report concerning the project. In summary, the project characteristics include: . Twenty-nine (29) units on six (6) parcels, . 1.45 acres, . Affordable to low and very-l ow-income facilities (per County Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development affordability guidelines.) . Sixty (62) parking spaces (18 carport, 42 open), . Density bonus to allow twenty (20) units per acre. . 24,706 sq. ft. of use able open space. . Building complies with all code setback requirements. . Lot coverage is 25%, 45% is maximum allowed under R3 Zone Ms. Sully also explained the Density Bonus: . Requested GP land use designation ofLMDR would allow 6-15 units per acre (representing a maximum of22 units on the project site.) . Municipal code provides for density bonuses for affordable housing projects. . Applicant is requesting 7 additional units over what would be allowed under LMDR land use designation. She explained that this project would provide a small portion of the city's need for affordable housing. Questions from Chair Smith included: 1) Which of the lots are to be demolished or are new acquisitions. Mr. Rick Otto replied that Lot 39 is currently a retail business, Lot 12 is vacant, Lot 38 is retail, Lot 10 is a single-family home, and Lot 9 is vacant. 2) Why was Lot 14 not acquired? Mr. Otto replied that Lot 14 was not acquired because it was not available. 3) Is there ingress and egress on both Citrus and Chapman? Ms. Sully replied in the affirmative. Ms. Sully continued with her presentation, explaining: . There is an interior recreational area, laundry room computer room, and leasing office. . The elevation of the design reflects a contemporary version of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, based on Old Towne and local area wide architecture and architectural influences along Chapman. . The landscaping compliments the architecture. . Traffic and parking studies show little or no adverse impact to be expected. . Statements from Orange PD, Orange Fire, Water, and utility companies state they have reviewed the project and would be able to serve the project site. . A letter from Orange Unified School District said student generation rate would be 5 students for the site. . Project has been reviewed by the SRC and the DRC, whom were in favor ofthe project with conditions. 11 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20,2003 . There was a neighborhood meeting held November 13,2002 where input from the neighbors was gathered. Most of the neighbors oppose the project based on crime, traffic, parking, and overcrowding of schools. Ms. Sully summarized the project and stated that staff is recommending that the project move forward with conditions. She then asked Ms. Linda Boone, Economic Development Director, to continue the staff presentation. Ms. Boone addressed the following issues: . The state mandates that 20% of state economic development funds be dedicated to affordable housing. . There is need for decent affordable housing in California. . Why this project has taken the direction it has and how the OHDC came to choose this location. . Why the selection of Spanish Colonial Revival style. . Goal to obtain March's tax credit deadline, to bring $2 million in addition to the normal tax money. . Studies that supported property values of homes surrounding affordable housing increase at the same rate as homes in other areas. . Management includes incentives for people in units and managers to be good neighbors and good managers. . Past projects proved projects are not overcrowded. . Questions and Answers to common questions: Q: Why don't you build senior units instead? A: We are required by law to build based on need. We've assisted over 200 senior units and 7 family homes, and the numbers need to be proportional based on state requirements. Q: Will this affect values of homes in adjacent neighborhoods? A: This project is Tax Credit housing, not HUD projects or Section 8 housing. Students' show that Tax Credit Projects do not cover property values if they are well managed. Values raise equal to similar neighborhoods without Tax Cut Projects. Q: How do you know the units will be well managed? A: We have projects OHDC has done in the past that will prove OHDC has been able to manage units. Chair Smith asked who would monitor who will live in the apartments? Ms. Boone replied that OHDC would make sure trees are trimmed, trash is taken care off, and the tenants will follow city rules. They also have their own rules for the tenants to live by. Questions from Commissioner Bonina included: I) Are all the units designated as affordable housing and what is the length of time of that designation? Ms. Boone replied that all the units are affordable housing and new rules states it has to be for the "life of project." 2) Please explain the ten (10) years tax credit. Ms. Boone replied that the investors receive ten (10) years of tax credit, and fifteen (15) years expenses off of passive income. 3) What is the capacity per unit? Ms. Boone replied the formula is two (2) plus one (1), meaning if there are two (2) bedrooms, then the capacity would be five (5) (for every bedroom, there are two capacity, plus one). However, none ofOHDC's projects contain as many people as allowed by that formula. 12 Planning Commission Minutes APPR 0 VED January 20, 2003 4) Please clarify the school impact analysis, which stated the number of increased students would be five (5). Ms. Boone explained that they had met with the school and this was the number the school district provided. Many of the children in units already go to Orange Unified Schools. 5) Statistically, how many children would be expected in each home? Ms. Boone referred to Mr. Eunice Bobert to address that question. 6) Why do so many units need to be built? Ms. Boone replied that the goal was to build the maximum number of units that would block view and noise from Chapman for the existing homes, but small enough to look good in the neighborhood. Commissioner Romero asked if Ms. Boone can explain the state mandate on redevelopment funds--buy properties, sell to partnership-process. Ms. Boone replied that the redevelopment agency is a separate agency than the city. There are designated redevelopment areas in Orange, and a certain amount of tax money goes to the redevelopment agency to be used for economic development. Twenty (20) percent of that money has to be for affordable housing or else money has to be returned to state. Commissioner Romero asked if the Redevelopment Agency has purchased the properties and sold it to a developer. Ms. Boone replied Redevelopment Agency only works with nonprofit agencies, whom would have the same goals the Redevelopment Agency, does. The nonprofit agency, in this case, OHDC, would manage the project, including obtaining the financing, develop the project, and manage the project. Commissioner Pruett stated the nonprofit organization was formed due to Orange being found in noncompliance of the state's requirement for affordable housing. He also asked if Ms. Boone knew the formula for calculating those requirements. Ms. Boone replied that Commissioner Pruett is correct about the forming of the nonprofit organization and that she does not know what the formula is for the calculation. At Commissioner Pruett's request, Ms. Boone re-explained what affordable housing is, compared to Section 8, HUD, and other housing programs. Ms. Boone then introduced Mr. Eunice Bobert to continue the presentation. Mr. Bobert is the CEO ofOHDC, a nonprofit organization with a fifteen (15) volunteer member board. He briefly explained some of OHDC' s past projects and their success. Chair Smith asked what is the process for the selection of tenants, what would cause someone to be passed up, and when do people risk being evicted. Mr. Bobert replied that the applicants go through a thorough criminal background check, credit check, employment verification, interview, and a visit to their current residence before they can be selected. A number of reasons can cause someone to be passed up, including bad credit or criminal records. The policy for eviction for these tenants is the same as everywhere else, with the addition that they may be evicted if they violate ground and/or lease rules. Chair Smith expressed that affordable housing normally goes into older neighborhoods, but it is not so in this case. Mr. Bobert replied that they build wherever they can obtain property. Mr. Rick Otto cited samples of the Redevelopment Agency's past projects: . Garden Community Apartments at Memory Lane, . Casa Ramon - 75 units, rehab units -located at Batavia and Walnut, . Pixley -- south of Chapman - senior, 15 units, . Triangle Terrace - senior project, 13 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2003 . Tustin - Harmony Creek, Chestnut Creek - senior project, . Tustin - rehab acquisition, Wilson, Adams, Rose - duplexes and four-plexes, . East of 55, the Knolls, Prospect, north of Chapman - 20 units on Prospect, . Escondido - 25 units, . Villa Modena - 5 units Chair Smith commented that when the city refurbished the properties, they do not count, statistically, as affordable housing, but they do exist. Commissioner Brandman asked whether the tenants know they have to be good neighbors not only to their immediate neighbors, but also to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Bobert replied that the tenants have to sign a list of rules that include guidelines on how to be good neighbors. If there are questions, the property manager's handle it first, ifit doesn't get resolved, then comes to him. Commissioner Romero asked how many properties his organization handles and what are the history of the complaints. Mr. Bobert replied his organization handles around fifteen (15) projects and the complaints include loud music at night, or storage problems, things of such nature. They have all been resolved. Mr. Bobert introduced Mr. Cottle, who is the manager, who added that pictures of the tenants are taken before they move in, so the managers know who can live in units. Over crowding is not tolerated. Commissioner Brandman asked what the ratio of apartment and parking was, and if the spaces are assigned. Mr. Cottle replied that there are sixty-two (62) parking spaces for twenty-nine (29) units, which translates to about two (2) parking spaces per apartment. He added an existing twenty-seven (27) unit project in Orange has only thirty-eight (38) parking spaces and it is sufficient. Chair Smith asked to verify some numbers: twenty-nine (29) units, including manager's unit, and sixty (60) or sixty-two (62) parking spaces. Mr. Cottle replied there are twenty-nine (29) units total and sixty-two (62) parking spaces. Chair Smith asked if the management would be open to conditioning that all the tenants are required to park onsite. Mr. Cottle replied that he would be. Commissioner Bonina asked that in event that someone has to be evicted, is it a different process than market units? Mr. Cottle replied that same exact eviction laws apply here as everywhere else, and the managers do not hesitate to take action. Mr. Bob Mickelson was then introduced and added to the presentation. He reiterated some of the same points that were presented earlier and made himself available for questions. Chair Smith addressed members from the public for comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED: IN FAVOR (in alphabetical order): Darlene Alvarez (723 W. Chapman) John Aust (219 E. Chapman) Fred Barrera (2724 E. Lakeside) Toni Carlton (3106 Hillcrest Ave.) Cesar Covarrubias (1033 E. Cumberland Rd.) 14 APPP~'TJ:D January 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes Isabel Crist (2819 E. Walnut) Sister Marie Gaillac (480 S. Batavia) Janice Mickelsa (Box 270, Running Springs) Betty Murril (603 E. Almond) Sister Nancy O'Connor (480 S. Batavia) Scott Parker (1040 N. Elizabeth PI.) Ernestine Ransom (2608 Park Lake, Santa Ana) Judy Reynolds (842 Fairmont Way) Cheryle Rout (2411 N. River Trail Rd.) Larry Sallinger (203 E. Monroe) Robert Torres (4525 Aqua Way) Bill Utter (806 N. Batavia) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . In favor of project to provide the state's required affordable housing units. . There is a great need for affordable housing. . Neighbor who lives close to project and is for the project. . This project is good for the community. . Not enough remaining land in Orange to develop affordable housing. . Impressed with quality of construction and management of all organizations involved. . Likes design and aesthetics ofproject. . Have seen how thankful tenants of affordable housings are and want to provide more, through projects such as these. . Most people would be opposed to project until it is developed and they see how successful it IS. . Experience with OHDC staff has been excellent. . Project will serve immediate community and provide housing for local work force (St. Joseph's Hospital). . There is no statistical evidence that supports the concept that properties like these will cause depreciation of the surrounding areas. . Single mother with four children, homeless, living in motels; wants safe, affordable housing; works in a family law office nearby; would walk to work, and her kids could walk to school. IN OPPOSITION (In alphabetical order): Lois Barke (2022 W. Spruce) Cindy Baker (1051 Arbor Way) John Baker (1051 Arbor Way) Kimberlv Bottomly (1005 Arbor Way) Scott Bottomley (1005 Arbor Way) Randv Debson (181 Jewel PI.) Terry Jackel (140 S. Citrus St.) David W. Kent (1111 W. Almond Ave) Mark Malheim (1217 W. Maple Ave) Jerry Mayes (1049 W. Arbor Way) Kim Minter (180 S. Lime St.) Vasanthi Okuma (173 N. Jewell) Deann Pacheri (1111 W. Chapman) Laura Pacholl (335 S. Glassell) Wendy Pacholl (238 N. Jewell PI.) Ron Peterson (172 S. Lime St) Janet Schmitt (1033 W. Arbor Way) Scott Sheeks (157 N. Citrus) 15 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 Jenny Shih (2104 W. Palm Ave) C. Smith (119 N. Jewell PI.) Mary St. Marseille (1060 W. Arbor Way) Gene White (155 Jewell PI.) Dick Yarger (939 W. Chapman) Sheryl Young (1135 W. Maple Ave) COMMENTS INCLUDED: . Do not want apartments in area. . Chapman is entrance to city, so should not be lined with apartments. . Housing density is too large and the open space too small. . The neighbors have been mislead to think there would be less children. . It would be preferred that there is senior housing in this place so there would be no traffic-- less cars. . The high density of homes will cause the air quality to decrease -- emissions from all the vehicles . The thirty-six (36) inch boxed trees will not help and insulate from emissions. . Comparison of this proposed project and past projects--neighborhood impacts from past projects are not as adverse because: 1) past projects were refurbished, 2) less traveled streets, 3) condos set up, 4) does not share backyard with homes, 5) not next to busy intersection, and 6) entry driveways do not travel through single family homes. . Two (2) story project will impede view of stars from neighbors. . Kids will be on Chapman, which is a big street with much traffic. . Schools are already overcrowded in area. . Will cause parking problems. . Applicant has not given surrounding businesses proper notice. . The character of the neighborhood is being damaged by this project, it's "denuding" and "hardening" the image of the neighborhood. . The potential of crime in open parking and carports. . This project would be counterproductive to the neighbor's quality oflife. . Welcome commercial properties, but do not want this project in this neighborhood. . The computer room would mean a cyber cafe, where people get shot. . The redevelopment agency proposing this project doesn't care about the community, but only cares about the tax shelter it provides. Mr. Mickelson addressed the issues that the public speakers had spoken of: 1) Regarding inadequate open space and play area - the project exceeds the requirement by code, and is an enclosed and secure area. 2) The lighting will meet code. 3) The overcrowding of schools has been addressed. 4) The project will enhance the neighborhood, not diminish it. 5) Traffic can be addressed by the traffic study. Commissioner Pruett stated there was one neighbor asking about the placement of the trash receptacle. Mr. Mickelson said they could relocate it and make sure it would not be next to the neighbors' backyard. Commissioner Bonina stated there is a public comment card addressing the height of the building and the impact on views. Mr. Mickelson responded that a conscientious effort was made to keep apartments fifty-five (55) feet from the residences. Higher walls were discussed, but did not want to give the impression that this complex has to be walled off from rest of world. 16 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 Commissioner Bonina asked: 1) Is the opening to Chapman lined up with Lime St. or offset? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that it was addressed, but it's not lined up, there's no need to line up. 2) Are there any plans for striping or enhancing a crosswalk on Chapman Mr. Mickelson replied that there is currently a pedestrian crosswalk at Chapman. 3) Does the widening of Chapman affect this project? Mr. Hohnbaum replied that the widening will not occur along this stretch. 4) Raised carport and open space safety issues. Mr. Mickelson replied that enclosed garages would create more problems because management will not be able to control whether it's for storage or parking. 5) Has a noise analysis been performed? Mr. Mickelson replied that it could be addressed. 6) Asked about project access to Chapman. Mr. Mickelson replied that the play area is secured and supervised, but there are pedestrian access points, as requested by the DRC. When asked by Chair Smith if the applicant would be willing to take a continuance of the item Ms. Boone and Mr. Bobert explained that they are on a very tight schedule and because of the tax credit deadline by the state, the applicant is looking for an action by the Planning Commission tonight. Commissioner Bonina asked what is the time frame for tax credit. Ms. Boone replied that it is March; but there are a lot of things that need to be done between now and then including spending $75,000.00, which the redevelopment agency is not willing to spend until it knows that it can obtain entitlements. Concerning the lateness ofthe hour, Chair Smith asked Mr. Sheatz for counsel. Mr. Sheatz suggested the commission call for a recess to ask the applicant of the next project whether they would be willing to take a continuance until the next meeting; then to go back and take action on this item. MOTION Moved by Chair Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to take a brief recess from the discussion of this agenda item. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED Mr. John O'Brien, who represented the next agenda item was addressed by Chair Smith and was asked ifhe would be willing to continue his project until the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. O'Brien replied he would like to have this item heard and acted on tonight. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue with agenda item number five (5). AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED 17 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes January 20,2003 Commissioner Brandman asked if a decision cannot be made, could the City Council make decision without the commission's approvals. Chair Smith replied that the City Council can, but would suggest that everyone state their feelings to the Council concerning the pressure for time and all the concerns they may have over this project. Commissioner Pruett expressed that this applicant is like any other--asking for a thumbs up or thumbs down-so the Commission should concentrate on the issues and take action based on that. Ms. Boone added that no matter how the commission votes, a list of concerns would be helpful for the agency to use to respond to City Council. Chair Smith expressed her concerns: 1) Children's access to Chapman, 2) Condition that tenants must park on site, 3) Keep children out of their own parking lot, 4) Thirty-six (36) inch box trees may be large enough for mitigation to north neighborhood, 5) What happens when tenants exceed their income level, 6) Open space not easily accessible to east end of apartments, 7) Trash enclosure's location, 8) Ingress and egress on Chapman Avenue, 9) Crosswalk from property to Chapman and Main commercial stores, 10) Uncovered parking spaces on back wall being noisy to neighbors, 11) Clarification of number of units and parking spaces. Commissioner Brandman's concerns: 1) Clear screening for adjacent housing--Iow level lights, car ports with tops, etc., 2) Traffic circulation, 3) Would prefer to see less units and one (1) story structure, 4) Promote more neighborhood participation. Commissioner Pruett's comments include: 1) Good project, lots of work, 2) Environmental report [MND] has addressed all issues, 3) Circulation is good with the location, as far as the property allows, 4) Parking issue is not a big problem, 5) Safety of children on Chapman - ask Mr. Hohnbaum to give number of occurrences, 6) Location of trash bins need to be addressed, 7) Like where the common open space is--under supervision of management. 8) Doesn't see a need for low-level lights, as long as they're directed properly. There is a city code that allows only so much lighting to bleed into surrounding areas. Chair Smith asked for clarification of the number of units and the computer room. Mr. Mickelson replied that there are sixty-two (62) parking spaces and twenty-nine (29) units. The computer room is part of an after school program that is required to help children with their schooling. Commissioner Romero comments included: 1) Observe that existing projects that have been done; shows they've done a good job, managed well. 2) Traffic - retail has much more visits than residential. 3) Asked for clarification on how tenant's income will be monitored and how it will be dealt with. 4) Don't see concern of Citrus access. 5) Agree about trash enclosure. 18 APPROVED January 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes 6) Concern about children's safety. Mr. Mickelson replied to some of the comments: 1) They will commit to double-glazed windows, to help with the noise level. 2) There are twenty-nine (29) units, which does not generate a lot of traffic 3) There would be no off street parking because there is sufficient parking to be managed on site --assign one (1) space per unit, then open space for first come first serve. 4) There are other projects on E. Chapman that have applied a density bonus, and management is the key. 5) The thirty-six (36) inch box trees were increased from twenty-four (24) inch already, which was approved by the DRC. Larger boxed tree's growth may be stunted in the boxes. 6) Trash locations will be moved. 7) Will participate with city to explore options and/or needs for crosswalk. 8) If project has to be one story, it would not be feasible and there would not be a project. 9) Concerning neighborhood participation - there will be a full time onsite manager, plus Mr. Bobert has his number posted everywhere. 10) Tenant's income is tracked every year as they must go through a re-qualification process, as long as they don't exceed 140% oftheir income. But if they can't pay their rent, then they get evicted. Chair Smith closed the public hearing and brought the discussion to the commission. Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Hohnbaum if there is a historical problem on Chapman Ave. Mr. Hohnbaum replied that there have had accidents on Chapman, but nothing exceptionally high, comparatively. Commissioner Bonina stated that there are a lot of questions still not answered, but the commission needs to rely on the applicant's history--who has done it right in the past. Chair Smith explained she's going to vote against the project because: 1) The density is too intense for the site; 2) Wants to see fewer units; 3) Doesn't like the open parking behind the residences; 4) Doesn't like the openness to Chapman Ave-there should be childproof gates, play area is inadequate for range of children; and 5) Doesn't want to be rushed to make decision when issues have not been addressed. Commissioner Brandman concurred with Chair Smith. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Pruett to recommend to City Council the adoption of resolution PC 06-03 approving General Plan Amendment 2002-0002, Zone Change 1214-02, Conditional Use Permit 2428-02, Major Site Plan Review 259-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1704-02 with the added conditions: 1) The trash enclosure shall be moved from its current location; 2) The windows shall be double-glazed as appropriate for sound measures. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero None Commissioners Brandman, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 19 APPROVED January 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes (6) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16443 - GUTHRIE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A request for a tentative tract map for condominium purposes to allow the individual sale of tenant spaces within a multi-tenant industrial building. The subject site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial). The General Plan land use designation for the site is I (Industrial). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 et seq. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 05-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16443. Since there were no objections from the public regarding this project, Mr. Rice read the brief summary of the project from the agenda. He added that staff recommends approval of this proj ect. Chair Smith addressed Mr. Rice stating that he said the DRC did not review the proposal because it did not involve changes to the existing structure landscaping, but yet, Mr. Rice had cited there are going to be some changes made. Mr. Rice replied that a discussion with an architect is in the process to address this. Mr. John O'Brien explained that there is a demand for smaller buildings to be managed by an association, maintained by single body. Commissioner Brandman asked for a clarification on what a condominium business associations is. Mr. O'Brien explained that it is exactly like a homeowner's association. Commissioner Brandman asked if the applicant has any other projects in Orange. Mr. O'Brien replied they have one (1) in Orange and two (2) in Anaheim. Commissioner Bonina asked if there would be separate meters. Mr. O'Brien replied that the electric will be separate, but the association will pay for water. Commissioner Bonina asked what project is Tustin and Vine. Mr. O'Brien said that it is a multi- family project. Chair Smith closed the public hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to recommend to City Council the adoption of resolution PC 05-03 approving Tentative Tract Map 16443. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED 20 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 20, 2003 INRE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting February 3, 2003. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 1 :00 am January 21,2003. 21