Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange May 21, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Hart STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary Vice-Chairman Master chaired the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 7, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of May 7, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1827-90 GENEVIEVE ALEXANDER/ELAINE SCHRECR: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of a residential structure to an office use and to allow fortune-telling on property located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, 250 feet west of Lincoln Street, addressed 1400 East Chapman 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 May 7, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting.) Ms. Wolff presented the staff report. This was a two-fold request: one is to allow the practice of fortune telling in an O-P zone; the second is to authorize the conversion of a residential structure to an office use. The building is currently being used as an office and is occupied by several different tenants. In reviewing the application and preparing the staff Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 2 permit history for a project site. In this case they were not able to find evidence that a C.U.P. had been issued to allow the existing office conversion; therefore, staff folded this into the C.U.P. request. The existing building is approximately 1,250 square feet located just outside the Old Towne boundaries. The applicant has proposed to use one of the offices within the existing building, approximately 100 square feet of office space, for the practice of fortune telling, which will occur during standard business hours. The visual character of the structure and the site plan for the office building is very similar to that of surrounding properties. The site is relatively small, about 7,500 square feet. The on-site parking and circulation meet code, but parking is a concern due to the number of tenants that are proposed to use the building and the access to the parking area is fairly narrow - only allowing one-way traffic. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Genevieve Alexander, 913 North Benson, Upland, was applying for the C.U.P. at 1400 East Chapman. She does not feel parking will be a problem because her clients are spaced one hour apart. Business hours are from 9 to 4. She has read the conditions of approval and will comply with them. Commissioner Bosch stated the conditions of approval are requirements and must be accomplished. (The applicant was aware of this.) The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott questioned the Environmental Review Board's concern of the 10'8" wide driveway being inadequate; however, the conditions do not address it. Ms. Wolff responded it was not mentioned in the conditions because it is a fixed dimension. There is a building on one side and then the property line. There is no way it could be widened without removing the building. It's a concern that could not easily be corrected. Commissioner Greek said the existing structure must meet the handicap standards and wondered if the applicant was aware of that. (She was aware of that condition. ) Commissioner Master asked if the current tenants were licensed in the City of Orange? (Staff will check on that.) Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 3 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that Conditional Use Permit 1827-90 be approved subject to the conditions as listed. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained this decision is final unless appealed. There is a 15 day appeal period and if appealed, the City Council will make the final determination. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1834-90 - ALPHA BETA: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a wall sign which exceeds the maximum sign letter and height permitted by Code on property located at 940 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. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott said the Commission has tried to adhere to the sign code, but in reviewing what the staff has suggested, there will be no negative impacts on the surrounding properties due to the sign and location of the building being setback not only from Collins, but also from Tustin, he concurs with the request. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that Conditional Use Permit 1834-90 be approved. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-90-B AND ZONE CHANGE 1127-90 - CITY OF ORANGE: Proposed modifications to zoning and general plan for Cypress Street and AT & SF Railroad Depot areas as follows: Cypress Street alternatives being considered: Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 4 A. Change General Plan from Low-Medium (6-15 du/a c) to Medium Density Residential (15-24 du/a c). B. Retain Low-Medium Density Residential (6-15 du/ac). C. Rezone from R-3 (Residential Multiple Family District) and R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple Family District) to R-2-6 (Residential Duplex District). AT & SF Railroad Depot Area proposal: A. Change in General Plan from industrial and general commercial to Low-Medium Density (6-15 du/a c) Residential and Old Towne. B. Change zoning from M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 General Business District) to R-3 (Residential Multiple Family District) and C-1 (Limited Business District). The Planning Commission may also consider appropriate alternative general plan land use and zoning designations for both portions of this study in addition to those listed above . Subject parcels are located in an area bounded by Glassell Street on the east, Chapman Avenue on the south, Pixley Street and the AT & SF Railroad on the west, and Rose Avenue on the north. The area includes a neighborhood known as Cypress Street and the vacant railroad depot building and property. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1348-90 has been prepared for this project. Jere Murphy, Administrator of Advanced Planning, gave a staff presentation and consultants were present to answer questions or concerns. Copies of the consultants' report and staff report were available for the audience. The Planning Commission held an indepth discussion at their study session last week. Most of the people who are interested in this application have been in contact with the staff either through the public workshops, in person or over the phone. There are two portions to the study area: the Cypress Street area, where there is a present inconsistency between zoning and general plan for the area; and the Railroad Depot area, an area in which there is a proposal to change the use from a basic industrial classification to more of a retail-commercial and office and residential land use. The two areas have received substantial amounts of input through public workshops. A study session was held by Planning Commission to review this combination of study areas. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 5 The written information that the Planning Commission has received to date is a copy of a letter from the Old Towne Preservation Association to the City Council with regard to the Railroad Depot area; a letter from Ann Seibert to the staff in support of the R-2-6 zoning for the Cypress Street area; a similar letter to the Planning consultants; a letter from John Azures to the Planning Commission (two weeks ago) to retain the C-2 zoning on his property on Chapman Avenue; another letter from the Old Towne Preservation Association to the staff (May 18) supporting the R-2-6 RCD rezoning of the Cypress Street area and an R-1 or R-2 zone on the property at the southeast corner of Palm and Lemon; a last communication was brought to the staff at this meeting from the Luna and Lemus families with regard to their interest in the properties within the Cypress Street area. Commissioner Greek had a discussion with Mr. Lemus before the meeting. Mr. Lemus was unable to attend, but had 16 lots on Cypress, Olive and Lemon and he requested they be granted the maximum density. The alternatives that have been identified for the Cypress Street area were reviewed briefly: 1. The existing general plan and zoning for the area. The general plan presently denotes the area as low-medium residential (6-15 du/a c). That alternative provides approximately 3 du/lot on the typical lot in the area, which is 50 feet by 132 feet. 2. This identifies medium-density residential on the general plan (15-24 du/ac) with the existing R-3 and R-4 zoning. That alternative would allow approximately 4 du/lot. 3. This alternative was suggested by some of the people at the initial public workshops and identifies the property as a general plan of 6-15 du/ac low-medium density, with an R-2-6 zoning allowing 2 du/lot. The Railroad Depot area: 1. Identifies primarily residential for the northern portion of the study area and commercial and parking for the southern portion, between Palm and Chapman as the two basic land uses in the area. The other suggested changes outside the study area are the office-professional zoning of the present industrial property north of Palm between Palm and Sycamore on the east side of Cypress Street, as a buffer between the residences to the east and industrial to the west (packing house property) . There is also a suggestion to rezone the industrial property at the southeast corner of Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 6 Lemon and Palm to either an R-4 or R-3 zone. The plan shows an R-4 zone because of the property immediately adjacent to it is also zoned R-4, as is the property to the north of Palm. The concept between the as somewhat That is why with the re Palm. for the Depot Railroad Depot of an east/west the commercia sidential then area is area and 0 visual and 1 zoning is completing to develop a linkage ld Towne, using Maple pedestrian corridor. shown north of Maple that block north to 2. The second alternative is to modify the first alternative only in the area of two blocks of the study. The area east of Cypress Street because of concerns raised by the owner and the lessee of property in that area wishing to remain there for an undetermined length of time. The plan allows for the retention of automotive uses in that area under a C-3 zone and also does not change land uses on Pixley Street in the area north of Chapman. It retains the industrial area. There are considerable parcels independently owned in that block and staff feels additional discussion needs to occur with the property owners in that area prior to taking any action to change the zoning at that location. The focus of the Depot study is the Railroad Depot area and the property immediately adjacent to it. The next step in the process, with the adoption of a plan for the Depot area, will be the development of an urban design concept and street scape study to more specifically identify what is anticipated to happen in the area based on the zoning and general plan changes that are adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Master wanted an approximation of where the redevelopment area was. Mr. Murphy used the map on the wall to outline the location of the redevelopment area, which shows it as being Maple cutting the project in half). It was his understanding that the entire study area is within the redevelopment area. Commissioner Bosch felt it would be helpful for everyone if staff explained the differences between the zones that are proposed. Ms. Wolff explained that all the commercial zones basically allow retail and office uses, restaurants, commercial services. C-1 is the least intense and is the most restrictive in terms of height and in limiting those uses to only commercial. C-2 allows some automotive uses, it gets into more industrial uses (very light type of industrial uses) and C-3 allows a fair number of industrial uses (auto uses and storage yards). Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 7 Commissioner Scott thought the City Council tried to make an effort to remove the C-2 zone within certain areas of the residential because of the proximity of tine shops, etc. off of Chapman. Ms. Wolff said there was some tightening up of the types of automotive uses that were allowed in the C-2 zones. There was a conditional use permit requirement that was installed for any type of automotive use that was adjacent to any residentially zoned property. That addresses most of the C-2 properties because most of the commercial zoning is along the arterial strips and is bounded by the residential zones. Automotive uses would not be permitted by right. The public hearing was opened. Bea Vega, 486 North Olive, submitted a petition from her neighborhood. They have 75 resident owners and 104 resident non-owners. She was in favor of low density (R-2-6 zoning) . Celia Mendez, 468 North Olive, said her house was very old and she could not afford to fix it. She favors the higher density and wants to be a good neighbor. Rellee Ruiz, 578 North Lemon, also signed the petition for the R-2 zoning. She read the beginning of the petition for the record - request that Cypress Street area be rezoned from R-3 and R-4 to R-2-6 allowing a maximum of two units to be built on a lot. She circulated one of the petitions over the weekend. She has never walked the streets of her neighborhood because she does not feel safe. She got to know some of her neighbors and was overwhelmed and surprised at how many people who live in the area agree that there is enough apartments as it is. Most of the residents are willing to go with the idea of two units on a lot. She has lived in Orange for 35 years, has lived on Lemon for 10 years. There is a third generation of family living in her home -- grandparents, parents and children. The study of home ownership might not be accurate because many families live in the home, bu t do not own it (their parents or grandparents own it). It's still a family home. She was concerned because a traffic study has not been done for the area. She gave some pictures to the Commission of her neighborhood - Cypress, Olive and Lemon Streets - apartments already existing in the area. There are a few homes, but they are behind 6' to 8' bars. She would like to see the fences torn down and the neighborhood cleaned up to be like the other three quadrants of Old Towne. There are a lot of gang problems with enormous amounts of graffiti. Shootings are occurring in the area. A number of people loiter in the apartment areas at all times of the day and night. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 8 Vince Rodriguez, 400 North Citrus, also owns property at 470 and 472 North Lemon. He spoke on behalf of his parents who live at 568 North Lemon. His parents are typical of the many senior citizens who live in the Cypress Street area. They live in the first home they were allowed to buy due to racial barriers. They are proud citizens, homeowners and care very much for their community. Over the years their community has deteriorated due to increased violence, crime, traffic and overcrowded streets. A solution to these problems does not include increased density. Everyone should be looking to decrease the density, reduce the parking, traffic and increase police activity to support those areas. If higher density is approved, it will force many of the senior citizens to leave the area due to the safety f actor. He asked f or consideration of the lower density. Robert Baier, 860 Laurinda Lane, owns property at the corner of Walnut and Cypress and objects to rezoning it to residential. It's not an ideal place for residential. If the street were widened, it will take 10' to 15' off of one lot. There are two lots there. If zoned for M-1, the smaller lot could be used for parking, but it wouldn't be adequate for residential. The change of zoning would be a loss of value. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, would like consideration of keeping the area zoned R-2. She lives next door to a duplex. It is so crowded and the kids have to go some place else. Our kids need more room to enjoy their life at home. Resident, 291 North Shaffer, wanted clarification on the parcel at the northwest corner of Palm and Lemon. Under which plan is it affected? Mr. Murphy explained the proposal to change the use is basically reflected on all the plans. The zoning is proposed to be changed from the present M-1 industrial to an office-professional district on the property, which would allow the existing use to continue on that southern large property on Palm. Dale Forester, 159 Pixley, has industrial (M-1) zoning and is against changing it to any other C-1 or R-4 zoning. There are all businesses there now with residential across the street. He believes there is a 26~ vacancy factor for office-professional (C-1) . He does not feel it will benefit any of them. He owns four lots on Pixley and would like to build some nice industrial buildings there in the near future but is afraid to do anything right now. Ann Seibert, 340 South Olive, lives in the southwest quadrant -- not the Cypress Street area. However, over the Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 9 past five years they have lost at least six historically significant homes due to higher density, 4-plex units. Over those five years they have watched increased crowding, traffic and police presence. She supports the R-2-6 rezoning of the Cypress area to save it from a similar plight and hope that possibly this might be a stepping stone to change some of the rest of Old Towne. Sharon Schaefer, 344 South Center, stated the situation in the Cypress Street area is not unique and feels it is time to evaluate the current plans and perhaps gain some benefit from the experiences from other cities. She commented on the zoning changes of Santa Ana, which has led to the creation of slums with high concentration areas of crime characterized by drug related crimes and graffiti. Many of the same problems already exist in the Cypress Street area and the only way to save the area is to lower the density to R-2-6. Solidad Ruiz, 455 North Harwood, owns property at 578 North Lemon and favors the low density zoning. She feels the traffic study is a good idea. Dan Slater, 278 North Pine, commented on Exhibit 7 of the Cypress Street Land Use Study. It points out the different apartments and what is on each particular lot. On the 400 block of North Cypress, west side, he sold the commercial lot that is now a single family residence and what use to be the old Friendly Center a few years ago. The two lots south of that (one designated as a 10 unit apartment and the other one, 7 units) -- everything he knows about that area, there's not more than two units on that particular site. He's a little concerned that the number of apartments might have been over estimated in the report. He's a real estate broker doing most of his business in Old Towne. He said the real estate market in Old Towne remains quite healthy, even though much of the real estate market today is in a slump. Old Towne still remains the hottest area in the city. It is due to people who want to buy single family homes in Old Towne and who actually want to live there. He is always asked about zoning. The concern is about what the neighbors are going to do with their property. People don't want to invest in and improve single family homes in multiple zoned neighborhoods. This is the problem in the Cypress Street area. The residents have had to deal with this for many years. The people feel very put upon and feel like they are being squeezed out of the neighborhood. Even though this area has been zoned multiple family for years, it still remains - 79$ of the lots - are either single family residential or R-2. An R-2 zone is best for the long-term investment and values in the area. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 10 Many senior citizen residents stood for the Planning Commission to acknowledge their presence, but they did not speak. Emma Felix, 942 East Candlewood Avenue, owns a family home at 343 North Cypress and wanted to know what was planned for their property (across from the packing house) . Mr. Murphy stated that property is currently zoned industrial M-1. There are residences on most of the middle block parcels with industrial uses to the north end and a sizeable office building at the south end on Palm. Staff's proposal is to show that area as office-professional on the general plan and zone it to the office-professional district as a transition area between the residential to the east and the industrial across the street to the west as a more appropriate zone and use than the present M-1 industrial use. The residential use of the property is a legal non-conforming use. The property can be maintained as it is at the present time indefinitely. Tita Smith, 169 North Shaffer, grew up at 474 North Batavia where her parents still live (about three blocks from the Cypress Street area). When she was a child she was able to walk to that neighborhood to play with her school friends and it breaks her heart to see how that neighborhood has deteriorated over the last four decades. She is afraid that deterioration will continue in the neighborhood and she spoke to an issue that has not been raised. She attended a historic preservation conference in February, 1990 in Riverside sponsored by the California Preservation Foundation. She spoke about the legal issues the Foundation deals with regarding rezoning, of takings, of not letting people build to their maximum potential in historic areas. Legal issues are a great concern to the City of Orange, which tends to have a rather conservative approach to development and planning. There is preservation law which the City has never called into play, but it's out there to support the interest of rezoning and down zoning in a historic district. She encourages rezoning to R-2-6 to be able to maintain the neighborhood as a residential family neighborhood; not an absentee landlord area. Commissioner Greek said the Commission was looking for some tools that will bring the vitality of the Cypress Street neighborhood back. He was asking for suggestions on how to retain the quality of life. Ms. Smith thought an aggressive refurbish renovations and landscaping program for the Cypress Street area is needed. There are 75 property owners; it's not totally a rental area yet. There are programs available, but there has not been Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 11 an aggressive attempt to inform people of what is available and assist them to bring their houses up to code and to landscape their yards. Redevelopment has 20$ set-aside monies to be spent on housing. The housing money has been spent on senior citizen housing. This pot of money could be designated for a particular area (Cypress Street) to refurbish the neighborhood. If it goes to high density, those homes will be demolished and replaced by the cheapest possible 4-unit apartments that can be built for absentee landlords to make money on. It will move the long-term 70 year community out of that neighborhood eventually. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Rodriguez if a program of this nature would help his parents. Yes. Mr. Rodriguez' parents want to continue living in their neighborhood, but if high density is allowed, they will have to move. This is their only home they have ever owned. Restoring the area will help eliminate the situation on Cypress Street. The quality of life is more important than making a side profit to Mr. Rodriguez. Mark Clemens, 146 North Shaffer, did not live in the area in question, but would vote for low density. He does not feel comfortable driving or walking in that area because of the crime problems. He is opposed to high density; the crime will increase. Randy Ema, 142 North Cypress, expressed concern about the AT SF Railroad area. He has a limited note at this time that must be refinanced. He will not be able to refinance it if the City does not come up with a plan to do something. He has expressed his concern to staff. It presents a problem for him, as well as other people. It will present a financial hazard because of the legal non-conforming use if they change it from the existing M-1 to C-2. Ms. Smith responded to Commissioner Greek's question. A person can retain their own single family dwelling, but if the people on either side of you builds an apartment, you no longer live in a family residential neighborhood; it's now a rental neighborhood. She discussed the dollar amount it would take to restore many of the homes in the Cypress Street area; $5,000 to $10,000 could make a big difference in a residential house. Her point is that the advantage should be given to the residents rather than to the outside buyer who is going to come in and make a profit. Ms. Ruiz did not feel the Commission was giving the people in the neighborhood enough credit. The people who live in the area have a lot of pride. The people are one of your tools. Give them the R-2-6 zoning and they will make sure that's all there will be. The neighborhood will clean itself up quicker than the City. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 12 Ms. Walters said the built out and as a sidewalks. There is park on the sidewalk. 400 block of North Cypress Street is result, cars are parking on the too much development if a VW has to Flo Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, owns property at 115 and 117 East Rose. This area doesn't concern their duplex except with the additions of a high rise across the street from East Rose and on the opposite corner of West Rose, some terrible parking problems have developed. In canvassing the Cypress Street area, they found many homes being cared for - pride of ownership. They also saw trashy areas and lots of traffic. These areas need to be addressed through City ordinances. She discussed the issue of absentee landlords with Commissioner Greek. Ms. Rodriguez, 388 North Lemon, has lived in the Cypress Street area almost all of her life. She has been happy and secure with wonderful neighbors. They take care of each other. If high density is proposed, they will lose the caring feeling in the neighborhood. Dick Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, said if higher density zoning would create a problem where structures were torn down, he could visualize that some of the people who would have to move, would become homeless. Traffic will have a major impact on the existing streets if higher density were allowed. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master commented about the traffic concerns/issue. He's not sure if it were correctly stated that there were no traffic studies. There may not be an individual traffic count in the area, but there were studies made regarding what the impact would be via the number of units. Mr. Murphy responded the Negative Declaration included some discussion of traffic based on the experience they have had in the surrounding area and with the general plan update of last year. It addresses the arterial system more than the local street system. -The updated general plan includes an analysis of Chapman Avenue and Glassell as part of the circulation system, along with Walnut and other collector streets (i.e. , Palm, Palmyra, and Almond) . The parking situation, even with new development, should not get any worse than it is at the present time. With the existing grid pattern of the streets in the area it could sustain the existing general plan (Alternative 1). It was also suggested people voice their concerns about existing traffic problems to the Traffic Safety Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 13 Commissioner Scott addressed the concern of extending Maple Street westerly from its presently dead end. This goes back to 20 years ago when the City was trying to make a loop around the Plaza and extending Maple. The Railroad has first say on it and they would not grant the extension of Maple across the railroad track. Mr. Murphy responded to the issue of past traffic studies and the analysis of owner-occupied parcels vs. non-resident owned parcels. The map is based on the assessor's tax rolls. Staff is aware there may have to be a phasing of rezoning in the area in order to accommodate individual property owners' needs for not becoming a legal non-conforming use in order to not interfere with financing of their properties. Commissioner Master agreed a phasing plan needs to be developed. Commissioner Bosch said the transitioning of property from one use to another is a difficult situation, particularly when the use is from one density to another. There are a series of problems: transitional uses west of Cypress, south of Walnut that are proposed to remain in residential, but they are still transitional from amore traditional residential neighborhood to a railway. How do we allow that transition to occur and still allow quality of life for residential housing adjacent to the railroad track. We can expect to see more rail traffic in the future as a key element of transportation for the area. Similarly, in the Depot area, a plan calls for conversion of obsolescent industrial plants to residential, presuming willing property owners, but we still have the problem of transitioning that from more traditional residential areas to residential adjacent to a railway track. He had less problem with the transition from single family residential to M-1 or from low-density residential to M-1 than he does with the main railway track. Another concern is the phasing program to avoid the legal non-conforming use that will affect financing. He would like to see the outline of that kind of plan. How can the City legally implement that to do what they feel is in the best interest of the citizens as a whole and provide the tools to the property owners without damaging them in short term. Short term damage might be an action the City takes without that kind of phasing program in place. With regard to the Cypress Street neighborhood itself, there are a couple of problems. There is a boundary line for the Cypress neighborhood which exists in everyone's minds, but it isn't real in terms of what the boundaries of the neighborhood necessarily are. Part of it relates to the Redevelopment Agency boundaries, part of it relates to zoning, part of it relates to existing residences -- it's an Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 14 artificial line. The City needs to look at the concern about adjusting that line for transitional uses. There is not a zone which allows mixed use. He leans towards the lower density of R-2-6, recognizing that it creates a lot of non-conforming uses for existing lots that have a higher density. There's little difference long term, but as great a damage to single family property owners whether the City does redevelopment by the World War 2 process of bombing the land to clear it, reassembling it and redeveloping, or whether the City bull dozes it lot by lot -- it has the same impact on the person whose home is their castle, something they have worked their lifetime for. There are a variety of programs that the City has keys to in helping the residents. The key to restoring quality of life in the neighborhood is not a job merely of adding to the number of dwelling units, but providing the financing tools and stability for the certainty of fact of what the future of the neighborhood is going to be. Two things are killing it now -- the uncertainty and the fact that the current zoning, which many people would like to maintain, hasn't provided any tools. Change has to occur and the choice is greater density or less density, but make it stable. Greater density will be destructive for the area, but more education needs to be made available to the City and residents as to what these tools are. Tools need to be in place to convince residents that even the low density plan is ready to move ahead. There is not enough information for the Commission to act in a manner that he could feel comfortable with. He would like to maintain a good transitional relationship of M-1 where it can be a good neighbor also with incentives for cleaning it up and improving it to existing residential. Let's get rid of the obsolescent where it occurs and provide quality residential and let's maintain lower density in the more traditional single family residential neighborhood in a stalled transition to help that transition improve the property values. Commissioner Greek wanted to know how to upgrade the area, what are the tools that are available? He heard Commissioner Bosch say it should be broken down block by block in order for the Commission to come to a decision. The Commission should attack one area at a time -- either the Depot or housing area. He suggested a detailed tour of the housing area to find out how the problems can be resolved. Commissioner Bosch concurred. It should be split into two areas. They work together, but the boundary is easier to work with than the extremes. The line that is drawn for the Cypress Street area is too arbitrary. It's a small area, but it's not simple. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 15 Commissioner Bosch thought the study area was a great idea. He would like to work towards the goals and implement them recognizing that it might take 25 or 30 years to reach them. The use proposed for the Depot area is a good idea. Commissioner Scott concurs. He was happy to hear about bringing the neighborhood back to the residents -- getting the gang infestation out of the City. Commissioner Master felt separation of the two areas is a key point. The Commission needs to consider an approach in order to give direction to staff as to what they think is the next step. Commissioner Greek recommended attacking the process by concentrating individually on the depot area, and postpone this to the next meeting. Ms. Wolff said the Commission could postpone the hearing to a study session for a tour of the area. Commissioner Scott asked what the boundaries were for the depot area? The Commission discussed boundary limits of the depot area. It was decided they tour the area block by block within the focused study area. Commissioner Greek would like to talk to the property owners to get their opinions and ideas before acting on this. Commissioner Bosch would like to see something prepared on the phasing plan, a listing of the tools available to the City through Redevelopment, set-aside programs, current City Public Works programs that affect the area, and how those impact a decision on the land uses in the area, and some specific directed input from staff on transition areas particularly on Cypress Street in the Cypress area, transitioning from residential to 0-P, residential to M-1, 0-P to M-1, etc. There is apparently a successful transition between single family residential and M-1 in the 100 block North Pixley. He would like to hear more on why O-P necessarily is a better assist to that given the other tools available than M-1 is. Not a word has been said about the future of the Orange Unified School District property. It has a big impact on the middle of this neighborhood and input is needed from staff on the alternatives being considered for that and how those alternatives might enhance or negatively impact the alternatives before the Commission for conclusions in the Cypress Street area. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 16 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that General Plan Amendment 2-90-B and Zone Change 1127-90 be continued to a study session on Wednesday, May 30, 1990, 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. convening in the parking lot for a tour of the proposed Cypress Street and Depot study areas. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that General Plan Amendment 2-90-B and Zone Change 1127-90 be continued to June 18, 1990 (to continue the public hearing). AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM SITE PLAN REVIEW - C RAWFORD HILLS ASSOCIATES: Commissioner Greek was excused from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Review of the distribution of guest parking through the townhouse development proposed on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road, north of Chapman Avenue. This review is to be conducted in accordance with Condition #88 of Tentative Tract Map 13529. This is part of an overall project which includes 182 acres located northeast of the intersection of Crawford Canyon and East Chapman Avenue, known as the Crawford Hills development. The purpose of this review is a site plan review to fulfill a requirement that was placed on the project as a condition of approval of both Tentative Tract Map 13529 and a Conditional Use Permit 1678. This condition states, "Site plan for Area II shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission to provide for adequate distribution of guest parking throughout the townhome development." This townhome portion of the Crawford Hills project consists of 232 units. Because it was a previous planned unit development, each unit has a parking requirement of 2.5 spaces; 2 spaces for resident parking and .5 space for guest parking. Each residence has been provided with a 2 car garage and unenclosed guest parking is dispersed throughout the development. One hundred sixteen guest spaces are required and 120 are shown on the plans. All streets within Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 17 this development are private streets. The backbone streets, which are known as A street up at the northern boundary and J Street which winds down through it, are 32' wide paved street sections. The private access driveways are 24' wide. This current plan does show an improvement in terms of parking distribution over the previous plan. Both plans are shown as exhibits on the wall. It will be the Planning Commission's determination as to whether the parking distribution is adequate and this will be a final determination as to whether this plan satisfies the original condition of approval. The site has significant slope areas. The parking layout is somewhat constrained by the grading concept and needs for the site. There have been a number of retaining walls that have been proposed to create the flat pad areas for the streets, residences and for the parking areas. Commissioner Scott asked if the guest parking has been redistributed. Ms. Wolff said that was correct. There seems to be a few more spaces in some areas. She tried showing the Commission a comparison of how it was previously and how it is now of parking spaces by clusters of units. Commissioner Bosch wanted to know about the accessibility of vehicular movement to and from the units. How do you come past the parking spaces to get to them? Turn arounds, visibility, away of identifying routing to guest parking -- was this considered in the applicant's proposal? Buildings 47 and 48 are remote on the site, back up against the hillside. They have 3 guest parking spaces at the back end of it, but it's difficult to access and turn around vs. some of the other cul de sacs. Applicant Kristin Dorschlage, landscape architect for the project, said there was a hammer head at the cul de sac for a turn around. The street layout plan has been approved by the Fire Department as far as accessibility and turn arounds. Commissioner Bosch's concern goes beyond code and goes to a good living environment. On that particular drive there are 8 units that have a hammer head turn around at the back end. Anyone who cannot access their garage or who is looking for guest parking finds the three at the back taken, it's a very difficult trip for them. The other concern was kind of street scape, dangers, site line clearances, that migh t develop to the west between buildings 53, 54, 55 and 56 where each of the dwelling units have 18' minimum driveways, but they're perpendicular to a 7.2 gradient. There's a Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 18 private drive serving 14 units -- that's almost solid driveways with a 7.2 gradient across the drive, which creates a rather radical driveway problem that will inhibit the use of the drives as guest parking. The reason their firm has addressed the driveway as being 18 feet is because of the street grade problem. There are retaining walls and splits in the units there, but they were unable to accommodate separate guest spots. In this case, each of those driveways can be used to hold another vehicle. Commissioner Master was concerned that the City do another review on the proposed parking arrangement. Could there be substantial change in the final grading? Ms. Dorschlage said the plans have been done in conjunction with the engineer using their computer information; it's the most precise and current grading plan. Commissioner Scott was concerned about the retaining walls being seen on the next set of plans. Ms. Dorschlage said they were addressing those issues at the next level (D.R.B.). This was put together to specifically address the parking distribution. Commissioner Scott asked if a precise grading plan has been submitted? Mr. Johnson said there was a precise grading plan that has been submitted, but it has not been approved or checked at this point. There is a rough grading plan, which was approved. It shows the proposal of additional retaining walls that were not envisioned as a part of the tentative. Those retaining walls are due in part to some changes in the grading and some enlargement of the planning area. What is in substantial conformance? What constitutes substantial conformance? Basically, walls that are put into reclaim land is somewhat of an afterthought, but if they're not detrimental to the development, then he sees no problem. Commissioner Scott said the area for proposed parking could change with a final grading plan. Mr. Johnson did not know if the plans have been reconciled, but he's assuming it has. He's concerned that they don't lose any parking, that there will be adequate parking within the constraints of the grading. Commissioner Scott though t they couldn't make a decision until staff has had an opportunity to evaluate the final grading plan vs. the rough grading plan that has been submitted. Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 1990 - Page 19 Mr. Johnson agreed staff would need to look at the plans in more detail. Commissioner Bosc site, adjacent to exhibited with a on the original has been lost and gained in terms of h noted at the northwest corner on the building 4, seven guest parking spaces are retro grade hammer head turn around, where approved plan there was a cul de sac. It he's concerned about it. Nothing has been guest parking. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to continue the Crawford Hills Associates site plan review in order for the City Engineer to review the final grading plan and the additional retaining walls that have been proposed, as well as circulation and the adequacy of guest parking. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission adjourn to a joint session with City Council Tuesday, May 29, 1990 in the Weimer Room from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing the Capital Improvement Program; then immediately thereafter to a special Planning Commission meeting to determine conformity of the C.I.P. with the General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. sl d