HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart
STAFF
PRESENT: John Godlewski, Manager of Current Planning;
Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney;
Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20.
1993
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of September
20, 1993 as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Pruett, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2029-93 -BURL AND MICHELLE GREGORY
A request to utilize residential property for outdoor weddings and banquets, and to permit variations of
parking design criteria. Subject property is an historic residential property located north of residential
development along Avenida Palmar, near Thora Street, addressed 349 North Renee Street.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1441-93 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of
this project.
Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report as there was opposition. The property consists of three parcels.
Lot 1 is developed with the 2-story single family residence and several accessory buildings in a
landscaped environment. Lot 2 is undeveloped and measures approximately 14,000 square feet. The
third lot is a driveway measuring 627 feet in length and is approximately 23 feet wide. Lot 2 is not owned
by the applicant, but rather belongs to the school district that the property owner has agreements with to
use as parking. The applicant is a bridal consultant who organizes weddings at a number of locations in
other cities, as well as this property in Orange. The applicants, in their own words, hosted weddings and
receptions, fund raisers and many events at their personal estate. Beginning in the summer of 1992 staff
received a number of complaints about the functions going on at the property. This application was
submitted in order to seek City approval of the application and to have a formal review. The application is
to allow weekend outdoor use of the residential site for no more than 200 persons. The applicant has
stated that all events would be scheduled either on Saturdays and Sundays, limited to the hours between
9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to provide the adequate number of off-street parking spaces on the unimproved
parking areas proposed on the adjacent elementary school site. The applicants obtained a permit which
a copy was included in the Commissioners' packets. The stated period of time on that permit is 20 years.
The Commission also received a copy of the letter to the City from the Orange Unified School District,
dated October 4, 1993, a petition attached to the application on behalf of the applicant and a
supplemental petition from the applicant, received this date, as well as letters dated September 21 from
R. Bradbury Clark and one dated October 5 from John K. York.
The
plicants
Burl and Michelle Gregory, 349 North Renee Street, explained their reasons for why the C.U.P.
application should be approved. They bought the Victorian house approximately 5 or 6 years ago for the
purpose of doing social events at the estate. They have done many upgrades and repairs. They have
hosted many events over the years at their home. They also believe it will benefit the City and bring in
extra resources or businesses. They will also be able to employ several people to help them with their
events. They hope to get some of the school children involved in helping with the landscaping and taking
care of the estate. They believe Orange is a very traditional city that cares about the past and they're
trying to keep the past going. The events are family-oriented. They have talked with their neighbors
about this because they are concerned about the effects on the neighborhood. They feel they have
resolved past problems.
Commissioner Walters knows they were cited for using the property for weddings and party functions. Is
the house continuing to be used for public or private events?
Mr. Gregory replied yes. They were cited, but at the time they went to court, the citation was broken
down to an infraction and a plea of not guilty was entered because they were personal, hosted events --
not commercial. The Gregory's were not paid for the rental of the house; Mrs. Gregory helped coordinate
the events. They were told by Mr. McGee it was not a problem to have events at their house as long as
they were for friends and as long as they hosted the events.
Commissioner Pruett asked if Mrs. Gregory's coordinator services were donated or were there charges
for those services?
Mrs. Gregory said it depended on the event. If it were a fund raiser, she did not charge for her services.
She is a licensed bridal coordinator, and is paid to coordinate weddings.
Commissioner Smith asked if the Gregory's were requesting permission to be able to charge for the rental
of their house and grounds for weddings and private parties? (Yes.)
Commissioner Bosch asked if they have reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval?
Mr. Gregory replied they have read the staff report. They suggested most of the conditions in the report.
He questioned the traffic conditions in the Negative Declaration, item 10, traffic and circulation. Are the
streets no where near their capacity for traffic?
Commissioner Bosch explained the findings of the Negative Declaration as it related to the traffic
conditions. It referred to the capacity of the street, not to the actual dynamics of vehicular movement on
the street.
Mr. Gregory asked if the Commission were taking the letter from Mr. Clark into consideration for the
hearing? He requested it not be used due to Mr. Clark's not being present.
Commissioner Bosch said the letter has been received and has been made part of the record for the
hearing.
Those speaking in favor
Wayne Kiley, 8401 Bedford Motorway, Corona, bought the Victorian house and relocated it to the present
lot. He bought the house to restore it over a two )rear period and spent quite a bit of money; they overbuilt
for the neighborhood. The property requires quite a bit of maintenance. The Kiley's were pro-active in
the community working with the local schools and neighbors. He provided trees and fencing to enhance
the neighbors' properties. Using the exhibit on the wall, he explained the roadway easement.
Nancy Kiley, 8401 Bedford Motorway, Corona, spoke in favor of the project. She shared a story of an old
couple who were married in the Jones Ranch House, as it was once called; the Kiley's were also married
at the house. The house became more than a "pretty old house". It takes a lot of ambition to take on a
project such as this.
Mari Ballard, 5249 Avenida Palmar, was a neighbor and friend of the Gregory's. They have tried to keep
the noise down and to keep it comfortable for the entire neighborhood. She does not have a problem with
the request.
Jan Ballard, 5249 Avenida Palmar, never noticed a major influx of cars coming to and from the weddings.
The problems arise from living on a winding road and teenagers race through the neighborhood from time
to time. He has only heard a disc jockey or speaker one time at one of the earlier events.
Commissioner Pruett explained conditional-use permits go with the property; not the owner, which means
that future owners would be able to operate the property under the conditional use permit. He asked what
kind of uses were allowed at this property under a C.U.P.?
Mr. Godlewski said the application does list a general section in the Municipal Code; however, in the
Resolution it would be specific to whatever conditions were imposed on the property. Currently, as
proposed, it would allow outdoor weddings and other events. To be more specific, the Commission would
need to be specific in the Resolution in order to make sure "other events" is not defined in some other
way. Other events include other outdoor commercial activities subject to the conditions listed in the
C.U.P.
Carolyn Rivelli, 5419 Avenida Palmar, spoke on behalf of the school, as well as a neighbor. The
Gregory's kindly hosted an event for their school fund raiser -- amother-daughter fashion show. She has
not heard any noise since moving to the neighborhood one year ago. The only use she objected to would
be a carnival.
Florinda Aron, 13582 Emperor Drive, Santa Ana, attended the mother-daughter tea. She felt it was a
wonderful event and praised Mrs. Gregory for devoting her time.
Cecil Pearson, 340 North Wayfield, had an offer on a piece of property that was sharing the easement.
He didn't think there was a problem with these events. The house has quite a bit of sentimental value to
him. He thought the place should be exposed to the public because it shows a lot of the heritage and
culture.
Those speaking in opposition
John York, 1 City Blvd. West #1400, represented Mr. Clark, the neighbor most affected by the proposed
C.U.P. He and Mr. Clark submitted separate letters to the Commission pointing out the criteria that must
be met before a C.U.P. can be granted. None of those requirements can be met and the request should
be denied. Mr. Clark has no quarrel with the house itself; it's a beautiful house. The quarrel is with the
business. The business continues to be operated at the site despite the Gregory's being cited for it. Mr.
Clark's concerns were noise, traffic and the number of parties allowed every weekend.
Jocelyn Ruth (Turley), 5217 Avenida Palmar, has known of the public affairs at the house in the past and
they have been an occasional problem. In May, 1992 she became aware of a pattern of every weekend
cars driving on the gravel road causing a lot of dust, crossing over a metal grate; she could hear people
talking and the music was loud. She expressed her distress to the Gregory's by this usage, but they have
continued to have weddings at their home. She opposed having this business in their neighborhood.
She's being denied the use of her back yard.
Rebuttal
Mr. Gregory explained Mr. Clark has never lived in the residence; he's been an absentee owner. His
daughter has lived in the house for the past 6 or 8 years. The daughter no longer lives there and the
property is for sale. The Gregory's are concerned about their neighbors and do not wish to inconvenience
them. They're willing to work with Jocelyn Ruth to avoid future problems.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Walters asked about the maximum number of people and cars attending the events? In
Item 6 it indicates all guest vehicles shall remain on site. Do you really mean on site or on the adjacent
site?
Mr. Godlewski responded it was suggested by the applicant how many people they would have and what
their limits are. It would become an administrative nightmare for staff to be at every event counting
number of cars and people. The property is controlled by the applicant (the staff report should be
changed to reflect that).
3
Commissioner Smith was in favor of the property being retained and accessible to the community. She
felt it was a one of a kind site that represents ranches the way they were in the past. It has a great value
as a resource in that way. However, because it is in a residential neighborhood and it is a residence,
there has to be extreme sensitivity to the surrounding neighbors. It seems those in opposition had
mentioned some good points that could be mitigated to perhaps make it more comfortable for the
neighbors. The majority of the neighbors are not opposed to the use. Two events per weekend, 52
weeks per year seems to be excessive; it could impact the neighborhood. There needs to be some limits
to the amount of use, the metal grate needs to be replaced, and there should be a cap on the number of
guests.
Commissioner Pruett favors the project; however, some things need to be addressed. Limiting the
number of events is reasonable -- two events per weekend is too frequent. He suggested changing the
number of events from two to one. Events should not begin before 9:00 a.m. (even the preparation for
the events) to avoid early morning noise. To control the number of people, do not allow any sound
amplification -- public address systems or other sound amplification systems are not allowed for bands or
entertainment. Concluding all activities at 8:00 p.m. and exiting the premises by 9:00 p.m. is not
unreasonable.
Commissioner Walters was not too sure the proposed mitigations to problems are realistic. The biggest
problem he had is knowing the events were being held even though the applicants were cited. A lot of the
process is based on good faith and good intent of the applicant to follow the rules of the C.U.P. The use
has continued and it feels like bad faith to him. Would any rules be followed if the C.U.P. were approved?
Commissioner Bosch appreciated the historic resource of the house. Very often people have weddings in
their back yards and often times they have paid wedding coordinators, bands, music, food and it's still not
a commercial enterprise, but rather a private gathering. He struggles with this because of the condition
that turns it into a commercial enterprise. It will require adequate mitigation measures to assure there will
not be negative impacts beyond a reasonable amount upon the neighboring residences. He agreed with
the modified and added conditions. There are also amended conditions suggested by the City Attorney
and they need to be discussed: Condition 3 relative to the property access drive adding wording that the
condition shall be fully satisfied within a set number of days to be determined. Failure to satisfy this
condition within the time specified shall result in this conditional use permit being automatically rendered
null and void without necessity of further action being taken by the Planning Commission or City Council.
And similar conditions to Condition 4 relative to the water sprinkler system along the rock drive (if it is to
remain a rock drive); and Condition 5 relative to authorization for rights of access to the adjacent Orange
Unified School District property for parking. The City needs some written evidence in an acceptable form
and this is suggested as an addition to the condition. Said written evidence, in acceptable form, shall be
submitted to the Department of Community Development within a stipulated number of days after
approval of the permit to assure that the parking will be available. If the school district does not allow the
parking to be there on any given day and a given weekend, then no parking is available for the use of this
function and the function should cease. The intent would be to assure that it occurs with the
Commission's approval as well. He suggested no additional events be allowed to take place on the
property until the conditions are fulfilled. He really felt the drive should be paved to keep the dust and
noise down to a minimum. He also suggested adding another condition: That access to the property for
preparation for events, as well as attendee access, shall be only via Renee Street and the rock drive, and
not via other easements. The good faith question is a very good one. The City needs to see evidence of
that better than the evidence seen before.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Negative Declaration
1441-93 and approve Conditional Use Permit 2029-93, with the listed conditions in the staff report and
adding/amending conditions as proposed, including the proposed wording of Conditions 3 and 5 per the
City Attorney with a time limit of 90 days -- (3) The property access drive must be paved to the full width
of Renee Street, plus an additional minimum lineal distance of 25 feet, at the western terminus, and a
minimum lineal distance of 25 feet at the eastern terminus, adjacent to the mouth of the applicant's
parking area. This condition shall be fully satisfied within 90 days of approval of this conditional use
permit. Failure to satisfy this condition within the time specified shall result in this conditional use permit
being automatically rendered null and void without necessity of further action being taken by the Planning
Commission or City Council. (5) The applicant will provide written evidence to document the rights of
access to and use of the adjacent Orange Unified School District property, sufficiently authorized by the
Orange Unified School District. Such rights shall be in perpetuity or for the duration of the conditional use
permit and shall be irrevocable. Said written evidence, in acceptable form, shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development within 90 days of approval of this conditional use permit. Failure
to satisfy this condition within the time specified shall result in this conditional use permit being
automatically rendered null and void without necessity of further action being taken by the Planning
4
Commission or City Council. (") No events would be held at the site until the conditions specified are
fulfilled. (') That events be limited to one event per week. (") That access to all events for preparation
and guests would be made via Renee Street and the driveway to the home. (') That a limit of 200 guests
would be put on the parties. (") That attention be paid to correction of the noise factor of the metal grate.
2) Preparation for events and events will not begin prior to 9:00 a.m. (6) All guest vehicles shall remain
on properties controlled by the applicant (in lieu of on-site). (12) All activities shall conclude by 8:00 p.m.
and all guests shall exit the premises by 9:00 p.m. Delete condition 4 and add a new condition to require
a paved driveway from Renee Street access to the currently paved turnaround at the site.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith
NOES: Commissioner Walters
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Bosch stressed to the applicants to look very closely and consider what is going on with
the neighbors; to look at this as a privilege as being granted based primarily on the historic nature of the
property and the applicant complying very specifically with all the conditions.
The appeal process was explained by Mr. Godlewski.
IN RE: NEW HEARING
VARIANCE 1955-93 -SCOTT McREYNOLDS, JAMES A. BECKSTROM, JAIPAUL SWAMIDASS
A request to add onto an existing medical office building without providing the code required number of
parking spaces on site, and without aturn-around area to prevent vehicles from backing out onto an
arterial street. Subject property is located at 229 South Glassell Street.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1442-93 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of
this project.
The full reading of the staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened.
Applicant
Jaipaul Swamidass, 229 South Glassell Street, explained their proposal. If they don't add the additional
square footage it will continue to remain the same. He understands because of the addition they must
meet code requirements. But because of the narrowness of the property (55 feet) and the residential
nature of the location, it is difficult for them. He also understands the additional 2 spaces for parking. A
mutual parking arrangement between them and the church have been made (verbal agreement).
Commissioner Pruett asked how many employees work on site and where do they park?
Mr. Swamidass said there were three assistants and two doctors -- at least five employees. Currently
they park at the church. There has never been a parking problem.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pruett was concerned in that one of the parking spaces appears to be for handicapped
parking. He thought that should be given the ability to make the turn around. That may become a greater
problem. Can another space be designated for handicapped parking?
Mr. Godlewski did not recall any specific discussion. The proposed layout seemed to be the most
efficient way, but Commissioner Pruett did have a good point because that would be the stall that backs
out.
Commissioner Smith noted between spaces 5 and 6 there is a cement divider on the ground and a wall
existing conditions). That further limits the turn around place for the handicapped spot. She suggested
removing the wall to enable people to back up.
Commissioner Bosch thought the purpose of the handicapped parking space is not to recognize that
people have difficulty in driving, but rather recognize they have mobility problems in exiting the car,
getting into wheelchairs and using walkers in getting access to the entry way. He's concerned about
backing onto the street regardless of the space, but he's not extra concerned because of the handicapped
space.
5
Commissioner Walters did not have a problem with the application. It's an existing circumstance. If there
were any stipulations to be added, it could be a little more formal which is not included in the conditions.
Employees and workers employed at the premises shall be parking their cars in public parking areas
other than on the subject property."
Commissioner Bosch thought that should be put on the owner to enforce that condition. He believed the
applicants had special circumstances that applied to the property in order to grant a variance. It's
because of the location within the City. The building is not historic, but it is in an area in which the City
encourages the preservation of historic buildings on similar sized lots. It encourages the commercial use
to a limited extent of older residential properties. He felt the same conditions that would allow them to
preserve a converted residential property on South Glassell Street by allowing minor variances to the
parking and site layout conditions should not be denied here. This is a similar piece of land and a similar
set of conditions are present despite the lack of a historic building. It will not cause the kind of hardship
that the slight over development of the parent square footage would cause for residential properties in the
historic area; it's different entirely. The primary increase in function improves the efficiency and speed at
which the operation could see patients inside the medical practice. The size, shape and location and
surroundings of the property make this a special circumstance and not an unique privilege.
Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Walters to accept Negative Declaration
1442-93 and to approve Variance 1955-93 with conditions 1-3 subject to the findings as stated.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2032-93 -THE SANCTUARY-0RANGE HILLS
A request to establish a church within the C-1 (Limited Business) District, and to exceed the parking
allocation for their tenant space during hours when there is a limited demand for the existing parking
facility. Subject property is a commercial shopping center located on the southwest corner of Chapman
Avenue and Swidler Place, addressed 3622-3626 East Chapman Avenue.
NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.
Mr. Godlewski presented the staff report. The project site is a commercial development with a common
parking facility on the southwest corner of Chapman and Swidler. It's a typical strip commercial type
location with an existing reciprocal parking easement that attaches the parking lot to the rear to the
parking facilities available to the property immediately to the west. There are a couple of corrections in
the staff report that was forwarded to the Commission in a memo. Basically the staff report references
two parking areas -- the parking area in the front and the parking area in the back of the commercial
center. The staff report transposed the descriptions so that the majority of the parking is actually in the
front of the commercial center and the smaller number (57 parking spaces) is located in the rear of the
shopping center. There's a total of 121 parking spaces provided on site, generally split between the rear
parking area and the front parking area. The development of the parking lots and the center in this
manner was done a number of years ago and certainly with the best of intentions. But over the years
problems had developed between the parking lot in the rear and the residential properties that abut it.
Typical problems of late night activities and goings on in the parking lot that were inconsistent with what
the neighbors would like to have behind their properties. As a result of this, a number of situations came
up over the years and possible corrections, one of which was the gating of that parking lot off of Swidler.
Although the parking lot is still accessible to the adjoining parking lot and through easements. The
applicant is proposing a church activity, which would take place primarily on Sundays and on Wednesday
evenings, which in the staff report there is an extensive evaluation of hours of operation to indicate that
the church use would be mutually exclusive of the majority of the commercial uses in the center. The
proposed church use will build its main entrance to the parking lot behind the shopping center so that the
focus of the parishioners would be in that parking lot on Sundays and Wednesdays. Thus, the majority of
the commercial activity and the church would not be at conflict with one another. A number of conditions
are recommended hopefully to make the use less obtrusive to the neighbors.
The public hearing was opened.
A~olicant
Barry Cottle, 3626 East Chapman Avenue, was speaking in favor of the application. He and his partner
built the center approximately seven years ago: they own and manage the center with their offices located
in the center. They felt fortunate to have this kind of use. There are over 50 parking spaces in the rear of
the center and it is used very seldom. The applicant/tenant would like to use the back parking lot. The
gate will remain closed other than an hour before the services, during the services and right after that.
The gate would remain closed at all other times. The use is compatible with the other tenants and also
with the layout of the center. The hours of operation are very limited -- Sundays from 9 to 12 noon;
Wednesday evenings and perhaps a couple other seasonal meeting times. These meeting times will be
during the non-peak hours of the center.
Pastor Dennis Pendergast, 700 West LaVeta #S-1, cares for the City and chose Orange as their home.
He feels the church will be a benefit to the City; a positive influence in the shopping center. They will be
good neighbors and will respect the rights of others regarding parking and meeting times. The parking is
very unusual in that there is an entire parking lot behind the center which is virtually unknown and
unused. The gate remains closed and he has never seen more than three or four cars in the lot. They
will be using the rear parking lot and entering the building from the rear. The congregation is very small --
about 15 people. He's in agreement with the staff report but asked for consideration of limited activity at
other times (i.e., a part-time secretary, bible study, counseling and occasional/seasonal get toyethers).
Church services on Sundays begin at 10:00 a.m. and last 1 1 /2 to 2 hours. They do not anticipate a
Sunday evening service. Mid-week services begin at 7:00 p.m. and will adjourn by 8:30 p.m. The church
does not anticipate performing weddings at this site because not too many people want to get married in
a shopping center. He doesn't plan to bury very many people the first year and doesn't consider
weddings or funerals to be a major issue.
Commissioner Bosch thought in considering the request the Commission must look at potential other
days or special events. He had a concern about the proximity to the residential area immediately south of
the site. The parking lot borders that. He understands the original need for the gate was based upon
traffic impacts and improper gatherings in the parking lot. He asked the pastor to address the potential
noise impacts upon the neighbors.
Pastor Pendergast intends to have their main access in the rear, but they will also have front door access
for visitors. Most of their fellowship occurs inside the building. He doesn't envision people congregating
in the parking lot; however, light conversation might occur -- nothing boisterous or excessive.
Commissioner Bosch asked if the pastor would be willing to stipulate to no activity after 9:00 or 9:30 p.m.
to give a sense of relief to the neighbors? (Yes.)
Those speaking in opposition
Jim Youn , 165 Swidler Place, said the reciprocal easement to the west does not exist. He has never
seen it. The gate was agreed to because of the neighbors' concerns. The purpose of the gate was for
traffic flow onto residential streets. The traffic going through that gate has access to the shopping center
to the west -- Carl's Jr. and another church. At times when the gate was not operating, the traffic was
horrendous. Access through that gate will cause problems and it would impact the neighbors negatively.
He didn't know who would police the use of the gate or front. Cars are started between 4:00 and
6:00 a.m. All the residential area has gone to permit parking because of these problems. Parking is
restricted between the late evening hours to 7 or 8 in the morning. Traffic problems currently exists at all
hours of the day. Other problems include noise, trash, crime and lighting. He's not opposed to the
church; the issue is how the impacts affect him. The parking is divided into employee parking (57 spaces)
and 64 spaces in front to serve all the businesses. He doesn't believe Century American has acted in the
neighbors' best interest to see that any tenants in the center would respect the neighbors by using the
rear parking area. He asked how many parking spaces are in the center? In regards to the gate, access
from a residential street should have never been allowed in the first place. The gate should have access
from the tenants with remote control devices. The gate was never intended to be locked.
Mr. Godlewski responded the request is not a cumulative parking request, but rather a mutually exclusive
parking request. There are 121 parking spaces available and the church will use the parking when it is
not impacted by the commercial uses. If the total amount of parking required for the church and the total
number of parking required of the commercial uses were combined, it probably would amount to
something in excess of the number of parking spaces.
Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Young were not comfortable with the commercial site being there? It
seemed to her that a commercial enterprise in the same space as the church would impact the
neighborhood much more with traffic and every day foot traffic. Doesn't the presence of the church help
mitigate the traffic impacts?
Mr. Young was not happy with the center in the way it has been run and the way it has affected him. He's
opposed to anything going in there that will increase the traffic. The controlled access should have never
been allowed in the first place and two wrongs don't make a right. He recognizes the highest and best
use of that land is commercial. But how do the neighbors deal with the current situation? He encouraged
the pastor to look for a better facility because he didn't think it would fill his needs. The church will
outgrow the site quickly. He would definitely like to see another use go in there (other than a bar).
William Dunivin, 3615 East Almond Avenue, expressed his objections to the conditional use permit. The
parking behind the building was originally intended for the sole use of the employees of that building. He
has been fighting a lot of issues from the street fights to everything else. It's been a mess over the years.
The church is not in the best interest of the center because it does not provide a tax base for the City.
Because of the center increased crime, traffic, noise, parking problems, trash, beer drinking, and kids
playing in the street are impacting the neighborhood. Enforced permit parking by the City was requested.
Caren Willis, 143 South Swidler Place, takes exception to the gate. They did not maintain it. When she
moved there, the gate was wide open. She believes the owner was fined for not having it shut. They
chained it for awhile until it could be fixed the way it was suppose to be in the original permit. The owner
has not considered any of the neighbors' needs. The owner has not shown any good faith.
Ruth Dunivin, 3615 East Almond Avenue, was very disappointed in the center. They have very little
privacy and quiet time, but do have a lot of traffic and talking. Neighbors have the right to peace and
quiet. A trash truck comes before 7:00 a.m. every Saturday and they have called to complain without
results. There is no cooperation from the management company.
Rebuttal
Mr. Cottle spoke to the issue of ingress/egress, which was questioned seven years ago. One of the
conditions on the parcel split was to have ingress and egress for both vehicles and drainage. The center
next to them (Carl's Jr.) was built before they were. They had to provide ingress/egress for that center
through their property onto Swidler. That was a condition for their project. The gate has always been a
question. They didn't come with the gate when they first proposed the center and staff didn't recommend
the gate when the center was proposed. He recalled the City Council proposed putting in the gate as a
condition. When the gate was first installed, it was a free exit going out. They give their tenants a
transmitter. This access became a raceway. They talked with City staff about the problem and it was
decided to take out the free exit, thus cutting down the traffic onto Swidler. He takes offense to not being
a good manager or owner. He works hard to maintain their property and being a good neighbor. Lighting
has been a problem. They put lights up on the back of the building, but the Police said they were not
bright enough; it was too dark back there. They had to put up better lights, but the neighbors complained
about them being too bright. Thus, they had custom made sheet metal to deflect some of the lighting.
The lights have to be there. He believes the neighbors are not opposed to the church, but are still
opposed to the center. In every one of their leases they do say they have the right to enforce employee
parking in the back of the center. If they run into a parking problem in the front portion of the center,
every single owner knows that the management has the right to enforce the parking. He thinks they have
a tenant they can control. The back is always going to be used for parking. Parking is available for the
church. If they outgrow the site, they will lose them as a tenant; the lease doesn't go forever. He can't
control or resolve some of the problems associated with the center; it's beyond his control and it would be
there whether the center was there or not.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Walters agreed it's not a happy neighborhood to be in these days between the school
functions and the busy traffic problems. He personally thought some of the problems allured to could be
resolved (i.e., trash trucks). In terms of the parking and eliminating all night parking, there are permits
that are required, but he suggested the neighbors talk to three City Council people and get them to
support a request for no night parking. He was sure the Council would consider doing so at their request;
therefore, there would be no permit charge to the residents. He said a church operation in those three
locations probably would be a much better tenant than what would be there otherwise. He was sure they
would keep the area clean. Church people tend to be fairly respective of rules and regulations. He asked
8
staff to comment if they found the gate was not being locked one hour following service, what would the
process be for enforcement of that ruling?
Mr. Godlewski said they could talk to the Orange Disposal people in regards to the trash pick up times.
He was not sure if they would get a different answer than the neighbors, but they would step in on the
neighbors' behalf and find out if anything could be done. Regarding the closure of the gate, staff put in
the condition and if it becomes a problem, the residents generally call the City to let them know there is a
problem.
Mr. Soo-Hoo said in a situation such as this if there were a violation of a condition of approval, it would
cause the staff to set the matter for a revocation hearing. At the time the Planning Commission could
consider revoking the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Pruett, in regards to the parking issue, questioned what the original agreement was so that
there's really an understanding of how the City is modifying the request. He heard the owner indicate the
area was available to the employees of the center, but he also heard him say if there was a problem, the
tenants in the center would complain because the employees would be parking in the front. However, the
neighbors are complaining that people are parking in their neighborhood. He thought that was not being
heard by the owner of the property. What is this request going to change or modify in terms of the original
conditional use permit on that property? He's not sure if he can support this C.U.P. without that
information. The second issue that is also a concern and very important is that children do need an area
of recreation. What are the church's plans for the children in taking care of their needs? Will they be
playing in the parking lot with that gate open?
Mr. Godlewski did not have the original conditional use permit; however, there were a number of
subsequent discussions from what was originally approved by the City Council and modifying the various
conditions along the way. Staff will do further research to come up with all the documentation relating to
the center.
Commissioner Smith heard the frustration on the part of the residents and the shopping center owner.
Maybe that's clouding some of the ways to solve some of the problems. She encouraged everyone to sit
down together and try to work on some of the issues. She regrets to hear another neighborhood
impacted so severely by growth in the City. It is a deep concern of hers to get back the neighborhoods
and maintain a viable business community; everyone must work together to do that. With the disposal
company, they have an exclusive operation in the City of Orange. With that comes a certain
responsibility. She knows this is not the only neighborhood that has been impacted adversely by the
disposal company and she thought they needed to be put on notice, or the request needs to be made
from all sides (residents, property owners and perhaps the City). She noticed six items the neighbors
brought forward as problems. Three of them do not belong to the shopping center -- the speeding
problem, the overflow parking from the apartments and the permit parking situation -- those do not belong
to the shopping center. They are neighborhood situations and hopefully they can be mitigated.
Commissioner Bosch asked the applicant for his concurrence to continue the hearing. (Yes.)
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to continue Conditional Use Permit
2032-93 to the meeting of October 18, 1993.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14847, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2030-93 - BEAZER HOMES
CALIFORNIA, INC.
A request for a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow the development of the site into a
Planned Unit Development containing 423 townhouses and attached single family residences. Subject
property is located on the west side of Prospect Street between the Collins Avenue bridge and Walnut
Avenue.
NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have been discussed by Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) #861, which was certified as addressing the
environmental impacts of a previously approved project for this site.
Chris Carnes, Planning Staff, presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to replace the
approved development with a new development that wilt be comprised of two distinct residential products.
One will be a traditional condominium development with 2-story units and carriage units over the garage,
and the other will be attached single family developments on individual lots. The proposal will reduce the
number of units from what was previously approved for the development. There were 485 condominiums
approved originally; they're proposing 423 total units. The project does not include any off-site
improvements because the applicant has already completed those as part of the original project that has
already been approved. The proposed densities of the developments are within the range of the General
Plan -low-medium density designation of the property. The conditional use permit request is for two
reasons. One it is to establish a planned unit development and the second is to create lots without direct
access to public streets. The planned unit development requirement is establishing development
standards that are different than what is established for the base zoning which is R-3 in this case. The
site plan included in the Commission's packet with the designated setbacks would be the setbacks
required for this development and will be established in the C.C.&R.'s for the development. The proposal
will also have private streets and a gated entry way. The C.C.&R.'s for the development will also include
that there be no building additions that will add living area. There are provisions allowing for small,
unenclosed patio additions onto the back of the attached single family units in the C.C.&R's. The
Environmental Review Board, when they reviewed this project, made a determination that the
environmental impacts were addressed in Environmental Impact Report 861 and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report 861 covered the environmental impacts of this project. No further
environmental review was necessary for this project. Staff has recommended 51 conditions of approval
for the project which include several mitigation measures.
The public hearing was opened.
Applicant
Tom Grable, represented Beazer Homes California, 100 Pacifica #360, Irvine. Four years ago in October,
1989 they obtained approval from the City for the development project. Because conditions have
changed dramatically over the past four years, they have amended/revised their project and in these
tough economic times, good planning can often be the result. He explained the background of their
property and the improvements they have made. They have only sold 55 townhomes; it would take them
eight more years to sell these homes. He introduced their new site plan. The area they are referring to is
on the west side of Prospect, which is currently built. They have received approval from the Design
Review Board as far as their architectural and landscaping plans. They want to add two new product
types to the existing townhome product to make for three different products within the development. The
first is a combination condominium, which feature carriage homes over garages and townhomes. They
will provide significant rear yards to the townhomes and enlarge the deck areas to the carriage units over
the current product. They have also designed these architecturally to compliment the existing townhomes
on the site. The second product would be the semi-attached cluster home. They are six homes arranged
around a drive court. They're attached in pairs, attaching garages to garages or attaching a garage to a
storage area or non-living portion of the site. They're designed to achieve substantial rear yards and side
yards. Living areas within the units are oriented to take advantage of the outdoor living areas. They will
be building 423 multi-family homes -- 62 fewer units than what they have approvals for to date. They will
continue to meet the P.U.D. criteria of the site and provide a living environment that is clearly superior to
the previous plan. They are reducing the density overall; future impacts of traffic would be decreased.
They will build these products simultaneously to building out the existing townhomes. They will be cutting
their time in half to build out the project roughly to March, 1997. Other benefits are the overall design of
the plan is better than the previous, there is a wider range of housing opportunities for the City including
the possibility for an affordable housing type with the smaller combo condo units. They will be reducing
the building bulk and height and reducing the hard scape within the tract itself. He has read the staff
report and is aware of the 51 conditions of approval. Many of the conditions have been conditions since
the first approval. They have 48 square feet of recreational area per dwelling unit and 1.2 acres to be
used as a public park facility.
Those speaking in opposition
Leslie Phillips, 565 North Pageant #C and Dave Phillips, 2709 Arbrey Place, Fullerton were not in
opposition to this, but wanted some clarification. He and his wife, son and daughter in-law, Leslie,
purchased a home in this project in April, 1992. Then Leslie and Bill moved into the home in August and
have lived there ever since. When they first purchased the home, it was designed as 485 units. They're
concerned about the financial impact this changing of the development will have in two areas: The
Homeowners' Association dues collected to maintain this project and the market value of the units for the
10
existing residence if this change is made. Homeowners' dues for the first year were $274 a month, of
which $80 was subsidized by the builder. The second year the dues were $226 and the builder
subsidized $45. As this protect was proposed, the homeowners' dues, by the time the project is
completed, was to be $177 a month. What impacts will this have on their dues? Anew schedule has not
been presented to the current homeowners. If the new homes are priced similarly or less than the
existing townhouse units, then it could very well artificially force the price of the existing townhouse units
down.
Rebuttal
Mr. Grable said Mr. Phillips issues were the same issues they raised with the HOA Board Members. With
the reduction of units, yes if you compute out those numbers, it does seem to be a shortfall; however, the
budget process of a condominium development is very complex. And to simplify it, the budget or amount
that the homeowners are paying today, $181, that is based upon build out of the project through phase 3.
They have disclosed their intentions through the white report regarding a tiered dues system. Any units
added to the development beyond that line would impact their HOA dues positively. The market value
question is a little more difficult to answer. Because the market is difficult to predict. The values will be
adjusted accordingly and he explained their reasoning. They couldn't represent a sales price because
they don't know what the market is going to be in six months. He's willing to meet with the Phillips to
discuss this further.
Commissioner Pruett commented about automatic garage door openers. Which units are equipped with
the openers?
Mr. Grable said on their existing townhome units the garage door openers were standard and they expect
to provide openers on the combo-condos and most definitely on the clustered units where they have the
short driveways.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith likes the way the project looks and she always likes it when density is decreased.
There are some trade offs. She's not thrilled with the 3 foot, 2 foot, 1 foot driveways as indicated in some
of the models. It appears space is added to the back of the property as backyards, which she likes. If the
garage door openers are used properly and will keep cars off the street and people have use of the
backyard, it looks like a good project. She's not that fond of open space being treated as balconies; she
would rather see green space, but realizes the restrictions involved.
Commissioner Pruett said the project has been done well and it takes into consideration the project that is
already underway and rolls it in very nicely.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to
approve Tentative Tract Map 14847 and Conditional Use Permit 2030-93 with the conditions outlined in
the staff report and with the modification to Floor Plan 5.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Bosch noted the key issue for him was whether or not this represented an improvement
over the previously approved project. His concerns have always been usable open space and also safety
in terms of automobile and pedestrian traffic in and around the site. He thought the applicant had
improved the situation from the previous submittal.
IN RE: NEW HEARING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14848, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2031-93 - BEAZER HOMES
CALIFORNIA, INC.
A request for a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow the subdivision of the site into a
Planned Unit Development containing 88 single family lots and private streets. Subject property is
located on the east side of Prospect Street, north of Walnut Avenue.
11
NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have been discussed by Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIRj #861, which was certified as addressing the
environmental impacts of a previously approved project for this site.
The staff report was waived and the public hearing was opened.
Applicant
Tom Grable, 100 Pacifica #360, Irvine, stated this proposal references the single family tract to the east of
Prospect. Originally this plan was approved as a tract totaling 73 single family lots. Their new proposal is
to convert what was a standard subdivision to a planned unit development. They would be providing a
private gated entry, private streets and a central recreation area. They would be adding amenities not
usually found in single family development and they would be doing this in exchange for a modest
increase in the number of units -- 16 additional homes over the previous plan. The way they designed
their plan they have been able to achieve an average of over 6,200 square feet in the lots. They've
designed units using swing in garages and front on garages. There will be more variety in the
streetscapes because of the different setbacks. By turning this development into a private community
they are providing a secure living environment, adding a certain amount of prestigious and perceived
value; a greater sense of community. They meet the P.U.D. criteria for the underlying zone and they
believe it is a superior living environment over a standard subdivision.
Commissioner Walters spoke to the one lot that lies behind the Orange Park Acres Water District well.
What mitigations have been done so that the noise of that well coming on 24 hours a day is not a
nuisance to the homeowner?
Mr. Grable said the area is open currently with a chain link fence along the back property. They will be
providing a block wall. The structure is also single story. The condition was with the old plan as well and
they need to be cautious as to the noise levels. They also represent in their sales disclosures what is
happening around their site.
Mr. Godlewski stated the applicant would have to meet the code requirements for the interior noise levels,
although it wouldn't hurt to add comments to that and draw specific attention to that when approving the
tract.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bosch recommended adding condition 41 that draws attention to the City requirements for
a dwelling unit construction to limit noise transmission into the dwelling unit and require a specific analysis
of the unit construction for those lots at the northerly portion of development adjacent to the public utility
well site.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to
approve Tentative Tract Map 14848 and Conditional Use Permit 2031-93 with the 41 conditions of
approval.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, asked a question in reference to the first public hearing regarding the
condition about the access being limited to Renee Street. Did that include delivery vehicles, catering
trucks and all vehicles for the events? (Yes.)
Frank Costentino, 534 North Thomas, commented about the stop sign at Gravier. He cannot make a left
turn; it's right turn only. He has to go back up to Bond and try to make a U turn, or go to Prospect. He
suggested taking out the island and leave the stop sign, but remove the one way turn.
Commissioner Bosch recollected that was a rather intensely discussed part of the conditions relative to
the alignment of traffic ways and an attempt to reduce traffic into the neighborhood. If it's causing
detrimental impacts rather than positive ones, he believed the correct avenue of approach would be to
address through staff to the Traffic Commission, which has control over traffic control devices in place.
12
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn at 11:10 p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
sld
13