Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-1996 PC MinutesJ " CfJ.3tJO. G;,~.-:3 MINUTES Planning Commission City 01 Orange November 4, 1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager 01 Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 10/21/96 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve the Minutes 0110/21/96 as recorded. AYES:NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2165-96; VARIANCE 2025-96; MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 22- 96-RICHARD BORIS Proposed conversion 01 a residential structure to a non-residential use with outdoor storage. Also requested are waivers 01 development standards. The site is located at 2410 North Batavia Street.This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the Calilornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the lull staff report as there was opposition to this item. The specifics 01 the applicant's request include a conditional use permit to allow an Industrial use with outdoor storage within 300 leet 01 residential zoned properties. The variance request is to allow an existing masonry wall and wrought iron fence to remain within the Iront setback. The code requires a 20 loot setback and the existing walls are 10 leet from the property line. The variance includes a request to allow a driveway access to the rear yard, less than the minimum 25 foot required by code. The existing conditions have a separation 01 a 17 loot driveway approach. The third par1 of the variance is to allow a parking space behind the 30 loot required drive aisle 01 an arterial highway. The applicant is proposing to place a handicap parking space between that 30 foot distance. The property was developed with a single lamily residence in 1960. The home is about 2100 square feet in size and there is a small shed located to the north. There is an existing 6 loot block wall along the southerly and northerly property lines, and in Iront 01 the existing residence. The applicant's proposal is to legally convert Ihe residential structure to a non-residential use, and to use the back portion 01 the property lor outdoor storage. To implement the project would require minor building improvements to the structure so as to allow access for the disabled inside the structure. Part 01 the applicant's on-site improvements include paving for 4 parking spaces. Three 01 the spaces would be behind the structure and the handicap space would be located in the Iront 01 the structure. Stall's analysis 01 this proposal included three issues: The conversion 01 a residential structure to a non-residential use, the variance request lor the existing walls,the parking space in Iront, and the width 01 the drive aisle, and the storage within 300 leet 01 residentially zoned property. Stall concluded that generally the variance request would not have a significant impact due to the limited demand for the potential uses on the site. The potential outdoor Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 anticipated lor a landscaping firm, would be less in height than the 6 foot existing block wall. There are required findings for all three requests. This would be a final ac!ion by the Plannin\l Commission, unless appealed by the applicant. There are 9 conditions of approval included on this proJect. Commissioner Smith asked what would be stored in the storage area? Mr. Carnes said the landscaping company would store planting and irrigalion materials, and equipment such as lawn mowers. It was not anticipated that large equipment would be stored on the site. Chairman Bosch said this was a conditional use permit request; therefore, it could not just be limited to a landscape business and would be considered "outdoor storage". What is the City's ordinance on the maximum height lor outdoor storage in that zone? Mr. Carnes explained any outdoor storage was limited to the height of the perimeter wall. That wall needs to be high enough to screen materials Irom public view. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant Richard Boris, 2410 North Batavia, proposed to have a landscape-maintenance company acquire the property. They will be sloring their vehicles, but will not be storing their landscape materials. They are a landscape contractor and their materials are ordered and delivered to the job sites. The only thing at this property would be their vehicles. There will not be much of an impact to the surrounding area. The property is zoned M-1. He purchased the property 10 years ago. Back in 1979 it was annexed to the City of Orange. He has never received a complaint about his business on the property.Commissioner Smith asked if Mr. Boris would retain ownership 01 the property?Mr. Boris explained the property is in escrow at the current time to be sold to a landscape contractor.The public will not be coming to the property; the contrac!or goes out and solicits bids, gets the projects,and does the work at the job sites -- not at the place of business on Batavia.Chairman Bosch's concern was that the business site was a gathering place for employees who team up on company trucks and go out to their job sites. In a couple 01 instances it causes a radical parking problem in the neighborhood. Because there is no on-site parking due to storage to handle the vehicles. What guarantee can the City have that there won't be problems on the street and for the neighbors? The site is quite restricted and there is a limited number 01 parking spaces on the site.Mr. Boris said all the vehicles would be parked in the back. The employees will park in the back behind the lences, and then take the company vehicles and leave. There will be no on- slreet parking. The property is 15,500 square leet. There are two gates, but only one will be used because 01 security reasons. The gate to the north is not secured. The south gate is the only gate that will be open.Chairman Bosch said the point 01 his question was Ihe proposal shows 4 on-site parking spaces,including the handicap space in Iront. (Those parking spaces are for office employees.) Then, there is an undesignated number 01 maintenance trucks that the employees take out with equipment to perform the landscape business at other sites, plus spaces for those employees who drive to work. This is in addition to the ollice employees. There is no indication 01 striping lor those types 01 parking spaces.How do all the vehicles fit on the site? How many employees are there going to be? How many maintenance trucks are there? It's dillicult to understand how the circulation will work when the yard is unpaved.Mr. Boris thought there were about 7 or 8 maintenance trucks. They do not need a designated parking area. The employees will drive in and park wherever there is an available parking space. There is plenty of room back there. The entire back yard is paved in gravel. They can park anywhere they want and it will not be a problem. When he bought the properly 10 years ago, there was on-street parking. The City removed the on-street parking because of Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Commissioner Pruett asked il the owner would agree to the concept of job site reporting? A condition would be placed on the project that would only allow those employees who were driving the company vehicles to the job site to be able 10 park their cars on the property. All other employees would report to the job site. Mr. Boris said it wasn't that big of a company. There were maybe 5 to 10 employees. There is adequate parking lor them. They're already working on Batavia -- 5 doors down the street. He thought people anticipated the worst and that's not the way it is.Chairman Bosch explained the Commission was trying to get as much information as possible to assist in understanding the application to demonstrate that it doesn~ cause a problem. The Commission was not gelling the inlormatlon they needed 10 give them the assurance there will be no problems. He determined there would be quite a few vehicles on the site. He needed to know il this would be a proper use on this property belore making a decision.Commissioner Smith asked why there was a request for storage when more parking spaces are needed?Mr. Boris didn't really know why he was at the hearing. His property is zoned M-1. He is not building anything or manulacturing anything. He explained what the landscape company employees will be doing at the property. He didn~ see why this was a problem. They don~ have any outdoor storage, but there might be minimal storage such as trees or plants. The storage area is lor vehicles. Commissioner Carlton asked how long the landscape contrac!or has been at his present location? Have there been any citations by the City or complaints of excessive noise? Mr. Boris replied no, there have been no complaints. They have been at their present location 17 years. Commissioner Romero asked if the size 01 the purchaser's property was larger or smaller than Mr. Boris' property? Was there a house on that property'? Mr. Boris said his property was a little bit smaller. The purchaser is reducing his business and he does not need as much land as he currently has. Yes, there was a house -- the two properties are almost identical. Those soeakino in oooosition Richard Matiana, 2415 North River Trail Road, lives behind the applicant in a single family detached home not a condominium. The legal notice has the wrong address on it and he thought that was why a lot 01 the neighbors did not attend the hearing. The address on the notice was 2140 N. Batavia, but the correct address is 2410 N. Batavia. Their house is on a zero lot line and their bedroom wall is the "wall". They are concerned with the new company moving to the site. They are requesting a variance for something that is not an unique situation. The need is not there lor a variance. When the street was widened, there was a residence there and it was not zoned M-1. There will be problems because 01 the parking situation. The stall report was too vague; what guarantees do the residents have about noise, parking,odors, pollution and storage 01 equipment and supplies?Rebuttal Mr. Boris reiterated his property is zoned M-1 for light manulacturing. A landscape company is a minimal type 01 use lor this property. He does not see a problem with his request. Mr. Luna, the buyer of the property, answered the Commission's questions. They are a landscape contractor -- not a maintenance contrac!or. They will be storing trucks at the site. Their hours 01 operation were from 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday-through Friday and sometimes on Saturday. He explained the current property is too big for him and hes paying $4,000 a month. He wants to stay in the general area and the new property is a purchase-lease situation. He has 25 employees and some 01 them carpool to work. Some 01 his employees already report to the job sites. He might consider job site reporting as an option if he had to.Mr. Boris said the property was originally 17,000 square leet. Then, Batavia was widened and his property was taken away. The City restricts him Irom parking out front because Batavia is a major Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 highway. They're Irying to get an easement because the block walls are now too close to the street. The City took away the street and took away the parking on the street. M-1 property is valued at the square footage; the City keeps taking away his property. It's nol going to be worth anything one 01 these days because there is nothing lelt.Chairman Bosch asked when the City widened the street, did they compensate him lor the land?Mr. Boris replied the City did that prior to his purchasing the property. He's paying taxes on 17, 000 square feet.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Smith commented the property was never permitted to change Irom residential to business use. What triggered this application? Why is there not a request to add more parking on the property? Why is there a request for outdoor storage when it is not needed?Mr. Carnes explained because the applicant was selling his property, he tried to apply lor some building permits lor the building additions added on to the rear 01 the structure and lor the conversion 01 the garage. All 01 these were done without benefit 01 permits. Nothing was legally done in the past to allow the conversion 01 a residence to a non-residential use. There is some accessory storage involved in this type 01 use and that's why outdoor storage is included in the application for a conditional use permit.Commissioner Smith also noticed stall is recommending faving the site (condition #4). Is the entire site suppose to be paved? Or, is there a designated piece 0 the land that requires paving?Mr. Carnes explained the site plan indicates Ihe rear portion 01 the property is proposed lor storage and parking and it will be gravel. Presently, gravel is spread over dirt on the property. Condition #4 requires, if it is to be gravel, it will have to meet the Grading Standards per the City's Public Works Standards and Specifications, which does include gravel. However, there will be some additional on-site improvements that must be made. The Standards reler to using gravel, asphalt and concrete.Commissioner Smith asked how the legal notice went out with the wrong address? (Staff did not know.)Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Soo-Hoo about the incorrectly identified property on the legal notice and what ramifications it had on the hearing process?Mr. Soo-Hoo asked for verification 01 the error and Mr. Matiana gave him his copy of the legal notice. He recommended this matter be re-noticed with the correct address in order to conduct a proper hearing.Chairman Bosch stated there were a couple 01 issues relative to the type 01 use which is a clear distinction between a contracting business and landscape-maintenance business. They are entirely separate lunctions that go on. He didn't recall il the M-1 zone or other parking standards dillerentiate between those types 01 uses which might generate an extraordinary amount 01 employee parking at the site lor transportation 011 the site relative to the square footage 01 the building, or was it silent on that?Is M-1 zoning strictly per the square lootage 01 the building and doesn't recognize what unique lunctions may occur other than sale and adequate parking 01 equipment?Mr. Carnes said previously there was a parking requirement of 1 parking space lor every 5,000 square feet 01 outdoor storage area. That parking requirement has been dropped. Presently, the only on site parking required is lor the building, and none for the outdoor storage area. There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that calls out if a determination is made lor employees or additional parking.Chairman Bosch stated the Commission needed to deal with the issue 01 the incorrect legal notice and consider Mr. Soo-Hoo' s recommendation. Mr. Soo-Hoo inlormed the Commission they could discuss their concerns and ask lor additional inlormation, but cautioned them not to reach a decision at this hearing.Commissioner Pruett wanted staff to discuss a couple 01 issues with the applicant relative to the on sile circulation and parking. He wanted a better understanding 01 that and how it would be managed. He also wanted a better understanding 01 some 01 the storage activity that would take place on the property.How would it relate to the overall use 01 the site Irom the standpoint of parking? What percentage of the site is going to be used lor outdoor Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 the parking be managed? Twenty-five employees on the site sends up a red flag about the parking issue.Commissioner Smith was in lavor 01 assisting a businessman who has been in town lor 17 years,providing a service to the residents and also supporting the tax base. She apologized for the error in the legal notice; it looked like a typo to her and it happens, even in the best of all computer worlds. She hoped the applicant understood, because in legal concerns it was very important that all people who might be affected by the project be properly noticed. Her parents live on Batavia Street, and have for 48 years and they've lost all their parking many years ago, too. When the lamily visits, they can~ park at their parents' house. She sympathized with Mr. Boris.Chairman Bosch said the key for him was as staff inlormation developed and through the presentation 01 the applicant, buyer and neighbor relative to the on-going uses on the site, and the fact that the ordinance, whether it should or not, does not address or differentiate between those types 01 uses that might occur given the different uses on the property. The key elements are those that don~ go with the proposed specific business, but with the property that exists and how it got to the place it is, which is causing every bit of a variance application. The minor site p'lan review again is caused by an older existing residence that now linds itself in the M-1 zone. Again, It is caused by circumstances 01 changes.It must be decided il the site is designed in such a way that adequately provides lor the intended uses,whether it be a landscape contract business lor as lonll as Mr. Luna wishes to be there, or as is the case with every CUP, since it goes with the land, that It is a layout that provides adequate salety,contextuality, protection for the neighboring residences, lor whatever type 01 business may be there,which is allowed by right in the M.1 zone without coming in lor lurther permits. He asked staff for a date when they could legally re-hear this projec!?Mr. Jones stated stall needed at least 30 days to re-advertise the public hearinll and obtain the additional inlormation requested by the Commission. Mr. Boris agreed to the continuation.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2165-96, Variance 2025-96 and Minor Site Plan Review 22- 96 to the meeting of December 2, 1996. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED 3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-96 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend Title 1701 the Orange Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) by revising various sections 01 the Code to make minor changes and correc! omissions that occurred .....ith the 1995 Zoning Ordinance update.This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.Joan WoIII, Senior Planner, reported in September, 1995 the City 01Orange adopted a Comprehensive Update to the Zonin!il Ordinance. There was discussion at that time that staff would monitor the new document and bring It back to hearings in approximately one year' s time Irame in order to address any problems or deficiencies that would be discovered during that time. Staff has not had major problems in Implementing the new Zoning Ordinance; however, they have lound a few items that were either inadvertently lelt out 01 the code or placed in the wrong section. There have also been a lew new issues that have come to light over the past year, which staff is trying to address in the new proposal. She briefly went over the proposed changes to the ordinance:NOTE:The attachment to the stall report, Pages 1 and 2 are adding terms that pertain to recycling that were actually in the prior code, but were inadvertently omitted in the Code update.Page 3 is a change to Chapter 17.08 - General Administrative Procedures. The change would propose to eliminate the requirements that mailing lists be prepared by a title company. These mailing lists are used to notify surrounding property owners 01 public hearings for CUP' s, Zone Changes, etc. as is required by State law. However, State Government Code only requires that lists be prepared in accordance with the latest equalized assessment rolls. There is no provision lor who Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 law. Many 01 the mailing lists the City receives as part 01 applications are prepared by ownership listing services, rather than by title companies. Therelore, those lists do not meet the specific requirements of the Ordinance. Staff has lound that use 01 a title company, however, does not guarantee any greater accuracy than a listing service. This change would allow listing services to also provide mailing lists. Although staff tries hard to check all the mailing lists to verny acaJracy, this double checking process is not required by code. The stall report indicates that staff maintains oversight of mailinQ lists, which is probably too strong 01 a term. Staff is not proposing to take on additional responsibility for del ailed verification 01 the lists, other Ihan making sure there are labels provided for every parcel that is within the 300' radius. Page 4 - Chapter 17.10 - Specific Administrative Procedures - staff is proposing to separate out the two situations under which Conditional Use Permits and Variances would no longer be valid. These circumstances are (1) revocation where there has been some kind 01 non-compliance with conditions, or when a permit was obtained based on lalse information. Revocation requires that a public hearing be held. The other situalion is an expiration 01 a permit. This happens when a permit has not been used within two years 01 the date 01 issuance, or the use has lapsed lor a given amount 01 time. Example: A restaurant has an ABC license. That restaurant closes down and a new tenant does not come in within the 6 month time frame, as required by the code. A new restaurant would have to come in for a new CUP.The language that is contained in the current code seems to indicate public hearings are required to revoke permits under both circumstances. So this change is proposed to clarify the difference between expiration and revocation. Also in this section 01 Specific Administrative Procedures staff is proposing to add provisions lor monitoring implementation 01 mitigation measures. These provisions were adopted in 1991, but were again inadvertently omitted from the Code update. This is the same material that was contained in the prior Code.Page 8 - Yard Requirements - Projections into yards, structures and leatures permitted within a yard setback, pertain to all zoning districts; however, this Section is contained under 17.14 - Residential Districts. Stall proposes to move that over to the General Requirements so that all the zoning districts would be covered. And, also, to put back in a lew requirements that somehow dropped out with the Update: #5, #6 and #12 -- those are provisions Irom the prior Code that are proposed to be put back in.Under Chapter 17.14 - Residential Districts ( Page 10), the first change is a minor one to hold hearings lor a large lamily day care homes. It would assure the hearing would be held, consistent with current practice.This change would make the code consistent wilh Slate Law as well. The second change to Chapter 17.14 is 01 a more signilicant change. This is with respect to garage setbacks in residential zones. There have been a number of inquiries regarding reducing Iront yard setbacks for side-lacing, swinging garages. This is where the side of the garage faces the Iront property line. This seems to be a popular concept in residential development, though it is not easily accommodated by the Code. Staff is proposing to allow a reduced setback to 10 feet in the residential zone for the garage only. Habitable space would still have to be at the 20 loot setback line. There would also be a provision that there is a minimum 60 foot lot width to accommodate the physical ability to swing into that garage. The Planning Commission and City Council have approved a similar reduction in setbacks in the Standard Pacific Parkridge development and at Beazer's Kensington development. Staff has a concern with this type 01 garage conliguration because it is important to consider the luture residences and their ability to easily use these garage parking spaces. Also, without adequate lot width it could take some maneuvering to actually pull a car into the garage. There is also some concern with the residents ability to park in their driveway without blocking access to and Irom the garage. A minimum pad width should be required in order to reduce the Iront yard setbacks lor garages.Commissioner Smith' s recollection was that the lot sizes were also smaller than a standard lot size on the two projects. Ms. Wolff said Parkridge Development was zoned R-1-8 - 8,000 square foot lots.Kensington was smaller; she thought they were 5,000 square foot lots.On Page 12, Chapter 17. 18 - Commercial Districts - there were minor changes. The first one was a clarification reflarding guidelines lor drive through restaurants. There is a fine tuning 01 the slandards for the CommerCial-Recreational Zone, basically eliminating some of the General Plan information that is contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and changing the setbacks lor consistency with other zones. Rnally,there is a clarification 01 the existing setback standards in Old Towne, in the commercial areas. This is not a change. It's simply pulling the requirements Irom the Old Towne Design Standards and also pulling it in the Zoning Ordinance so that there is no misunderstanding 01 what the requirements are.6 Planning Commission Minutes November 4,1996 Chapter 17.14 - Fence Requirements (Page 15). This is a minor addition that would be consistent with the previous code to avoid potentially unsafe situations where there are two parallel fences that are too close together. Stall is worried ilthere is a situation where there is a foot or two between fences, a child could get stuck in there, or trash collects. They wanlto avoid that kind of situation.The last change has to do with Service Stations (Page 16). It is a minor change regarding the processing requirements for remodeling 01 active, as well as idle service stations. Staff proposes a minor site plan review. Commissioner Pruett wanted to discuss the swing garages on Page 10. You take a garage and put it on one side 01 the lot with a 5 foot setback. The driveway access is at the opposite end 01 the property line. Are they talking about a minimum driveway apron to maneuver the car? Should the minimum size 01 the driveway apron be stated? There are different depths on garages. As the depth 01 the garage is increased, the apron is reduced and it becomes even more difficult.Ms. Wolff responded they could do that. They could put in some requirement that this type of situation must be approved with the Tract Map in order to assure some level of review. Stall has lound that 30 leet from the front 01 the garage is needed.Chairman Bosch asked if this was specifically lor planned unit developments or planned communities, or just general residential?Ms. WolII said it was proposed for general single family homes.Chairman Bosch's concern was anyone, anywhere in the City, in a residential zone with a 60 loot lot, could come in and request this. When the Commission looked at this before relative to anywhere for a larger tract, tract map, or planned development, often there have been maximum percentages set because they were looking at the overall development or sub-development. Whereas, again, il it were in the general residential areas, one could pull a permit and do this. Thus, changing the setbacks on existing streets that have existed lor 30 or 40 years, changing the fabric 01 the neighborhood without notice to or consideration of the neighbors. Ms. WolII said stall's thoughts were that not too many people would request this change. It's not easy to retrofit a situation where there is a 20 loot setback or a 2-car garage that is straight in. There may be some circumstances where it could happen and someone will ask to do it.Chairman Bosch could probably name 100 streets in town where there are 50's and 60's tracts with 30 loot setbacks to the houses and garages in the back yard. Therelore, there is enough room in the front yard and it will change the entire neighborhood. It sounds like a great opportunity if someone wanted to get their garage out 01 the back yard. The City needs to consider this fac! and decide il that is what they intend for that to happen. Controls and restrictions need to be placed on this.Commissioner Smith shares the concern. When it was previously approved, it was for a planned development or gated community. She would be concerned if it were a blanket policy throughout the City. She was not in lavor of the change (as written) for the entire City. She would rather see it come lorward on special projects.Chairman Bosch had a question on Page 12 in the commercial districts on drive through restaurants. The existing language, but also the proposed language, relers to guidelines applied to the design. He was a fan 01 writing an ordinance so that there are as little gray areas as possible, but as much freedom to design. In looking at this section, most 01 them look like the basic health, safety and welfare issues.Most 01 them are pretty straight forward in terms 01 minimal standards. Why is this called a guideline and not standards? Which ones do stall feel are really guidelines instead of standards? It needs to be cleaned up and make it dear to everyone.Ms. WolII responded these standards or guidelines are found and used on things that are not restaurants, but are drive throughs such as the drive through pharmacies and banks, in which case by being guidelines there is more flexibility. There is a tendency now where there is a requirement for separate windows lor dillerent func!ions shall be provided. They don~ seem to be doing that anymore.There are two windows, but only one 01 them is in operation. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Chairman Bosch said maybe the term "restaurant" could be cleaned up. Make it more universally applicable. He doesn't want a gray area; it needs to be clearer. Don~ limit it to restaurants. Make it generic for drive throughs since they are all requiring conditional use permits. Chairman Bosch's understanding, in looking at the bottom 01 Page 12 and on Page 13 relative to the floor area ratios in the Commercial-Recreation Development, is that the floor area ratios are not being eliminated; the replication of General Plan information is being eliminated because it belongs just in the General Plan. (That's correc!.) On Page 14 on setbacks in the commercial area of Old Towne -- he knew it was just a name change, but #2 states 'Within the Downtown Core, Glassell Street and Chapman Avenue shall comply with the zero setback. All other properties within the Downtown Core shall have a front yard setback equal to or greater than the average of the setbacks provided on adjacent struc!ures facing the same street." Then it goes lurther, "On the spoke streets, a minimum 15 foot front setback, North Glassell - 15', West Chapman - 0', South Glassell and East Chapman - 15'." Three works, but #2,historically there are commercial properties on all 01 the commercial streets in Old Towne - Almond,Maple, Grand, Orange, Lemon that have zero loot setbacks. He didn~ know if the intent was for non-conlorming uses. He read it to be that way. It strikes him, they ought to be looking at correc!ing that error and continuing to allow the historic zero foot setback on the commercial frontages. He asked staff to look into that.Ms. Wolff read it the same way. Other properties that are not in these areas that have a zero loot setback would be non- conlorming. It's a matter 01 deciding whether the City wants to allow those properties that have the zero loot setback to maintain it without being non-conlorming, or the City wants to let anyone else develop to the zero loot setback.Chairman Bosch thought this might be a good time to do it because 01 "housecleaning"; it's something worth looking at, particularly !liven the studies that continue to go on with regard to the revitalization 01 the downtown area, and maintaining property rights.Relative to the lence requirements (Page 15), Chairman Bosch said it was a word thing. He understood the concept 01 parallellences and property lines. It doesn't recognize that there can be lences or walls at the back 01 the Iront yard setback, fencing 011 the back yard, or there may be internal fences or walls,such as protecting the swimming pool area in a back yard. The language needs to be cleared up to understand the intent.On Page 16, Chairman Bosch appreciated the change in wording on active and idle service stations and noted the word "precise plan". Was this creating or does it avoid a conflict with the other use of the terminology, "precise plan" in the Zoning Ordinance, and particularly with regard to the other changes made in the Ordinance with regard to minor site plan review?Ms. Wolff said that term has just been there lorever. The way she reads it, it means the applicant shall provide a detailed site plan.The wording should be changed so as not to cause conlusion.The public hearing was opened.Public Inout: Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, commended staff lor the changes to the Ordinance Amendment. He agreed with the change that allows a listing service to check the property owners. They are every bit as reliable, if not more so, than a title company. Changing the 6 month expiration date to two years is better lor everyone. On the swing-in garages, the Beazer project was a planned development. The Standard Pacilic project was a planned community zoning with special consideration given to that. He agreed with the Commission's concerns. II it is allowed in all R-1 zones, Monterey Street comes to mind, the first guy that builds a garage out in front 01 his house, is going to make his neighbors upset! The City is probably better off keeping it in the planned development special projects or at least a new subdivision. He likes the concept very much, but with some restric!lons. The 60 loot lot width may not be absolutely necessary. The turning radius into the garage should be a controlling lactor. He believed it could work on a 50 loot lot. The publiC hearing was dosed. 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Chairman Bosch didn't comment on Page 8 on the yard requirements. It spoke to bay windows on D. 5., which he agreed with. His concern was with 6. and 12. relative to the amount 01 projection into the setback areas. "May project into required setback areas not more than two-thirds (2/3) the dimension 01 the required setback." Stall needs to look into that a bit more. If it is an eave, canopy, awning or marquee, it may be appropriate, but in some of the zones where there is a 20 foot front yard setback,there could be some incredible struc!ures allowed by this in the front setback area that are not necessarily appropriate.Commissioner Pruett caught that 100, but it went on to say that it had to be supported by Ihe building.The same is true on 12. where it says three-fourths (3/4) the distance. But this is where commercial,industrial and prolessional buildings are permitted to abut the street p'roperty line. So it would be in the zero setback area. There may be areas where a building is permitted to abut a street pro~ rty line because the street had been widened and the property line was moved back to the lace or Side 01 the building, yet the parkway, sidewalk, curb, etc. may be extraordinarily big. It's great to try and quantify what the City wants to do, but he personally would appreciate staff looking lor a way to control it a bit more that relates to the scale and type 01 buildings being talked about.With regard to the swing-garages, Chairman Bosch would also like to see a study on the turning radius and backing. The key movement is getting out -- not getting in. He was against the idea 01 opening thiS up to every zone in the city. It would be a real problem unless some control could be put in place. He didn't see one, given the breadth of the impact. It should be quantified in terms 01 at least a planned unit development, planned communities and new trac!s. It needs to make sense as a development and fits into the context 01 a neighborhood Ihat is being created rather than opening pandora' s box.Commissioner Smith had a question on Page 14, item 1 - talking about the setbacks within the Plaza Historic District. Does it also reler to the court yards that are gOing in more Irequenlly? Are the court yards to be 7 feet? There is no relerence to the entire frontage of the building.Ms. WolII said it just pertains to the entries. Commissioner Smith then asked where the provision was lor court yards? Ms. Wolff didn1 think there was a provision for court yards.That was a grave concern to Commissioner Smith. As more and more buildings are allowed to do that,the City is losing their originallacades. There needs to be some relerence to the buildings that are in the National Historic District.Chairman Bosch thought it was not appropriate lor court yards to be considered under setbacks. It relates more to the Design Guidelines lor Historic Struc!ures. Because the setback of the building is not the entry. It's not a land use issue; it's a building design guideline issue. Maybe that's the problem and it does not belong in this section at all.It was suggested to delete the wording alter the comma in (1), Page 14.The Commission thought the Ordinance looked pretty good; it just needed some fine tuning. They asked staff how much time they needed to make the minor revisions and come back to the Commission lor final review?Staff could bring the corrections back to the Commission on December 16, 1996.Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Ordinance Amendment 3-96 (Zoning Ordinance) to the meeting 01 December 16, 1996. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 4. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 4-96 - CITY OF ORANGE Initialion 01 discussion regarding the City's Site Plan Review process and potential alternatives for the City to consider should modification 01 the process be desired. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions of the Calilornia Environmental Quality Ac! (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sec!ion 15305. Joan WoIII, Senior Planner, explained this item was brought forth as a result 01 direction from the City Council to revisit the Zoning Ordinance alter the one year time period. The establishment of Site Plan Review with the 1995 Code Update is a signilicant change Irom the previous Ordinance. Prior to September, 1995 the projects which met code required only Design Review Board approval 01 architectural and landscape elements. The site plan, inconsistent with the Ordinance requirements, was not subject to review or discretionary modifications. Under the current code (adopted in 1995) virtually all development projects undergo some level 01 review. Projects that are exempt Irom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are considered minor site plan reviews and are ac!ed upon by the Staff Review Committee. Projects that are subject to CEQA are acted upon by the Planning Commission. In the past year, 25 site plan reviews have been processed. Eighteen were acted on by the Staff Review Committee. Three had final determinations by the Planning Commission, and four were heard by the City Council on appeal. The reason why Site Plan Review was recommended and adopted was because there were a number 01 benelits that were seen to having such a process. One was that better development projects would occur. Secondly, there would be publiC notice 01 upcoming projects. Thirdly, there would be a coordinaled staff review of the projec! in the earlier stages. Under the old code, staff would get projects in that were completely designed struc!urally. II something were wrong, staff had to go back in the process. This was intended to help that situation. However, there are some difficulties that arise. One is that sometimes land use issues cannot be addressed under the Site Plan Review process, because site plan review basically deals with projec!s that do comply with code in terms 01 use and development standards. The land use issues can be introduced into the hearing process because there are concerned citizens who live in the area. Other disadvantages to the process include the additional processing time and the application fees for the projec! developers. At the request 01 the City Council, this item is being brought forward to lacilitate and begin discussion of the Site Plan Review process. This is in no way a final product that staff is recommending adoption of. What is needed first is to determine if changes are needed. If so, to what extent of changes are desired to the process? Ms. Wolff listed a summary of a number of approaches that could be pursued by the City in order to modify the Site Plan Review process. The items addressed in the staff report include: (1) Going back to the way things were. Site Plan Review can be eliminated and re-instate the conditional use permit requirements for many of the items that are now processed by Minor Site Plan Review. (2) Redefine the thresholds for Site Plan Review. For example, rather than making the cut off between projects that are exempt from CEQA and projects that are subject to CEQA, Site Plan Review could be required lor only projec!s that are over a certain size or exceeding a certain floor area ratio. The appropriate thresholds have not yet been determined, but that's one way to do it. (3) Another approach might be to replace major andlor minor Site Plan Review processes with a conditional use permit requirement lor projects that are 01 a specified size or intensity. This would allow the locus 01 the permit process to expand to encompass land use issues where the previous option, redefining the thresholds, would still focus only on project design. (4) Allow the Design Review Board to ac! on Site Plan Reviews, in conjunction with its existing architectural and landscape review func!ions. This would eliminate a step in the process lor the applicant. (5) Another option might be to create new development standards to address some 01 the development scenarios or problems that staff has seen developed in the past. This would probably require amending other sections 01 the code. (6) Another idea is to add one Planning Commissioner to the Design Review Board for the purpose of improving lines of communication and assuring the Planning Commission concerns and issues would be addressed at that level. (7) Noticing procedures could be changed for Site Plan Review. (8) Whether or not other changes are enac!ed, staff would recommend to modify the required lindings for Site Plan Review.Staff is hoping to achieve through this meeting an understanding 01 the Planning Commission's position on Site Plan Review, what the concerns are, and to obtain some specilic direc!ion regarding the types 01 modifications the Commission would support. Specifically, staff asked the Commission to answer the questions at the end of the stall report: (1) Should Site Plan Review be retained, modified, or eliminated? (2) Which direction(s) should be pursued il modifications are desired? Should other approaches be considered? (3) If Site Plan Review is to be eliminated, should stall formulate Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 recommendations to revert project review to the Zoning Administrator lor those types of projects previously decided by the Zoning Administrator, or lor project review in the CR zone? (4) Provide specific inputldirection on any recommended course 01 action. Commissioner Carlton had a question on Page 5 where the standards could be incorporated to prohibit enclosed parking from counting toward the parking requirement in commercial and industrial zones. She was thinking 01 some 01 the houses on Tustin where there is a garage in the back that are commercial now. If two cars could park in the garage, why would you prohibit them from doing that and counting that for their required parking space? Ms. Wolff explained the reason why staff made that recommendation is because they see all the time in industrial and commercial zones where they want to take a portion 01 their required parkinll and put a garage around it. They say they are going to park their cars in the garage, but it ends up being storage or some other function n not by the current owner or operator, bul by someone down the line. Staff feels in commercial and industrial zones the parking needs to be totally open lor the employees and customers. Commissioner Pruett addressed the questions asked by staff. In terms 01 whether the Site Plan Review should be retained, modified or eliminated, he thought based upon the proposals stall put forward, the modification is something he would consider as being appropriate. He liked the concept that was laid out in option #4, which is reassigning the decision making authority to the Design Review Board. That was an interesting concept. The one issue that was not clear to him was how the CEQA requirements would be dealt with if there were any CEQA requirements. He liked the concept 01 Site Plan Review going to that body, and it goes back to the concept 01 looking at these projec!s Irom the Commission's perspective and trying to deal with some 01 the issues related to Site Plan Review. It will be better served by the expertise on that body. There are probably some other !jood points made under some of the other options, but that was the one that really slood out in his mind. Under the other options, stall changed the composition 01 the Design Review Board and proposed one member 01 the Planning Commission sit on that board. He didn1 know il that was really necessary. He thought it would draw the distinc! lines 01 one that is dealing with the architectural and all the site plan type activities on the Design Review Board; the land use issues staying with the Planning Commission. That's a good distinction. He did not think a Planning Commissioner needed to be on the DRB to improve the communication. That can be done through study sessions and other similar types 01 activities where the two groups get together occasionally to work out issues. Question #3 . If Site Plan Review were to be eliminated, he didn1 know if he would agree that the Site Plan process should be eliminated. He knows there have been problems and issues during the last year that require the Commission to deal with some fine tuning 01 the process. But he did not agree that eliminating Site Plan Review was in the best interest 01 the applicant. In terms 01 specilic input on a recommended course 01 action, his previous comments outline that. Commissioner Smith thought the Site Plan Review process was extremely innovative and has served the purpose well. But, she thought it needed some modification. It doesn1 do it justice to just comment on It now, given the late hour and so many issues that are involved in each of the options. She would like to hear more about the rationale behind each 01 the presentations. There are 9 options, which is a lot. If there were three, maybe they could get through it at this meeting. She wanted to have a study session on this item and be able to ask questions about the specific options alter reading the document. Her thinking was just the opposite 01 Commissioner Pruett's on the DRB portion and the representation 01 a Planning Commissioner on the DRB. It would be tough to battle that one out at this meeting. If that is to be the lunction 01 the DRB, that the qualifications and criteria 01 the DRB members need to be changed. The idea 01 having a Planning Commissioner on the DRB is an excellent one. Although, she suggested it be on a rotating basis n everyone take a certain number 01 weeks on the DRB. She likes lor the lelt hand to know what the right hand is doing. It would be extremely educational to know what the DRB has to contend with, and also to brin(l up the land use side the Commission deals with. It should not be eliminated. She always likes the Input of a body 01 people in the community, rather than an individual. It puts a lot of responsibility on the Zoning Administrator and it doesn1 truly reflect the community. The community should have inpul on these kinds 01 things n new development or changes in particular areas 01 the City. She would like to have at least two people, preferably three people, Involved in decisions that involve the whole community. Her recommendation on a course of action, as mentioned, was a study session. She liked small study sessions, but in the interest 01 giving staff time, they could decide who would attend the study session -- Planning Commission, DRB, City Council, or any two 01 those mentioned. She really thinks someone should look at the design of buildings on Minor Site Plan Review. She cited her recent ugly building on the corner 01 Meats and Tustin. Who was monitoring 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 the design of that building? II's one of the newest buildings in town, but it's one of the most uncreative, land specimens 01 architecture. That's a glaring omission on Site Plan Review. In that case, she liked Commissioner Pruett's idea 01 the DRB looking at it because there are some designers there. But, the way it is set up right now, she didn~ think there was any design input. Chairman Bosch asked if the DRB reviewed that building because he didn~ know and he wanted clarification. Ms. Wolff thought the DRB did review the building. The public hearing was opened; however, there were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch commented he agreed the process should be retained, but modilied. It was needless to answer question 3. He disagreed with Commissioner Pruett with regard to the Design Review Board. II they were going to eliminate a step, then there should be another option, which is eliminating the DRB and combining ils function with the Planning Commission, as a sub-committee of the Commission ahead 01 the hearing or as part 01 the hearings of the Commission. And look for expertise on the Planning Commission to look at all the aspects of both land use and design, whether it be a site plan or architec!ural design. He disagreed with the concept of placing a Planning Commissioner on the Design Review Board, lithe DRB were to be retained. He was not sure il it were even legal, but it was not good policy. It was putting a lot 01 extra weight and time and perhaps authority on a single member of the Planning Commission to represent or carry the load that might be damaging to the individual or could cause some skewing 01 the decisions that come down. It's better to keep clear, functional separation.Yet, they have found over the years that is hard to do. The DRB, in discussions with them, have expressed concern about their inability to influence the site design, which may in lact provide lor better architectural design and the two do go hand in hand. Yet, at the same time, to assign land use issues to the Design Review Board is not in line wllh the entire concept or vision 01 what the Design Review Board does. SO, il one wanls to set up a different body lor major site plan review or minor site plan review,then he thought it wasn't a Design Review Board at all. He didn't believe in adding another layer 01 Commissions or Committees to what the City has now. The City would need to blend the DRB into the Planning Commission. That option should be studied as well. They need to be more business Iriendly in serving the public by more carefully defining the purview 01 the Design Review Board with regard to desilln issues, and which aspec!s 01 site design should truly be theirs, rather than the Commission in looking at health, safety and public welfare vs. aesthetics and lunction. Create new development standards -- he would only create new development standards, or modily the ones they have where they can have clear cut items. He still believes a person should be able to walk up to the counter and walk away knowing exactly what they can do. Parking in the strip commercial zones are a key concern. Part 01 the problems with regard to controlling where employees park. Part 01 the bene lit 01 having the buller of parking on the back side 01 strip commercials is buffering 01 building mass from the residents, althoughitcausesmorenoiseandpollution. The Commission needs to look at that regardless 01 the site plan issues. II's a separate issue. He thought all 01 the options are pretty much separate issues that are listed in 5. Can tyey change Irom guidelines to standards with broad spread community acceptance 01 the design guidelines that are in place now? Again, on other options, changing the composition of the Design Review Board, he thought il they retained the DRB, II's not just the composition. They have to step back and look at the whole basic concept, the ordinance, and the slandards that they address as they do their action to avoid conflicting duties with the Planning Commission, and assure they're doing something that needs to be done and isn't redundant here. Yet, at the same time, remains as a recommending body to the Planning Commission and City Council so that the applicant and public have the opportunity to see the whole picture belore a linal decision is made. There was discussion under H. Required Rndings to look at how they should be made in conjunction with project approval. Can that be changed to help? The word compatible shows up in the first one. This goes back to the development 01 the Southwest Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines, when they ran into problems with compatible and contextual and the definitions, and what is the design of a neighborhood. Would this require a definition 01 design? Would it cause replication? In the Old Towne area how many different styles are there? They must be very carelul with the wording, but again, make it more precise; not more general. He didn~ want to institutionalize bad design. A study session is necessary to discuss this at some length. There are going to be more study sessions with the DRB so that both bodies can work together as a team and lind those areas they can eliminate entirely out 01 the ordinance. He kind 01 liked it the way it is. He wished the threshold could be raised for major site plan review. He would like staff to come to that study session with an explanation of how the CEQA documentation would be handled legally ilthat were the case. In any event, the ordinance needs to be re-worded or re-written to make it Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 clear to the public that land use is not part 01 the site plan review. And the current wording in that ordinance, on Page 492 F.1. relative to the development shall be consistent in size and scale 01 surrounding development, and the building design shall consider the respect and privacy of adjacent residents --that's very vague. That could be land use, but it was under site plan review. On Page 494 4. a. project developers shall be responsible for improvements to public infrastructure in accordance with the City's Master Plan 01 Streets and Highways, and water, sewer, and storm drain master plans .- very vague. There is no nexus called for. No wonder discussions so easily get beyond the site itself. On Page 495 G. 13. that conditions 01 approval or any other changes or additions the Committee feels are necessary to further the goals of the site plan review process u the goals are gray. They need to be solidified more. H. 1. Rndings Required - that the projec! will not cause a deterioration 0 neighboring land uses -- there is a gray line between land uses and specific site plan design. They need to state what that means. On PaQe 496 4. and 5. it speaks to on and oil-site circulation adequate 10 support the projec! and Cily services are available and adequate. In the context with 4. a. this is a given at most sites, according to the General Plan and Capital Improvement Program. What does most 01 this have to do with site plan review?Ms. WolII also thought it would be helplul to hold a study session. A consensus 01 the Commission agreed to a study session, which could be held no later than the end of January, 1997.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Ordinance Amendment 4-96, Site Plan Review Process to the next meeting, November 18,1996.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS 5. TENTATIVE TRACT AND FINAL TRACT MAP 15027 - PARKRIDGE Relerral by the City Engineer, lor review and potential authorization 01 detailed lot line adjustments affecting one open space lot at "Parkridge". The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether planned revisions should be considered as substantially consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map 15027. Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflic! 01 interest. The chair was turned over to Commissioner Pruett.Mr. VonSchimmelmann went over the Tentative Tract Mag process. When an applicant comes to the City, they submit their Tentative Tract Map to the Planning epartment, which then reviews the submittal for adequacy, lot size and zoning. Then the Map is reviewed by the Staff Review Committee and that's where conditions are recommended. The Tentative Map then goes to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation; then on to the City Council where they make a final determination. The applicant has two years from that point lor process recordation 01 the Map. He may ask for three one-year extensions alter that. Upon recordation, then the Map goes through a final process. If an owner desires to deviate from the Tentative Map, the City Engineer has the authority to determine whether the chan",ed Mapis in substantial conformance with the submitted Map. It must be noted that the State Subdivision Map Act does not define what substantial conlormance is. City policy, as directed by the previous City Attorney, is any change in the blue border, which is the outside boundary of the Map, the change in the number of lots, or subjective review, which include changes in zoning, would require an approvallrom the Planning Commission. The proposal belore the Commission has an increase in the number 01 lols; however, the change involves some private-public ownership of an open space lot.Gary Wann, Direc!or 01 Community Services, is present and can detail the impac!s 01 that transaction.The public hearing was opened.Aoolicant Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, represented the applicant, and explained some 01 the history 01 this project. He relerred to Attachment 4, Expired Tentative Tract Map 13125, showing lots 30,31 and 32,which were at one time approved on the previous Tract Map and the precise area 01 Lot G of the most 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 recently approved Tract Map. The condition for Lol G was that the lot be dedicated to the City for park purposes. The history 01 this is not that the stall was concerned about expanding the size 01 the park. Because that park is 25 or 27 acres. The motivation lor that condition was that in the previously approved Tract Map, the Parks & Recreation staff were never real happy with the idea of having three lots backed up to a park, with the direct interface 01 the rear yards to the open space public park, and the problems that could occur. As Parkridge came in with the revised Map (the previous Exhibit 15027), Lot G is shown. In the design process, where they re-designed several areas of the tract, staff convinced them they should eliminate those three lots and not have them backed up to the park. Parkridge accepted that.Part 01 the redesign of the tract was based on the fac! that alter more extensive trenching and testing 01 the soils conditions out there, they were able to eliminate some of the setbacks Irom suspected faults.The Soils Engineer was able to establish they were not ac!ive and the setbacks were not needed. The Eastern area 01 the trac! was designed to reduce those setback areas, and frankly they could pick up more than those three lots they were losing. Alter Trac! 15027 was approved, Standard Pacilic came into the picture, as a partnership with Tracy Development and determined that this would be a better project lor everyone, ino::luding the City, il it were made into a private, gated project with private streets. The negotiations with Community Services were going on at that time for this private recreation facility. They had not been concluded and they were running out of time to get the tract underway to get the first phase started, or they would have included that as a revision at that time. They have finally concluded the extensive negotiations. The City is going to benefit substantially Irom this transac!ion. They will realize 112,500 and will also get some benelit Irom the interim grading and maintenance. The reasons this is found to be in substantial conlormance is (1) the entire lot will still be used lor open space and recreation.There is no change except that part of it will be a private recreation facility and the remainder will be dedicated to the park. There is some reliellrom the demand on the park because this trac! would have its own private recreation facility, and will have a slightly less demand on the adjacent park, although there would still be access to the p,ark. There is a very small, but maybe signilicant reduction in the maintenance of that area that the City Will not have to maintain. The homeowner's association will be responsible lor the maintenance of the frivate park. Circulation and access patterns 01 the tract are identical; there is no change. The number 0 residential lots are identical. This will create one more lettered lot. But this has been a standard prac!ice. Often times, as you get to the details 01 the final map, it's necessary and desirable to create more lettered lots, il for no other reason than having two homeowner associations that end up in the project. Sometimes a street moves over five leet between the tentative and final maps and a lettered lot needs to be created lor maintenanceres(>onsibilities lor the association. The City Manager has reviewed this in detail and has no objection to It. This is a win-win situation for everyone.Staff is asking the Commission to make a finding that this is in substantial conlormance with the Tentative Map; then they can move lorward and record the map.Commissioner Romero asked how the payment 01 $100,000 was determined?Gary Wann, Director 01 Community Services, explained this was a negotiation and discussion that took place over a month's time. There was an intemal assessed valuation of the property, but he didn1 recall the exact amount. He believed il was in the $250,000 range. The financial donation was based on what Standard Pacific was able to pay, which was no more than $ 100,000.Mr. Mickelson explained since the trac! has not been recorded, the parcel has not been dedicated to the City. Once it is dedicated for park purposes, there is a whole new set of standards and hoops they have to jump through to buy it back. In this case, if they can find a substantial conformance, the remainder can just be dedicated.Commissioner Smith relerred to item 5 -- there was an additional contribution from Standard Pacilic 01 12,500 to the City's Department 01 Community & Ubrary Services. Is that a one time contribution?Yes.) That is to go into the General Fund to support the City's recreation programs. (Correct.) How did that negotiation come about?Mr. Mickelson said that was during the negotiations he was not a part of, but he thought it was part of the total package that Standard Pacific agreed to do certain things like the on-going maintenance agreement and provide those two amounts of money.Mike White, Standard Pacilic, said during the negotiation process they ollered to do something along those lines and everyone came to that agreement 01 the contributions and Planning Commission Minutes November 4,1996 The public hearing was opened to take public comments. There were none; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith wanted to hear from Mr. Wann about the City's desire to do this. What does this do to the park site? Mr. Wann stated Standard Pacific approached staff approximately 5 or 6 months ago. There were discussions that took place as to whether or not staff would be able to negotiate some type 01 process internally into the CIP program (perhaps move some monies around) and direc! their attention towards Cerro Villa Park. Staff explained to Standard Pacific at that time they did not have the ability to do that; there were other priorities. Other discussions pursued and later on Lot G came up. Staff looked at it simply in terms of the negotiation process. It was not going to affect the integrity of Carro Villa Park when staff gets to it (approximately in the year 2000). It is probably one of the last passive parks the City intends to build for a number of years. They looked at the $100,000 that would be, in turn, put into the City's development package. Staff has numerous projec!s they can use that money for -- ac!ive ball fields or putting the money back into the area. The money was an attrac!ion because that's $100,000 the City does not have. In addition to that, there was a generous $12,500 donation that could be put towards some 01 the City's active recreation programs. It is not going to negatively enhance Cerro Villa Park's development, and based on their discussions with Standard Pacilic, reviewing it internally with Community Development, as well as the Legal staff, n seemed like a very good deal. Lot G is 3/4 01 an acre. Cerro Villa Park is in excess 01 20 acres, not counting this parcel. This park is in a very passive area with very limited active facilities once the park is developed out.Commissioner Pruett clarified the property is not property owned by the City because the Tract Map had never been filed. The owner 01 the property could decide to go back and revise the Tract Map and not include the open space for park purposes. He sees it as a win-win situation for everyone. The Commission needs to focus on the technical issues of the Trac! Map revision 01 creating Lot G into two additional lots, which is increasing the lot size of the tract, thus substantially chanlling the Tract Map. The Commission must decide whether that change is substantially consistent with the approved Tract Map 15027. Commissioner Smith was not really in favor 01 doing this. She never likes to see park land given back or developed and it has happened many times in the City. Orange is already per capita park poor compared to other areas. She was distressed over the greenbelt area being approved to develop 200 homes rather than to be open space. However, she defers to Mr. Wann's negotiations and desire lor what the negotiations can do lor the present park system. She will support the decisions 01 other prolessionals in the City. The Commission agreed it was consistent with the Tentative Map. Commissioner Pruett understands this land is designated as open space, even within the revised tract or modified plan. By taking this action, it's not being taken out 01 open space; it's still going to be used as open space, and that makes it much more palatable under the circumstances. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to request a linding of substantial conlormance for Tentative Tract Map 15027. Parkridge, with the Rnal Map numbers 15246 and 15027, based on the findings that there is no change in the blue border of the map. The number 01 lots as originally proposed is equal and the use remains the same as open space. The lots do conlorm to the basic layout, size and shape that were originally proposed (and according to zoning ordinance crileria lor minimum size, lot width and depth). Any special requirements or conditions have been satisfied lor recreation trails, landscaping, utility, access or drainage easements and improvements. A statement 01 gratitude to the developers was added lor their generosity; their contribution is appreciated as an offering of goodwill towards the City's parks and the recreation programs. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Barbara DeNiro wanted to share two pieces of mail with the Commission she has received. One is a death threat and it is with the FBI now. Chairman Bosch was not sure this was appropriate. He was extremely concemed about what was happening and hoped the legal authorities could salve the problem. Ms. DeNiro asked to leave her letters with Commissioner Smith persanally. Someone has to see it to understand what is going on with her. Commissioner Smith would be happy to accept anything Ms. DeNiro wanted to give her alter the meeting. Mr. Soo-Hoo clarified the general rule under Oral Presentations under the Brown Act is that the Commission can receive any testimony that addresses anythinll within the subjec! matter~urisdic!ion of the Planning Commission. He didn~ believe that material was within the Commission's jurisdic! ion.IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to adjourn to a joint study session with the Design Review Board on November 18,1996 at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to continue their discussion on the development review process and issues 01 mutual concern. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p. m. Isld 16 I - II