Loading...
2003 - April 7 (!,). oM . 6-.,.2. .J. "APPROVED" MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: (1) April 7, 2003 Monday ~ 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith Commissioners Bonina, Romero Jim Reichert, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: ORDINANCE NO. 4-03 - INTERNET CAFE'S A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Sections 17.04, 17.10, and 17.18 of the Orange Municipal Code in order to provide definitions and procedures for the establishment of amusement arcades or similar commercial gathering places where electronic games are played, including, but not limited to, video, computer, or Internet related games. This item was continued from the February 3, 2003 and March 3, 2003 meetings. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue this item to the May 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting per staff request. Chair Pruett addressed the item for a continuance. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to continue the agenda item to the May 19,2003 meeting. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: (2) Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioners Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2003. Chair Pruett addressed the item. Planning Conunission Minutes April 7, 2003 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to remove the Minutes from the March 17, 2003 meeting from the consent calendar to be revised based on Commissioner Brandman's request for verification on items she questioned during the Administration Session. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Smith stated she feels Commissioner Brandman is asking to remove the minutes from the consent calendar because Commissioner Brandman wanted to go back to the tapes to verifY the intent of all the commissioners wanting to work with the Eli Home applicants, but the applicant did not desire to continue the project, but instead asked for an immediate decision. (3) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING - SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 THROUGH 2009-10 Review of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2003-04 through Fiscal Year 2009-10 to determine program conformance with the City's General Plan, as required by State Law. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Find that the projects identified within the proposed Seven Year Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the City's General Plan Policy. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to approve General Plan Conformity Finding. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: (4) Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2442-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 269-03 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CITADEL PROPERTIES ORANGE,LLC A request to construct two medical office buildings totaling 217,000 sq. ft. and a 1,089 space parking structure on property that is presently vacant and to allow the shared use of parking between two properties. The project is accompanied by a Development Agreement to allow phasing of project construction to occur beyond the time period allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The site is located at 1000 West La Veta Avenue. This item was continued from the March 17,2003 meeting. 2 Planning Conunission Minutes April 7, 2003 NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1714-03 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution No. PC 15-03 recommending the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2442-03 and Major Site Plan Review 269-03; and Adopt resolution No. PC 18-03 recommending the City Council approves a Development Agreement by and between the City of Orange and Citadel Properties. Staff Member Carnes presented the project as outlined in the staff report. He stated that staff recommends adoption of both resolutions recommending approval of the project and development agreement to the City Council per the staff report. Mr. Steve Bartlet (500 S. Main St., Orange) spoke on the project. He presented a slide show presentation to the Commissioners, which covered information contained in handouts that were given to Commissioners beforehand giving project description, projections, and highlights. He explained the site plan, showed different views of the elevation, landscaping plans, and project schedule. Vice Chair Smith asked Mr. Bartlet to address replanting in the event landscaping materials are damaged. Mr. Bartlet referred the question to Mr. Bill Rabben (Rabben Urban Landscaping), who stated that the document does address a plan for replanting or replacing landscape materials if they are damaged for a one (I) year period. Mr. Bartlet added that after one (I) year, the contracts show that the current property owners, whoever they may be, will be responsible for the landscaping, either through their property managers or by themselves. Commissioner Brandman asked staff if the commission may be allowed to include a condition for the applicant to guarantee continued maintenance of the landscaping. She also wanted to thank the applicant for taking her comments about the walkway into consideration and making it prominent. Chair Pruett closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Smith commented that the project is a much-needed improvement to the area and will provide needed medical services to the city. She feels strongly about including more than a one (I) year maintenance plan for the landscaping and wants to add, where appropriate, a condition regarding perpetual landscaping maintenance and replacement of a damaged plant materials. Chair Pruett stated that the maintenance plan is part of resolution 15-03, conditions 1-35. He explained that there are two (2) different resolutions; so there needs to be two (2) separate actions. MOTION Moved by Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution No. PC 15-03, recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2442-03, Major Site Plan Review 269-03, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1714-03 with one revision: 3 Planning Conunission Minutes April 7, 2003 I) Adjustment to condition number five (5), Resolution No. PC 15-03, page 4, that reads, "Prior to issuance of building permits, the Citadel shall submit final landscaping plans for review and approval by the City's landscape coordinator" to include a plan for replanting of damaged plant material for the life of the project, for both the building areas and the parking structure. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandrnan, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to adopt resolution No. PC 18-03, recommending to the City Council approval of a Development Agreement by and between the City of Orange and Citadel Properties. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: (5) Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE NO. 8-03 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Chapter 17.14 of the Orange Municipal Code in order to comply with a new state law related to accessory second housing units. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-03 recommending the City Council approve Ordinance No. 8-03. Staff Member Sherman Jones presented the agenda item. He stated this ordinance is in response to a new state law that eliminates discretionary review through a conditional use permit for an accessory secondary housing unit, thus making approval of accessory secondary housing units a ministerial action. The City will continue to have standards for accessory secondary housing units that include height, setback, building separation, and maximum floor area. The Design Review Committee will continue to review all structures within the Old Towne district to prevent any degradation to the historic structures or the historic district as a whole, whether they are contributing or non-contributing structures. Vice Chair Smith wanted to verify if it is correct that the state law still allows the Commission to have discretionary review in the historic district. Mr. Jones replied that is correct-as long as the structures are in a registered historic district, it doesn't matter whether structures are contributing or not. The City can still protect the whole 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2003 district because structures that are non-contributing also contribute to the whole of the district, so the DRC will still look at the materials for compatibility with the main structure. Vice Chair Smith verified again that this ordinance applies to all buildings within the one (1) mile square Old Towne, not just the area on the national register. Mr. Jones replied that is correct. Vice Chair Smith also wanted to verify if it is correct that the lots do not have to have a minimum size for the zoning district-allowing for very small lots with a lot of buildings. Mr. Jones replied that staff did look at that issue, but because the State is saying that the City cannot differentiate between how it treats secondary housing units and any other residential development, the City must treat all residential units the same way, not looking at substandard lots, or lots that may come through annexation, even if they don't meet the minimum lot size. The City has to allow secondary housing units if they meet all other requirements. Vice Chair Smith asked how the City can pick and choose which areas will have discretionary review and which ones will not. Mr. Jones replied that goes back to the state law provision that deals with historic preservation. Vice Chair Smith expressed concern over provision number four (4), which states the separation distance between a principle structure and a secondary housing unit will be reduced from eight (8) feet to six (6) feet-which will put eaves against eaves; and removes a minimum requirement for floor area for the principle unit. She requested for that item to be reviewed. Mr. Jones replied that the staff agrees with her concern, but because the law states that the City can not differentiate between the primary and secondary housing units, the City has to keep the codes consistent for both types of units, which currently calls out a six (6) foot separation for detached accessory units. Vice Chair Smith asked if the city can make sure that the units that are too close will not be allowed to have eaves. She expressed concern that the buildings will be too close to each other based on this ordinance. Vice Chair Smith asked for a verification of the difference between a mobile home and a motor home. She is concerned that this ordinance is saying that a person can have a mobile home on a property and still build a second accessory unit, which will allow three (3) living units-a primary structure, a secondary structure, and a mobile home, all on one lot. Mr. Jones replied that the intention is that if a person has a mobile home-a manufactured home, he/she may still have an accessory housing unit that can also be a manufactured home, not to be confused with a motor home. Vice Chair Smith suggested that could be spelled out more clearly. Commissioner Brandman wanted to clarify that a mobile home is the same as a manufactured home-a home that can be split apart and be moved. She expressed concerns with Orange Park Acres-which has mobile homes, motor homes, CCgranny flats" and how this ordinance could create possible problems in East Orange as well as in Old Towne. Ms. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, replied that under state law, a mobile home is defined as a manufactured home, is permitted and cannot be discriminated against, and has to 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2003 meet the same standards as a stick built residence and has to be permanently affixed to a foundation. That is different than a trailer or an RV that can be moved and does not have to be fixed in place. The State or City does not allow people to live in those two (2) types of structures. State law is saying that manufactured homes or mobile homes attached to a foundation cannot be discriminated against from having a secondary unit. State law dictates that, and the City does not have control over that. She added that concerning granny flats, that is handled on a daily basis from complaints. Concerning the eaves, there are some building and fire code requirements related to fire concerns, but the city cannot distinguish or discriminate against manufactured homes, applying a higher standard for these homes compared to stick built homes/residences. Chair Pruett questioned that since the State has said these secondary units have to be treated like any other secondary building, why are we addressing secondary units and not just all-dwelling units. He is concerned that the secondary unit is going to have inferior requirements and will result in substandard housing units. Mr. Sheatz replied that the city does not want to treat secondary units like <cdwelling units" because even though the State is saying that the City does not have discretionary power, the City in fact does have discretionary rights pertaining to development in the historic district based on the proposed ordinance amendment. He clarified that if the City strikes secondary units completely from the code, the City will not be able to impose certain code regulations to the secondary unit, such as the unit size. Chair Pruett asked if this state law would create a secondary dwelling unit on every property. Mr. Sheatz replied that he does not know if that is the case, but that is what the State has dictated and we will have to decide on how to apply the law. Vice Chair Smith asked if this only applies to the Rl zone. Ms. Angus replied that it also applies to multi-family zones, if such properties are only developed with a single home. She addressed Chair Pruett's question, replying that the City would not want to take out the code concerning the secondary unit because it would not allow the City to dictate the upper limit and lower limits. The recommendation from staff concerning this ordinance was done as an effort to give the City as much control as the state law will allow. Chair Pruett suggested that the city needs to look at how this new law will impact the City, and the City may need to revisit and reanalyze all the City's residential codes concerning parking, size, separation of buildings, etc., to not interfere with the State's requirement of equal treatment, but instead reinforce that the City is trying to create that equality without wiping out the upper limit that Ms. Angus has suggested. Ms. Angus concurred that the City may need to go back and look at the City's codes. But for the time being, there is a certain deadline date that the City has to respond to, or the state's law will take precedence and the City will have no regulatory control in Old Towne. Commissioner Brandman asked if a manufactured home appears on a site, what course of action does the City have ifthere is not a home owner's association and the unit has two independent homes and one home does not have a bathroom or a kitchen. Also, what ifthere are two units on one lot where two separate families are living. What course of action does the City have? Can the commission hold another study session regarding this? Ms. Angus stated that, regarding the issues raised by Commissioner Brandman; there can be another study session. But concerning the issue of two separate full living units on one lot, the City has the discretionary power to require a conditional use permit. In terms of Orange Park 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2003 Acres or home owner's associations, they may have the ability to invoke their own standards, outside of the state's standards. Commissioner Brandman added that people are not supposed to be able to sell the secondary unit separately, but it has happened and she has concerns regarding this issue. Ms. Angus replied that in that case, if someone wants to subdivide a lot, it has to meet certain zoning code requirements. Vice Chair Smith wanted to verify if the state is saying this is a way to help provide affordable housing, are these units currently being counted toward affordable housing goals, and if it can be retroactive, counting old properties. Ms. Angus replied that the State is saying this is a way to help provide affordable housing, it is currently being counted, and the City has counted the secondary units as affordable housing units in the past. Vice Chair Smith expressed concerns for the mobile homes that are coming in, which this State law is saying there can be two (2) mobile home units in Old Towne or in Orange Park Acres. Ms. Angus reiterated again that manufactured or mobile homes that are affixed to a permanent foundation cannot be discriminated against and treated any differently than a stick built home. Chair Pruett added that in the Old Towne, it has to adhere to the Old Towne standards. Ms. Angus replied that is correct. Vice Chair Smith asked if she could add a condition in the action to request stafflook at separation of buildings in all zones because of the rodent problem. She also asked Ms. Angus to verify whether she said the City might have the discretion to require a CUP. Ms. Angus replied that currently the City requires a CUP, but the law that became effective January I" gave the City until June 30th to eliminate that discretion, no longer allowing a requirement for a CUP. The only discretion is if a City does an extensive study that shows in a particular area secondary units would overburden the City's infrastructure system, then the City can map out those areas and say that secondary units will not be allowed. Such a study would require thorough and in-depth general plan analysis. Vice Chair Smith asked if the general plan is up for review soon, and if so she would recommend that this issue be addressed, especially in Old Towne where many of the lots are substandard. Ms. Angus replied that the General Plan is up for review soon. Commissioner Brandman stated the commission has recently approved a secondary addition for an applicant and the commission stated that they might not have a kitchen because the commission did not want the applicant to have a full secondary living unit. She stated that this ordinance would allow them to have a kitchen, so she asked if the City should address this issue for any current applicants so that this will not present a problem later. Chair Pruett and Ms. Angus replied that in that applicant's case, they were not allowed to have a kitchen because they had exceeded the allowable size. 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2003 Chair Pruett asked the commissioners that since they have to meet a deadline for the State on this ordinance, could the commission go ahead and take action on the ordinance and then address the issues they were concerned about for staff to follow up separately. All the commissioners agreed. Commissioner Brandman stated that she is requesting that the minutes include all the comments that the commissioners have made to go on record to the City Council. Chair Pruett closed the public hearing. MOTION Moved by Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adopt resolution No. 16-03 recommending to the City Council the approval of Ordinance No. 8-03 with the change that strikes out cCmobile home" on page two (2) of the staffreport. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioners Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Smith stated that she made the motion with reluctance because it takes a lot away from local control in the community, that she put forth the motion because it is the law, but she would like to input suggestions for staff. She also added she does see an advantage of counting the secondary units as affordable housing units. Chair Pruett asked Mr. Sheatz if a motion is required to direct staff on the commission's suggestions. Mr. Sheatz replied that no motion is needed. Chair Pruett stated that his comments involve the general plan and codes related to residential zones, questioning if there are minimum standards that the city needs to look at because of the impact of this law. Vice Chair Smith commented that she would like to make sure that secondary units be added to the affordable housing unit count, wanted to request staff to look at building separation codes- fire, rodents, crime--in all zones. She also expressed concerns about having two (2) manufactured homes on one parcel, in any location or zone. Her biggest concern is to ensure that staff analyze this issue during general plan review, to look at what areas are already overburdened with secondary units, and possibly being able to add a requirement for CUP's in those areas. Chair Pruett added that he's not sure the city can look at what impacts this law has, but to look at ratio, bulk and mass, open space on properties, and other issues. Commissioner Brandman expressed concern for Orange Park Acres-suggesting that the City review the OPA plan to see what the zoning code says concerning granny flats, two (2) families on one property, parking, and sewers. She indicated that what applies to Old Town should also apply to OPA. Chair Pruett addressed the issue concerning the proximity of buildings, suggesting that staff needs to look at it from a bulk and mass perspective, not just fire codes-some fire codes allow buildings to be close together depending on the material being used. 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2003 Commissioner Brandman suggested mandating more open space in OP A because of the potential impacts posed by the presence of horses. There may be cases where people want to put two structures close together and the City needs to be concerned with those buildings being put close together because of odors and other issues related to horses, chickens, etc. even though it may be a large lot. Chair Pruett stated that concludes the suggestions from the commission to the staff. INRE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Vice Chair Smith to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, April 21, 2003 at 6:00 pm for a Study Session regarding the upcoming Fieldstone/Sully Miller project located on Santiago Road, east of Cannon Street. AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith None None Commissioner Bonina, Romero MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm April 7, 2003. 9