Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission May 4, 1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 20. 1992 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1992 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1959-92 - VALERE A. AND HELEN M. TARDIF A request to build a 2-story structure in the Residential Combining District. Orange Municipal Code Sections 17.26.110 and 17.68.030 require that the applicant's plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Subject property is located on a residential parcel on the north side of the street, 110 feet east of Shaffer Street, addressed 521 East Washington Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. This item was continued from the April 20, 1992 meeting.) The public hearing was closed at the April 20 meeting; however, the Commission voted to re-open the hearing: Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to re-open the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff briefed the Commission on this item. It was a second unit in the R-2 zone in the Residential Combining District. It is two stories in height Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 approval of the conditional use permit. The item was heard at the April 20 meeting. At that time two major issues arose: 1) the request for approval of an administrative adjustment to allow a 221/2 foot backup area in the garage space into the alley rather than the 25 foot required; and 2) concern regarding privacy and the large window facing northward out of the master bedroom. The Commission asked staff to discuss the potential revisions to the site plan to resolve the problems. Staff has talked to the applicant's architect. A revised site plan has not been received, but received a letter from the architect that they would be willing to abide by the amended conditions: That the building be set back an additional 21/2 feet from the rear property line, decreasing the distance from 15 feet to 121 /2 feet between the two structures, and also that the rear window on the second floor have translucent glazing or be view obscuring for the bottom portion of the glass. The Commission has the authority to make a final determination on this item. Applicant John Linnert, architect for the project, 1980 Continental, Costa Mesa, requested the administrative adjustment for the minimum back up of the garage onto the alley. He provided information addressing the issue to staff and is willing to make all the accommodations the Commission is requesting, but took issue with the backup requirement. Per his graphics standards book, it states a standard turning radius is 22 feet 5 inches. A car is able to be backed up in the 22 1/2 feet requested area. The separation between buildings is five feet more than the standard. Chairman Cathcart explained at the last meeting the administrative adjustment was denied. It would require a motion to override it. Commissioner Bosch said the other key issue was relative to vision from the second floor northerly bedroom window. He wanted to know what was proposed for that window that might be acceptable in terms of preserving light without causing direct intervention into the yard. Mr. Linnert said it was possible to provide an obscured glass on the lower sash (eye level) and they are willing to accommodate that requirement. Commissioner Scott thought the alley was only 14 feet wide. Mr. Johnson believed the legal dimension of the alley was 15 feet. The applicant is to provide 10 feet to make it 25 feet. Opposition Veral Pitsenbarger, 524 East Almond, requested both panes of glass be obscured if possible. But if only the bottom half is obscured, that's fine. He asked that the glass be conditioned to remain obscured because he was fearful once construction was completed, the glass would be made clear. Rebuttal Mr. Linnert preferred the lower portion of glass be obscured. The public hearing was closed. 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Chairman Cathcart asked the Commission their thoughts about the administrative adjustment. Commissioner Bosch said the difficulty was they could not guarantee what vehicles would be moved in and out of the property for future property owners. Although the applicant recognizes there may be a building separation where there is a garage immediate opposite, that's not necessarily the case. He personally feels the City needs to maintain the standard. To relax it, poses a liability to the property owner as well as to the City. He was against re-opening the debate on the denied administrative adjustment. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1959-92 subject to conditions 1-S, as stated in the April 24, 1992 memorandum, amending condition 2 by adding the words "permanently installed" glass to the last sentence. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE 1152-92 - SANTIAGO CREEK ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP A proposed draft of a Development Agreement between the City of Orange and Santiago Creek Associates regarding future development rights and assurances on a 33 acre site, located west of Tustin Avenue, east of Cambridge Street and north of Fairway Drive and includes 5.2 acres commonly known as the former Rosewood tract. Additionally, the Planning Commission may choose to discuss the General Plan Amendment/Planned Community District booklet, to determine whether the document has been revised in accordance with the conditions of approval specified by the Commission at their April 20, 1992 hearing. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an addendum to previously approved EIR 1143 has been prepared. This item was continued from the April 20, 1992 meeting.) Mr. McGee stated the Commission had received a draft of the Development Agreement between the City of Orange and Santiago Creek Associates, aS well as a memo from him regarding the Agreement. It has been reviewed by the Assistant City Attorney and Mr. McGee, as well as discussions with other key staff. The purpose of the Agreement is to establish the terms of the development during the life of the Agreement. The major points include: term of the Agreement is 7 years from the Agreement approval; the project will be developed as approved by Council subject to all of the conditions of approval and current regulations and fees; flood control improvements will be provided, not only through the project, but additionally extended west of there to the Cambridge Street bridge; at the request of the City, a one acre pad will be created by the developer within the open space area for a community organization such as the Y.M.C.A. or some other similar organization; funding or funding 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 mechanism for maintenance of the project open space will be provided; and if the June 2 Proposition Y passes, it is agreed by the City and property owner that the land value would be negotiated exclusive of any value enhancement created by the current entitlement request. Subsequent to the memo, Mr. Herrick and Mr. McGee discussed with the land owners' representative at quite some length some additional points of information within the Agreement which they felt was important to have corrections made. Before the meeting the Commission received a packet of corrected pages. The pages should be included with the proposal. Mr. Herrick said there was one additional page provided to the Commission, which has been reviewed and accepted by the developer's agent. It should be added to the proposal. Applicant Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 616, Newport Beach, explained the process that had occurred over the past week. They came to an agreement on the general terms of the deal points for the Agreement and they provided staff with those changes. From their perspective they don't believe any of the deal points have changed as a result of the modifications. Mr. McGee and Mr. Herrick asked for certain clarifications so that the wording would be clear and they agreed to do that. Commissioner Master asked if it were their intent to use Mello Roos? (No, not as of this date.) The Commission wanted staff to acknowledge if there was concurrence on their part regarding the changes. Mr. Herrick briefly looked through the changes and they appear to reflect the changes requested. There was one issue not fully resolved having to do with some technicalities in the assignment clause. That can be resolved and is not a problem. He pointed out a great deal of the difficulty in coming to exact language was created by the fact the City adopted an ordinance that has a form agreement written into the ordinance. That form agreement does not fit all stages of development; it needed clarification. Commissioner Scott asked if other department heads had a chance to review the changes? Mr. Herrick responded the changes had not been reviewed by any department head other than Mr. McGee. Mr. Elfend said the changes were made to specific issues raised by Mr. Herrick. Those items were primarily planning issues, which he had discussed with Mr. McGee. There were no changes made to other sections that any other department head would have participated in. Those speakina in opposition Mary Anne Skorpanich, 292 Cambridge, submitted the following comments on the Development Agreement: To leave the Santiago Creek in its natural state. A greenbelt channel is still a flood control channel. It falls short of the stated mutual goal of 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 the City and community of Orange. Their request is to amend the Development Agreement to require Santiago Creek's design as that of a natural creek with a recreational trail. She read into the record their definition of a natural creek and asked that it be included in the Agreement. They also asked that Exhibit E be amended to include their design criteria for improvements carried out under the Agreement (both on and off site). Four additional corrections to the document were requested. Lisa Blanc, 368 South Orange, expressed her concerns over the Development Agreement and the project. She was unaware of this project and she thought there were other people in the same position. She thought the zoning was inappropriate for the area. Traffic was a main concern. How was the public noticed? What is a Development Agreement and what does it mean? She requested more public notification in the future. Mr. Godlewski responded notification for the project was done through the assessor's parcel rolls (within a 300 foot radius of the project site). A development agreement is an agreement between the developer and City. It guarantees certain development rights to today's current development standards. The development would be subject to those rules m effect at the time the Agreement is signed if the development standards should change in the future. Chairman Cathcart explained the Commission has been put in an awkward position. Time constraints have been placed on them as the City Council wants to hear this item prior to the June ballot. Rebuttal Mr. Elfend would be happy to talk with Ms. Blanc and explain the nature of the request. The request isfor aloes-medium density designation and many of her concerns could be answered. This is a refinement of the goals and objectives of the Greenway Alliance Committee -- the people they have worked with for some time. He had a draft memorandum prepared by the Greenway Alliance Committee dated January 9, 1992. It specified design criteria of what they desire to see that creek be designed as. They used that as the basis of their design criteria. This is an evolutionary process and they will continue to take constructive comments and incorporate them into the process. They have tried to the maximum extent possible to have the creek drive the development plan. They used the Urban Edges study as the basis for a subsequent design. They've come a long way from other plans that were submitted. He would like to obtain a policy decision and move forward with a plan that would define the General Plan parameters. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch had questions with regard to the Development Agreement: Page 6, Paragraph M -- clarification needed on the definition of "disproportionate share" and it's legal impact. Mr. Herrick assured the Commission he looked at that as being legally defensible. Page 5, Paragraph K -- reference to a timely manner --clarification of the legal definition requested. 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Mr. Herrick responded those kinds of phrases will be interpreted as reasonable in the context of the Agreement and the normal development process. Page 13 and other places in the document -- descriptions of the project consisting of a total of 240 residential units -- looking for a stipulation that as per the General Plan Amendment that it can be indicated "not more than" or "not to exceed", whichever language is legally appropriate. Mr. Elfend responded when they sat down with staff, it was staff's request as part of the Development Agreement there be further concessions relative to the provision of off- site improvements at Cambridge, as well as some provision for maintenance of the open space area, it was discussed they would have the ability to provide for a total of 240 units, provided they were consistent with the existing rules. This was a deal point to them in making those concessions. Mr. Herrick said there were interests in preserving certain kinds of words in certain places. In the corrected version (Page 13) handed to the Commission before the meeting, language has been inserted which specifies that the project shall consist of a total of 240 residential units and the number of square feet of commercial use as are permitted or conditionally permitted in accordance with the zone change provided, however, that the application for a tentative tract map, site plan or conditional use permit shall be in compliance with the zone change and the existing rules. As the tentative tract maps come m, there could be situations m which compliance with the current standards would necessitate fewer than 240 units being approved on the project and the applicant is acknowledging that possibility. Chairman Cathcart was concerned in that everything should be consistent between what is being said in the General Plan Amendment and the Development Agreement. It was unanimous at the last meeting that the terminology "up to 240 units" be used. Mr. Herrick said the applicant felt the other language implied a discretion beyond what the normal development standards and processes currently allow, and they were trying to work within that concern. Planning staff's position has been that the 240 units is acceptable so long as they can meet all the criteria of the current standards and goals. Page 15, middle of the page, "The parties agree...." -- there was confusion because it appears that certain things do not carry over to the succession and ownership of property, and other things do. Clarification is requested on the intent. Mr. Herrick said the assignment clause is the one area they have not finalized the language. The intent is to provide that the property owner has the free right of assignment of his interests, but any assignment of duties is going to have to be in a proportion to assignment of the interest in the land and cannot be set up so that a small interest in the land would acquire all the duties and therefore there would be no economic interest to proceed. They are trying to finalize this between the two attorneys. Page 16, additional words being added to Paragraph 3.4 -- has Mr. Elfend seen this? Yes, it was faxed to his office.) Page 25 -- would like to see that kind of language occurring whenever there is a reiteration upon the caveat of the City not to impose conditions for consistency throughout the document. 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Page 28 --the same thing occurs (bottom of the page) relative to needing an addition for future state or federal law. Page 30, middle of Paragraph 4.4 -- indicates the development approval process as provided in Section 4.1, yet Section 4.2 refers to those future state and federal laws. The sentence needs to be clarified. Page 31, last sentence of the primary paragraph -- "To the maximum extent permitted by law..." -- whose dollars and how is it determined? Mr. Herrick said the City has a constitutional obligation to defend any such initiative ordinance and they have changed that language to reflect the City will cooperate with them and not impede their ability to challenge the initiative, but they recognize the fact that in any such lawsuit, the City would have to be on the other side of the issue. The wording has been changed and is in the 6:30 p.m. packet. Page 32, top portion of the page -- what protection does the applicant or City have in that regard under law given the wording of the sentence? Clarification is requested. Mr. Herrick suggested to clarify it to the extent that any such action delays progress on the project, that they would have that time extension. Commissioner Bosch said there is no vehicle to assure protection against an action taken to intentionally delay the project by either party causing an addition of time to the actual delay. Mr. Herrick said the City is not going to be able to maintain an action for the purpose of delay. The City has an obligation to defend an initiative that might create a delay, but once that obligation is exercised in bad faith, there would be some difficulty under the Agreement. Page 32, last sentence of the same paragraph -- shouldn't the sentence say City or owner? It's a 50/50 agreement and each has obligations. Counsel for the Lyon Company explained the last paragraph. It is to provide some assurance to the developer that if there is an action pending, which is delaying the project, that the benefits and entitlements under the Agreement would still continue until such time as it is resolved. That sentence still needs to be clarified for the record. Mr. Herrick said the Agreement provides that the developer would indemnify the City for the costs incurred if there is a challenge to the Development Agreement. That is a financial obligation of the developer. Page 32, Paragraph 4.5.2 -- requirement of future state or federal laws should be included. Page 33, Paragraph 4.5.4, first sentence -- what does agrees to support mean? It's a broad statement from the public's point of view. There was concern with the implication that there might be some financial support of the development. 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Mr. Herrick said the intent was a good faith obligation of the City to continue the process. The language can be changed. Page 37, conclusion of Paragraph 5.4.3 at top of page -- applications and development in accordance with the existing rules. Is there a need to reiterate the critical ordinances or standards of the City in terms of grading, landscaping, fire, building, security, public works approvals, etc.? Or is the language sufficient to indicate that those would be in place at the time of adoption of the Agreement and would include those? Mr. Herrick believed the existing rules definition does give a laundry list of examples, which are in Section 5.4. The Commission felt reiteration was needed and language should be included for clarification. Page 42, Paragraph 6.6 -- Imposition on other owners -- needs to be clarified. The wording was a little vague. Mr. Herrick said the Agreement, as far as fees are concerned, provides for payment of the developer impact fees that would be payable anyway. That concern can be addressed. In this case, the developer will be building all the capital facilities without obligations of other owners. Mr. Elfend said this was part of the model Development Agreement ordinance and they would not be opposed to deleting it. The existing rules was misquoted. It is noted on Page 20, under 4.1. Page 47, Paragraph 9.2 -- Enforced delay, extension of time or performance. It appears to allow certain extension of privileges or time of performance without regard to negligence, potential fault, etc. on the part of either party. There was a concern about the words "excused performance". Clarification was needed on limitations of litigation or similar basis for excused performance, which would again provide for an extension of time. Mr. Herrick said that could be tied back to the language discussed earlier to make sure it is consistent. Page 49, Paragraph 10.3 -- Foreclosure. According to this, anyone who comes into possession of the property pursuant to foreclosure, takes the property free and clear from any obligations under the Agreement. How does that relate to the G.P.A. and zoning? Are they mute at that point? Mr. Herrick said it should be obligations and benefits. The zoning would remain as that was a legislative act, but the vested right to the zoning would dissolve. Page 51, Paragraph 11.1.2 -- is another place for inclusion as the exception for requirements of future state or federal laws in the first sentence. Commissioner Master was concerned about the language "up to 240 units". On Pages 34 and 35 consistency is needed. Exhibit E - "minimum of". 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Mr. Herrick responded that language has been changed as of the 6:30 packet. The applicant's concern was if a lesser amount of units was approved, it would present a financial hardship to construct some of the off-site improvements the City was requiring because of the Development Agreement. As a result, that language has been changed -- If fewer than 240 residential units are ultimately approved, it no longer refers to a minimum of 240 units; it merely provides a mechanism for dealing with what happens if they don't get 240 units and it provides for some sort of proportional reduction in the down stream flood control improvement obligation. This language refers to one particular set of improvements, which is the improvements between the boundary line of the project and Cambridge bridge. Chairman Cathcart said they're trying to get a consistent language to ensure that all parties in the document are consistently handled. The Commission was looking for clarification. Commissioner Murphy said there was concern expressed regarding the corrections and updates. Did Mr. McGee feel comfortable with the requested change of language? Mr. McGee said he was with Mr. Herrick in meetings this date. The legal aspects are well understood by Mr. Herrick. The time frame has not allowed in-depth discussion with other departments, but they have made brief efforts to keep other departments updated. He feels comfortable with the changes. Commissioner Bosch stated the Commission was concerned about the short period of time for review; the complicated complications and on-going negotiations; the agenda set in terms of timing. They encouraged staff and City Council to engage deeply into this to find answers to the ambiguities. They put their caution on those things that are muddy or are of concern at this time. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to recommend to the City Council: Mr. McGee's review of the last additions by departments and looking for a full review by the departments and recommendations to the City Council in ample time prior to their hearing to assure that any questions that might rise could be answered prior to their decision. That the City Council consider the implications and desirability of approving this Agreement at the time of the approval of the tentative tract map rather than at this earlier time. Inclusion of all of the changes and modifications placed before the Commission in the 6:30 p.m. document subject to confirmation by all the applicable department heads prior to City Council action. That the document be conformed to assure substantial conformance of wording and in key instances relative to the applicability of future state and federal laws; and to the maximum limit on dwelling units per the General Plan Amendment, zoning, and the stipulations of the Agreement, wherever they may appear throughout the Agreement, as well as to correction of typos and providing clarity of definition of the existing rules. Spell it out and provide the laundry list for that m the appropriate location. Repetition is essential with full reference. 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Assignment clauses have been indicated to need substantial work to assure continuity and proper assignment of both the obligations and the benefit of the Agreement under a variety of different future scenarios. Given the ambiguity in the assignment clauses in the document, the Commission is unable to make a recommendation as to their adequacy. The addition to Paragraph 3.4 between the last two sentences, proposed by the City Attorney, and stipulated by the developer, relative to setting property value based upon general plan designation and zoning applicable to the property prior to the G.P.A. and zone change in the Agreement, to be included. That on Page 31, the constitutional obligations of the City, as well as its obligations and rights under existing City ordinances be clarified relative to the definitions of challenges to initiatives; and obligations of the City during any of those challenges clarified. That on Page 32, Paragraph 4.5.1 be modified to state however unless enjoined no such action or proceeding shall excuse the City from its obligations to provide benefits or entitlements required under this Agreement. That on Page 32, Paragraph 4.5.4 be amended to clarify ambiguity relative to the statement the City agrees to support and make its indication relative to the process involved rather than to financial support for the project development. That Paragraph 6.6 imposition on other owners be analyzed in detail to explain the limits and to eliminate ambiguous language. The applicant has agreed to delete this paragraph.) That on Page 47, Paragraph 9.2, the limitations and obligations relative to litigation or similar basis for excused performance be clarified. That on Page 49, under Paragraph 10.3 -Foreclosure, be amended to indicate that the mortgagee be free and clear from any obligations and benefits under this Agreement. That Exhibit E look to clarification of the intent relative to the one acre pad for community services and analysis of the impacts that clarification or definition in the light of the General Plan Amendment and zoning approvals to be sure there is no conflict with those. A concern was expressed by the public regarding the definition of a natural stream bed -- it's a problem with regard to any of the options assignable to this given what may occur relative to the Corps. of Engineers and E.M.A. The Commission was concerned about the definition of the natural creek, as well. There is a gray area between that and the property rights beyond the Commission's right to assign at this time. They encouraged further investigation of providing a naturalized stream bed consistent with the historical aspects of the stream in the area under normal conditions that also accommodates the flood protection requirement necessary for this community down stream and preserves the pre-existing development rights of the developer. 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 The Commission asks the Council to consider the viability of the two options for the stream bed and to lean towards a more: naturalized solution given outside constraints imposed upon the final configuration of the stream. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Cathcart assured the public the City would not stop reviewing and having concern over the document and ultimate plan. Validation of the General Plan Amendment Commissioner Scott questioned the open space on the north property line on Page 2? Under the fifth bubble it was talking about single family type land, but a P.U.D. contains two to four units per development. He has not yet seen the Urban Edges study. He questioned the exhibit under the General Plan Amendment (Exhibit 2) which shows the access to Tustin at the south edge rather than at La Veta. He felt that should be corrected. On Page 7, it states the Public Works Department has conceptually approved apre-channel design. The memo from Jack Brotherton dated April 7 states they have not approved it. Has Public Works conceptually reviewed the project? Yes.) Consistency was again encouraged throughout the entire document. Commissioner Bosch referred to the memorandum of April 17 from staff. Does staff feel Item 18 has been adequately handled relative to Page 31 ? (Off site improvements has been moved to Page 33.) Mr. Elfend said there was a memorandum from Joan Wolff dated May 1. They discussed with staff and made corrections based on those discussions. Staff felt comfortable with the changes. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1147-91, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1947-91 -REEVES ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS FOR PEP BOYS A proposal to demolish a portion of an existing shopping center and construct a Pep Boys automotive retail and service facility. The requested zone change is from C-1 Limited Business) district to C-2 (General Business) district and the conditional use permit is to allow automotive repair and service uses on property adjacent to a residential zone. The previously requested variance permit for additional wall height has been withdrawn. The project site is located on the north side of Katella Avenue 400 feet east of Glassell. The site also has frontage on Glassell Street 150 feet north of Katella Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1400-91 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the April 6, 1992 meeting.) 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Ms. Wolff reviewed the staff report and gave a brief update. At the previous hearing several issues were raised requiring further study and discussion. The request is to construct a Pep Boys automotive retail and service facility within an existing commercial center. The project would require demolition of a portion of that center and construction of a 22,000 square foot building containing 10 automotive service bays. This type of use is permitted only in the C-2 zone rather than the C-1 zone and is allowed only by a C.U.P.; therefore, it necessitates the zone change which has been requested. In the past month the applicant has prepared additional material for the Commission's review and response to the questions raised (i.e., noise, signage and landscaping). A revised acoustical report was submitted; it finds that the City's noise standards can be maintained utilizing block walls no higher than six feet. The original study indicated that an eight foot high block wall would be needed to mitigate noise impacts. The variance request was filed to authorize fence height that exceeded the City's six foot height standard. The Commission has the revised noise study and a letter from the applicant withdrawing the variance request. Additional materials submitted include a landscape plan for the northerly planter area and some elevations showing the proposed signage. Applicant Larry Reeves, Reeves Associates Architects, 417 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, covered the technical questions. They agree to post signs as stated in condition 11. The current managers of the shopping center are responsible to maintain the center and they believe the managers will continue to do so. They will operate between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays; 9-6 on Sundays and agree to only deliver during the week -- not on Saturdays or Sundays. Condition 14 has been modified to reflect those hours. They were requested to study the area adjacent to their building and to the residential zones next to their property. They engaged a landscape architect and he had conversations with City staff. Staff has asked for some modifications. They have not as yet gone to the Design Review Board for a full landscape plan; it's pending a final layout approval. The plans reflect fairly dense landscaping along the property line. Currently there is no landscaping along the wall. He did have elevations showing the signage. The two main elevations (south and west) will have signs. They've mitigated the noise issue so that the eight foot wall was no longer requested. However, if the neighbors still have complaints and want the wall, they will seek a variance to build the eight foot wall. They have talked with many of the neighbors and want to work with them. Chris Clinton, 3320 Greenbriar, Dallas, Texas, had prepared a brief statement which he passed on to the Commission; then he summarized it for the public. He represented the owner of the improvements and was here to explain the principal advantages to the City of Orange, as well as to explain what they feel are certain hardships they face as owners of the improvements known as the shopping center. They have read the new staff conditions and agree to them. Those speaking in opposition AI Lelchuck. 1431 North Grand, asked if the Commission had received his letter dated March 23, 1992 and if they have had a chance to review it. A petition of over 50 signatures was also submitted from neighbors on the other side of the proposed wall from the shopping center. The homes on the other side of the center are two story homes; therefore, any kind of wall isn't going to shield the upper stories from sound. He is concerned about fumes and is upset about hours of operation (specifically on 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 weekends). The demographics of the neighborhood have changed at Katella and Glassell. People change their oil and work on their cars in the street now; he felt this activity would continue in the parking lot. Rebuttal Mr. Reeves said they meet the setback requirements of the City. Their building will be fully fire protected and will meet all the fire laws. Through the use of a sound consultant and in meetings with staff, they meet or exceed all the laws. Pep Boys will cooperate with everyone and will police their building and property to prevent social problems. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy was concerned about the noise studies. Mr. Reeves said their consultant recommended the block wall in his initial study as a safety factor over and above the code. The calculations have always shown a six foot wall would solve the problem. Chairman Cathcart commented on the landscaping. In the updated staff report it was suggested to delete the proposed escallonia shrubbery, but he would like to have it remain. There may be some reason why that recommendation was made; he suggested staff and applicant work together. The suggestion to substitute Gazania Mitsuwa yellow for the proposed Gazania Mitsuwa white is appropriate and that the rosemary be eliminated and substituted with other similar plant material. Commissioner Bosch looked to staff for clarification on the impacts of the enclosed loading dock within the proposed zone given its proximity to the property line. It's unclear from the applicant's documents exactly how far that enclosed dock is from the boundary line on the north. He wanted to be sure that with the withdrawal of the variance, the enclosed dock still conforms to the development standards for the proposed zone. Ms. Wolff responded the zoning standards as far as setbacks in the C-1 and C-2 zones are the same for rear yard setbacks. That is, a 10 foot rear yard setback is required only when a structure exceeds either one story or 20 feet in height. In this case, there is the 24 foot building setback 20 feet. The loading dock does not reach a height of 20 feet and therefore is acceptable within the setback area. Commissioner Bosch was also worried about noise. It is hoped to be contained as far west of the single family residential tract as possible by the enclosed dock and wall arrangement, and by having the service bays open on the west side of the building. They need to be concerned also about incidental noise. He appreciates the owner's willingness to stipulate to coming back in based upon periodic noise studies during the first year of operation, and if there would be impacts upon the neighbors, to ask for a variance and construct a better sound improvement if required. Relative to the redevelopment area and property values, if the owner truly feels they are impacted by blight, they should come forward and petition for same. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about the potential impact of spread of automotive related uses on Katella, between Glassell and Tustin. The concern is that the zoning is currently different than that along Tustin where there are automotive uses. Katella has to date remained relatively free of those uses except related to service stations within the area between Glassell 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 and Tustin. He's struggling with this one, whether there is a way it can be considered because of it's proximity to Glassell and similar uses there without causing a condition to occur where setting a precedent for the remainder of Katella, between Glassell and Tustin, presuming the mitigation impacts can be resolved on the adjacent residences. The Commission discussed ways to solve the noise problem with Mr. Reeves as noise was a major issue. A change from C-1 to C-2 historically have been denied because of the location. A change of zoning would be out of character for Katella. In reviewing the conditions, several modifications were suggested: 1) it would be appropriate to add a condition of language to indicate that at the applicant's expense a sound consultant will be hired to conduct field tests 30 days, 6 months and 1 year after commencement of operation to identify conformance of operations to the City's noise ordinance, and a review of actual noise impacts on adjacent single family residential owners shall be taken, certified by the City. In the event the noise ordinance is exceeded or values relative to the noise impact not defined within the ordinance are found to negatively effect the adjacent single family residential area, the developer will apply for a variance or construction of a higher sound wall and install same if the application is approved and/or undertake other sound mitigation measures to reduce the impacts; 2) delete condition 16; 3) regarding condition 14, per the stipulation of the applicant, dock deliveries would be limited to weekdays (eliminate Saturdays); 4) regarding condition 3, strengthen the wording by saying dated April 17, 1992, is not approved and can be approved only subject to future application for and favorable action upon the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and City Council. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to deny Zone Change 1147-91 as the Commission does not believe this is an appropriate zoning from C-1 to C-2; other available property within the City would be more suitable. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained the appeal process to the applicant. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-92 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code regarding the siting and development of off-site hazardous waste facilities pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code and the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. NOTE: The County of Orange has certified Program EIR 490, satisfying all California Environmental Quality Act requirements for this project. This item was continued from the April 6, 1992 meeting.) Mr. Herrick recommended it would be appropriate for the Commission prior to taking action on the ordinance to make a finding concerning Program EIR 490 for the record. Commissioner Scott was a member of the committee to develop the hazardous waste ordinance and he thought the committee did an excellent job, as well as the staff. 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 1-92 and that the County of Orange has certified Program EIR 490, satisfying California Environmental Quality Act requirements for this ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master requested a minute order regarding this item. He's currently involved in the certificate program at U.C.I. in management hazardous material. When the opportunity presents itself regarding this committee, he would like to be considered for participating in that. IN RE: NEW HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1151-92 -CITY OF ORANGE ON BEHALF OF 19 PROPERTY OWNERS A request to change the zoning classification from R-2-6 Residential Duplex District to the R-4 Residential Maximum Multiple Family district for the property. Subject property consists of 19 parcels located north of Palm Avenue on both sides of the 300 north Olive block and the east side of the 300 North Lemon Street block, exclusive of the Orange Unified School District Headquarters property. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1408-92 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. Jere Murphy, Advanced Planning Manager, presented the staff report. The property owners have requested that the City of Orange reconsider action taken in November, 1990 which re-zoned the property along with the general Cypress Street neighborhood to the northwest of the 19 lots from the R-3 and R-4 districts to the R-2-6 district. The owners wish to have their property re-zoned back to the original R-4 district. Back in 1989, as part of the General Plan update, staff identified an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning for the area generally known as the Cypress Street area. At that time staff recognized the need to reflect land use changes m the areas surrounding the Santa Fe Depot area. In January, 1990 the City Council hired the consulting firm of Planning and Design Solutions to prepare a Land Use Study for the combined Cypress Street/Railroad Depot areas. As a result of public hearings before the Commission and Council, the City Council took action to approve the Railroad Depot Area Plan in concept and directed staff to develop a specific plan for the area which is presently under preparation. The proposal before the Commission is that 14 of the 19 property owners within the Cypress Street area have submitted written requests to the City requesting their property be re-zoned. Staff, with City Council's concurrence, expanded the number of lots to 19 to include a logical area of lots since the 14 lots were separated by some parcels in which requests have not been received. Of the 19 lots included in the request, 14 contain single family units, 3 contain two units, one lot contains a 3-unit project and one lot contains a 5-unit building. The existing R-2 zone creates two non-conforming lots --the 3-unit and 5-unit parcels. The 5-unit parcel would be non-conforming even under the original R-4 zoning in that only three units are permitted on the property. The 300 block of North Olive retains all of its original historic character excluding the one 5-unit two story apartments. The current R-2-6 zoning is responsive to the goals and objectives of the General Plan to preserve the existing 15 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 neighborhoods. One of the goals of the City's Historic Preservation Element is to reduce disparity between multiple family, R-3 and R-4 zoning in the existing single family homes within historic blocks and at the same time allow some reasonable development of the property. Regardless of whether the nineteen lot area is considered part of the "Cypress Street" Neighborhood, there are historic structures and neighborhood preservation issues to be considered. The existing R-2-6 zone allows for a second unit on each lot containing an existing home. A re-zoning to the R-4 zone would allow two additional units on each single family home lot or the possible removal of the house and construction of a 3-unit structure. The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor T. J. Clark, 811 Chapman Avenue, said this area was re-zoned without their knowledge. The down zoning makes some of their property non-conforming which prevents them from securing a loan of true value had it been left R-4. It has also reduced the price should they consider to sell. They want their R-4 zoning back. He pointed out three errors on the map. He questioned the zoning shown on the maps in Planning as the O. U.S. D. property was zoned R-2; now it is zoned R-4. Mr. Godlewski said there were some discrepancies in the zoning maps; staff is in the process of updating them and in that process there has been some corrections that need to be made. It's his understanding the zoning of the school property is R-4. Mr. Clark pointed out errors in the staff report regarding addresses. He thought it was unfair to make an island out of them. He was told this was done to prevent spot zoning and he wanted a definition on spot zoning. Mr. Godlewski responded spot zoning was where you take a very small area in context with the surrounding area and zone it something completely different from what it's surroundings are. Spot zoning typically refers to one lot. Commissioner Murphy stated the 334 address on the map was probably 343 Olive Street. Gladys Williams, 320 North Olive, owns three of the 19 parcels in dispute. She was not notified of any zone change previously and was unaware of being referred to as the Cypress Street" area. She wanted it changed back to the original zoning of R-4. Corinne Schreck, 446 North James, was in favor of the people having their zoning restored to them. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, said it bothered her about the unfairness of how this started. The Cypress Street area was not specified. It bothered her that the City did not have a consensus of the neighborhood. Duncan Clark, 205 North Pine, fully supports the re-zoning. He had his property down zoned for a short period of time until they filed a protest. He shared his personal experience about his R-3 property. 16 Planning Commission Minutes Those s~eaking in opposition May 4, 1992 Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, said regardless of the fact that this neighborhood is an important part of Old Towne, economics alone dictate that any zoning higher than R-2 would be an inappropriate zoning for this neighborhood. Marcy Shears, 429 North Lemon, said R-4 zoning would allow investors to buy properties and rent them out to numerous families; they felt the R-4 zoning would bring about a new set of problems. There is a problem with too many cars on the street. Old Towne needs support to stay standing as a historical area. Lisa Blanc, 368 South Orange, said she's heard one common theme throughout -- the City needs to do what's in the best interest of the entire City. Whose property rights are really being violated? Are there plans for development? If the City's vision for Old Towne is more increased traffic, noise and crime, then the zoning will be approved; however, if the vision for Old Towne is to preserve the unique historic area and to preserve the aviance that so many of the neighbors in the single family homes have tried to create, then the request will be denied. She urged the Commission to consider the long term impact of 10 new units per year for the next 10 years. That, no doubt, will change all the neighborhoods. Kellee Ruiz, 578 North Lemon, recently walked this neighborhood. It is one of the best areas in the Cypress/Lemon Street area. It's basically clean. The neighborhood is quaint. The same issue of density keeps surfacing. The density of people in that area will destroy it. She personally canvassed the neighborhood two years ago and cannot believe people did not know about the down zoning. Beatrice Vega, 486 North Olive, has lived in the area since 1941 and has spoken in favor of down zoning many times. It has taken the people 1 1 /2 years to protest the down zoning. Rafaela Garcia, 569 North Cypress, does not want to see so many cars in the street without a place to park. She would hate to see a different zoning. Angie Lopez, 362 North Lemon, said she did not want more traffic and apartments in her neighborhood. Mike Vogelvang, 288 North Olive, wants to keep his area historical. If he is zoned R-4, he would like to go back to R-2. He would like to see more single family residences. Jim Owens, 163 South Cypress, said it was his opinion that the R-2-6 is the current zoning and it will enhance the area and improve the livelihood. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy was not part of the hearings in October, 1990 and felt remiss in the fact of not being able to fully understand what went on at that time. Some information would have been helpful in trying to mull over the pros and cons presented at tonight's meeting. 17 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Chairman Cathcart could not look back that far either and was not aware of what went on before. This is a complex issue. Even if the zoning were left the same, there are a lot of things in place that would preclude people from coming in and tearing things down. He has heard two different points of view and the issues involved. It would be easy if it were clear cut, but it's not. Commissioner Bosch didn't agree there was every protection in place that prevents wholesale change to the neighborhood regardless of the zoning. There are significant problems with the existing demolition ordinance that have not yet been resolved and there are some discrepancies within the existing City ordinances. He had a couple of serious concerns: A huge mistake was made 20 or more years ago when the area was zoned R-4. That established property rights and expectations in the minds of the people who bought there and those have to be respected as well. He's not sure what happened to cause this difference of opinion and involvement that occurred back through the Cypress Street area and Depot area zoning reviews. It's clear the City needs to have procedures; clear maps and boundaries need to be published and mailed out to everyone involved. He's m favor of maintaining the dignity and scale of Old Towne, and maintaining basic economic rights that have evolved upon property owners. The burden of proof still needs to be penciled out for these properties regarding redevelopment of the property. The City has the opportunity to consider several vehicles for mitigating potential economic loss through the 20% set aside required from the Redevelopment tax increment for housing projects. He looked for a lot of work and analysis, if the Council concurred, towards identifying methods to clearly quantify and then mitigate any potential losses of actual property value which would have occurred to the existing property owners who did not desire the down zoning. The other situation he's concerned about is fairness. He's willing to suffer some potential damage in terms of goals to be reached to be sure there was fairness to everybody involved. He would like to have the R-2-6 maintained, but not over the economic bodies of the people who invested here expecting to have an income or property value enhancement that would protect them throughout their lives. Commissioner Master said there are winners and losers in all cases. Zoning to R-4 was a winner to somebody at the time. At the time, the City thought it was logical, but perhaps it wasn't. It would be great if there was some way to compensate the people appropriately. Commissioner Murphy wanted clarification regarding the R-4 zone question (the typo on the map). Was it indicated as R-2-6 at the time of the studies and evaluations or was it R-4? Mr. Godlewski responded the early maps (1989 and previous) indicate the zoning as R-4. There was a map that was produced (October, 1991) at which time there was the computerization. We've been in the process of going back and checking each of the parcels. This happens to be one of the parcels that was incorrectly identified as R-2. Staff has changed the O.U.S.D. property back to R-4 as discussed in the 1990 zone change. Commissioner Scott asked how many units could be put on the lots if zoned R-4? Mr. Murphy said under the present General Plan of 15 units to the acre, three units could be provided under R-4 zoning. 18 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment or wildlife resources, and accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1408-92. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1151-92, which would revert the zoning back to R-4 because only three units per lot could be created without a zone change to the General Plan Amendment. AYES: Commissioners Murphy, Scott NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master MOTION FAILED The Commission discussed a couple of things that could happen. It's not fair to hold the people hostage to a zone that impedes them from doing anything based upon their original investment in the property until such time as the problem is ultimately solved. On the other hand, the R-2-6 zoning is appropriate if there is fair and just compensation after demonstration through a certified appraisal and analysis of the loss of value, if any, that might occur with the down zoning. Compensation could be derived from Redevelopment's 20% set aside funds for housing improvements. A recommendation could be made to the City Council requesting the 20% set aside monies from Redevelopment to help those people that feel this is a down zoning. Mr. Herrick had some serious concerns about the legality of that. He had reservations because of the nature of the law with respect to down zoning. There is no obligation on the part of the City to compensate under these types of circumstances. There might be a question about gift of public funds. Dan Ryan, Senior Historic Planner, said there is a possibility the City is currently exploring use of a program, which is property tax reduction for historic properties. This would be an incentive that will be available to property owners. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council that the current R-2-6 zoning be retained subject to the rapid identification of verifiable economic loss, if reversion to R-4 zoning is not approved, and concurrently and rapidly legal economic programs through Redevelopment or other legislative acts to offset such economic loss to the properties involved. (If they can't identify it, it goes back to R-4.) Motion died from lack of a vote. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to continue Zone Change 1151-92 for a period of 60 days to allow staff to research the issues raised at the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 19 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: NEW HEARING May 4, 1992 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE 1150-92, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1960-92, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT 92-9 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1405-92 -ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The project consists of the following requests, to facilitate development of a 2-story, 15 unit senior citizen housing project: 1) Amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to change the land use designation of the property from Industrial to Medium Density Residential (15-24 dwelling units per acre); 2) Change of zoning classification of a portion of the property from M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) to R-3 Residential -Multiple Family District); 3) Conditional Use Permit application to allow a senior citizen housing development m accordance with Chapter 17.35 of the Orange Municipal Code; and 4) Administrative Adjustment Permit to allow a 4-foot encroachment of a porch cover into the code required front yard setback area. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Almond Avenue and Pixley Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1405-92 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Linda Boone, Executive Director of the Orange Housing Development Corporation, 217 East Chapman, is the developer of this project. They are anon-profit 501 C3 corporation (private) and they're non-profit status was granted by the State of California for the purpose of creating affordable housing in the City of Orange. This is one of their first projects -- 15 units of senior housing on the corner of Pixley and Almond. They're requesting a density bonus so that they can build 15 units and they would like permission to have 14 parking spaces instead of 15. In order to write down the cost of the project, they have applied to the Tax Credit Allocation Committee for a grant of just over one million dollars. They've also applied to the Rental Housing Construction Program put on by the State of California for over eight hundred thousand dollars. By getting this grant money they will be able to build the new project and then rent the units for $339/month. The deed restrictions will be for seniors 62 years of age and older, and whose income per year doesn't exceed 35 percent of medium income for the County of Orange. They will be recorded for 55 years; however, the Orange Housing Development Corporation is here for the long term. They plan to own, operate and manage the units in perpetuity. This building is an ideal transition between the two areas of the neighborhood and will fit m nicely. Their architect worked to come up with a design that would add to the personality and character of Old Towne. She has read the conditions in the staff report and agrees with them except for condition 4. They have a very strict time table they must adhere to in order to qualify for the funds. They don't have time to go back to the Design Review Board and get their review. She requested to change condition 4 to read "to seek approval and review by the Director of the Community Development Department." 20 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor May 4, 1992 Johnnie Chestnut, 1503 Dana Place, passed over a petition containing 290 signatures in favor of the project. This project is only three blocks away from the Senior Center, within walking distance. Betty Murrill, 603 East Almond, is a member of the Central Orange County Area League of Women Voters. They have focused on the need for housing for low to moderate income people and spent a great deal of time on housing for senior citizens. She endorses this project. Jerry Smith, Executive Director of Orange Elderly Services, 170 South Olive, said the problem of meeting senior housing needs in Orange is mitigated by three factors: 1) scarcity of available land for the project and high cost of parcels that are available; 2) the planning development code the City Council has developed to ensure Orange has a community that is comfortable, attractive and good to live in; and 3) the restrictions from the various public and private funding sources for affordable housing. This project is affordable and is of superior design. The Senior Center sees it as a highly desirable project. Katherine King, 222 West Palmyra, asked if the new owners of the project will be required to comply with all the requirements; specifically, the indemnity issue? Anne Seibert, 340 South Olive, was glad to see the design. They were anxious about the property and whether it would be too dense for the area. The design is very nice. They were also happy to hear about the deed restrictions and to know the seniors will be taken care of. Her one concern is that of the Design Review Board process. She felt the City would be setting a precedent by circumventing the process that everyone worked so hard to put in place. She hopes the D.R.B. process will be used and either accelerate their meeting times and get them to satisfy the design criteria rather than changing the process. Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, was pleased to see the plan for the site. She requested that the neighbors be included in any modifications or changes that might take place. Chairman Cathcart noted that Dick Broadway filed a card, but had to leave. He strongly supports the senior housing development. Rebuttal Ms. Boone said the existing house will be removed from the property and there are no problems with the lot. They have gone to the Design Review Board. Their criticism was the density. The design was great; the only problem they had was the number of units. They did not circumvent that process. They went before them twice. She would be pleased to involve the neighbors; it's very important for them to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Master was impressed with the project. He asked about the cost of the project? 21 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Ms. Boone stated it is a 3 million dollar project for 22 units. Apart of winning these grants is having an economical project that doesn't exceed certain norms in the state. If it is built, it will be built in a price range that is reasonable for what they are building. Chairman Cathcart referred to Page 7 of the staff report. There was an inconsistency as the D.R.B. was of the opinion the proposed architectural design was incompatible with the large massing of the building, and therefore, inconsistent with Old Towne Design Guidelines. Ms. Bonne was at the meeting and the D.R.B. said it would be ok on any other lot; it was the size of the lot with the building that gave them trouble. They said, "The architectural plan was great and they liked the design; it was just too big for the lot." Ms. Wolff had a copy of the D.R.B. minutes for the Commission to read. Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, was also at both D.R.B. meetings and confirmed what Ms. Boone said was true. They liked the design and wouldn't have any problems if it were on a bigger lot. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch thought a couple of things might be clarified in the staff report. On Page 6, Item 21, reference was made to the Satellite Market. They are aware that there are a variety of development proposals for elimination of the Satellite Market. There is shopping for food available within a reasonable walking distance to the project in the other direction (some at Batavia and Chapman and over at Chapman and Main). It would be good to indicate that in the staff report. Item 22 speaks of a fenced front yard recreation area, yet the site plan doesn't show fencing. The landscape plans indicate an extremely small area left after shrubbery is taken into account. It's important to indicate unless there is some other problem within the funding approval criteria that the types of uses indicated for a front yard recreational area are not essential to the success of the project. He did not want the staff report to be misleading in any way. He had a couple of minor concerns about the project design. The trash collection as it is currently shown is designed as an alcove within and under the building is something he wants assurance that is acceptable from a fire department point of view and from the trash vendors requirements in terms of access without causing any potential safety hazards to seniors. He's a bit concerned also about the layout of the parking lot -- not the number of spaces but the layout to get into some of those back spaces and back out of them and provide ample space. When that comes in for plan review, there may have to be some tweaking and minor modifications and hopefully that won't upset the project. It's a tight parking area and it deserves a further look to see if there isn't a way to reshuffle those spaces to make some of them a little more accessible. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to find that Negative Declaration 1405-92 has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project and find in concurrence with the Environmental Review Board that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 22 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 1150-92 as specified in the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional use Permit 1960-92 and Administrative Adjustment 92-9, with conditions 1-12, modifying condition 4 to read: "Prior to issuance of final building occupancy permit, landscape and irrigation plans shall be installed in conformance with design plans reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board." AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1963-92 -CASEY'S RESTAURANT A request to allow the operation of up to 11 coin operated amusement devices and live entertainment in an existing restaurant/night club in the CTR zone. Subject property is located at 1325 North Tustin Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. Commissioner Scott excused himself from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant George Adams, 20341 Lewis, Orange Park Acres, thought the staff report was very complete and was here to answer questions. He has read the staff report and agrees to the conditions. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1963-92 with the 7 conditions noted in the staff report, noting this project is exempt from environmental review. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED 23 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1992 IN RE: NEW HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-92 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed amendment to those sections of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code) adding mobile food vending carts to the listing of allowable uses in the C-1, C-TR, and M-1 zones and/or other districts considered appropriate by the Planning Commission. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Mr. Godlewski said the staff report makes a number of recommendations and in combining the staff report with the recommended ordinance, there were a few errors in the recommended ordinance. He suggested some changes: Under Section 17.040.140 - "M" words, which is mobile food vending carts -- after talking with the County and County Health that licenses these carts, it was decided it would be much better for the City to term these vending carts as hot dog vending carts (transportable). The section would be a "H" word. Instead of mobile food vending cart, it would be called a hot dog vending cart. Under definitions, a hot dog vending cart is a portable delete portable and insert transportable), non motorized device operating outside of a building from which a vendor sells hot dogs and those items related to a hot dog lunch. Under the permitted uses, mobile food vending carts -- change that to transportable hot dog vending carts. Under Item 7, under the advice of the City Council, it was to make it an ordinance that is administered by staff -- change Item 7 to: "The application shall include taking out the application for a conditional use permit." It is staff's opinion that there is a number of provisions that are required for someone to operate a hot dog vending cart transportable in the City and if there is any violation of these things, then there is an agreement that the City makes with the individual that operates these carts. There is a 300 foot minimum distance away from any public street or sidewalk. That condition will severely limit this type of use throughout the City. Chairman Cathcart pointed out a typo in Item 8 -- (30) square feed -- change feed to feet. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about the maximum size of the cart. Mr. Godlewski said the size was not addressed in the ordinance. It's a concern of the County Agency and they have addressed this issue in their ordinance. If the Commission would like to add something to the City's ordinance, that could be done. They currently say it has to be transportable. The Commission was concerned about the potential size of the cart. He would like further information and a staff recommendation on the size limitation before making a decision. The public hearing was opened. 24 Planning Commission Minutes Those speaking in favor May 4, 1992 Ed Dart, 1011 West Taft, was the president of the Orange County Push Cart Association, as well as the owner of the Hot Dogger. He has a bunch of carts all over Orange County. While the County doesn't have a size limitation, there are certain things that must be on the cart. The maximum cart built is 5x8. You can't be in the cart; you must stand outside of it. Most carts end up being 4x6. He preferred not to go through the conditional use permit process and suggested having a rather restrictive ordinance. Those speaking in opposition Lois Barke, 2022 Spruce, had questions about this request. Have people been notified? She was concerned about those areas around Orangewood and Eckhoff. Garbage is a problem. The other areas that could be included would be theaters. Does a fixed location mean a certain location? Barbara DeNiro submitted a list of other cities that required conditional use permits for the hot dog carts -- did staff receive that list? How are hours of operation going to be set up? What about sanitary control? Will this detract from other food businesses? How many locations can you have? Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, thought there were a lot of holes in this project. A conditional use permit is needed for each one of these requests. More work is needed before a decision is made. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch felt the policing issue cannot be enforced and many questions need to be answered. He was also concerned about the signage. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to continue Ordinance Amendment 2-92 for 30 days in order for staff to provide the Commission with documentation relative to potential sizes for carts, to consider potential modifications because of the impacts on residential zones, and to come back with more background information from the previous application and records relative to the conditional use permit process, and an analysis of the signage which could be attached to the carts. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT Anne Seibert, 340 South Olive, reminded the Commission they were going to set a date for a study session for the re-zoning of the southwest quadrant. Commissioner Bosch thought it would be nice to have a brief comment from staff relative to progress towards coming back to the Commission with a recommendation on the re-zoning of the southwest quadrant. Mr. Godlewski was not prepared to respond; Mr. McGee had been working on that matter. A response will be prepared and given to the Commission by the next meeting. 25 Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADJOURNMENT May 4, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to adjourn to a study session May 13, 1992 from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the historical buildings survey report findings and Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan status report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Scott The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. sld Murphy MOTION CARRIED 26