Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None December 5, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21. 1994 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of November 21, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM TO BE WITHDRAWN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2086-94 - BHAGWAN DEOL (INDIA CLUB) A letter was forwarded to the Commission requesting this item be withdrawn. The application was for a proposed night club at 1170-1174 North Tustin Street. The applicant was not present at the hearing. If the Commission agrees to withdraw the application, any future activity regarding the proposal would need to resubmit a new application and there would be re-notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to accept the withdrawal of the application for Conditional Use Permit 2086-94. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart believed all the Commissioners received a letter from Chief Robertson. At one of the study sessions with the Chief regarding ABC licenses, it was requested of the Police Department to have an officer present at the Planning Commission meetings to represent their views and opinions on such items. It is very important for the Police Department to have a representative present for discussion purposes, in addition to their letter. Mr. Jones will pass this information on to the Police Chief. He has recently had discussions with the Police Department (Sgt. Barry Weinstein) who handles the ABC licenses, and he indicated he will attend all public hearings where requests for ABC licenses are under consideration. It was assumed he was not present at this hearing because the application was being withdrawn. The Planning Commission recessed to the George Weimer Room at 7:10 p.m. to receive a presentation by the Building Official regarding the feasibility of placing restrictions on residential building permits. Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS December 5, 1994 RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO STUDY FEASIBILITY OF PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Dennis Krejci, Building Official, referred to his memorandum dated November 23, 1994 and briefly summarized the key points in that memorandum. What appears on the surface to be a rather simple concept, is very complex because modification to the Building Code can have a domino effect within the code, causing inconsistency and enforcement problems. City Council has the authority to modify the Building Code, but several questions must be answered first. Attached to the memorandum was a copy of the modified building permit requirements that have been adopted by the City of Irvine. Commissioner Walters asked about an expiration date for projects to be completed? Mr. Krejci said the Building Code states a permit is active for 180 days. If there is no activity, the permit expires after 180 days. The code, however, does not state how much work must be done to keep a permit active. Commissioner Pruett read the Irvine Ordinance and it required exterior work to be covered within six months; building materials to only be stored fora 30 day period. He asked if there was a penalty if those rules were not followed? Mr. Krejci responded the person would more than likely be cited and would go to court. An applicant would also be allowed to build according to the regulations in effect when that permit was pulled. Commissioner Walters took issue with the eyesore of some commercial properties (service stations) that sit vacant and run down for years. What addresses the buildings' maintenance/appearance issues? Mr. Krejci stated the Housing Code and Property Maintenance Code would address those issues. Mr. Jones said there was also a $50 fine for those persons violating their property maintenance responsibilities. Commissioner Pruett liked Irvine's completion of construction requirement -- all residential remodeling shall be completed by the owner or permittee and approved by the City within a period not to exceed one year, with one 6-month extension in writing. Commissioner Walters named La Mancha Development as the owner of the three vacant service stations. In talking to the owner he asked why the property remained an eyesore and the owner responded because the City did not make them remove it." This creates a depreciation of the public caring about the area in general. La Mancha Development does not intend to occupy those properties again. It was the general consensus of the Commission there should be some policy for unfinished projects. What can be done about projects that are abandoned? This also needs to be addressed. Commissioner Pruett thought another hearing process was needed for abandoned properties. Chairman Bosch referred to the Property Maintenance Ordinance. Minimal requirements need to be set beginning with non-residential properties. The Commission was asked to think about Irvine's ordinance. They also would like to review Anaheim's ordinance. Staff will obtain that ordinance for them. The $50 fine should be implemented. Whatever is proposed must be defensible. It was mentioned the City of Garden Grove sends a letter to the property owners of blighted properties, but the letter does not have any teeth. It's more of a good will letter hoping the owner cleans up his property. The Commission asked if anything could be done with the owner on North Cambridge? The Property Maintenance Ordinance needs to be reviewed and made to work. 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1994 Chairman Bosch summarized the Commission's discussion: Staff is to check with Anaheim on their gas station abatement policy and ordinance. They need to look to the future and give some teeth to the building permit process. Staff was asked to respond with a follow up report in 45 days. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED sld 3