Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/1988 - Minutes PC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange June 6, 1988 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Hart STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning; John Godlewski, Senior Planner & Commission Secretary; Ed Gala, Assistant Planner; Ron Thompson, Director of Community Development; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1988 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of May 16, 1988 as recor8~8. AYES: Commissioners Hosah, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERI4IT 1671-88 AND VARIANCE 1834-88 - SCOTT & SANDRA MC REYNOLDS: Proposal to develop a 2 story second unit in the R-2-6 (RCD) Residential Duplex Residential Combining District on property located at the southwest corner of LaVeta Avenue and Grand Street. Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. (Continued from the 5/16/88 Planning Commission Meeting.) At the applicant's request, this item was continued to give him a chance to design an extra parking space on the property. The Commission received revised plans showing `~ where the parking space would be located in the side yard setback. It still requires a variance for encroaching into the side yard four feet into the ten foot side yard setback. The public hearing was opened. Scott McReynolds, 504 South Grand, stated they have modified the plan as recommended by Commissioner Hart. He explained Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 2 his problem of limited alternatives as to how they could provide for adequate parking and garage space. They have provided for the three enclosed garage spaces and the fourth space has been modified to not be in a tandem location, but to be on the front of the property. He believes they have come up with an alternative plan that is consistent with the Commission's desires. They are asking for a variance, but feel they have minimized the impact and effect of the variance. Chairman Scott reiterated Mr. McReynold's request for the variance; that is, to meet the requirements of the hardship for the variance, he feels the hardship is imposed because of the restricted access onto LaVeta from his property. Mr. McReynolds responded in the affirmative. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch feels the applicant has done a good job in trying to mitigate severe conditions imposed by the previous plan. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1671-88 subject to conditions 1-6. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Variance 1834-88 based on the revised plan, dated received by the Planning Division on May 25, 1988, because the following circumstances apply: there are certain conditions that assure that the adjustment will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated, and because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, to wit, the lack of accessibility to adjacent arterial La Veta Avenue and the dedication to widen the street. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 3 IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1676-88 - SCHEER BRADEN ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF RED ONION RESTAURANTS, INC.: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow dancing in one of two proposed restaurants that will front on State College Boulevard, and the on-site sale of alcoholic beverages in both proposed restaurants on site, on property located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, addressed 450 North State College Boulevard. Note: Negative Declaration 1221 has been prepared for this project. (Continued from the 5/16/88 Planning Commission Meeting.) Mr. Godlewski said the Commission received copies of the plan that hopefully would clear up the question as to how the loading area works and how the trucks can unload and stay out of the traffic lanes while that operation is taking place. ~ Chairman Scott asked if the revised plan was dated May 20, 1988? Mr. Godlewski responded that was correct. The public hearing was opened. Steve Layton, Koll Company, 4343 Von Karman, Newport Beach, added he wished he had been present at the previous meeting. They are in agreement with the staff's conclusions and if there were any questions, he would be happy to answer them. The architect was also present to answer any questions. Those speaking in opposition: Gene Dalton, 2545 East Walnut, was opposed to alcohol being served at the restaurant. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1221. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED r LJ Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 4 Moved b Commissioner Greek seconded b Commissioner Bosch, Y . ~' that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1676-88, subject to the revised plan dated May 20, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 80NE CHANGE 1090-88, TENTATIVE TRACT 12299, CONDITIONAL OSE PERIQIT 1686-88, VARIANCE 1831-88 - ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF ORANGE: Proposed development of approximately 9.3 acres, located northwest of Santiago Creek and east of Waterton Drive. The applicant is requesting approval of the following: 1. A zone change from A-1 (Agriculture) and R-0 to R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, Minimum 20,000 square foot lot size). ~ 2. An amendment to the Orange Park Acres Area plan, ~` changing the designation of the property from ~r/ Public-Quasi Public to Residential. 3. Tentative Tract Map 12299, subdividing the 9.3 plus or minus acres into 17 residential lots and 2 open space lots. 4. A variance from Section 17.22.030 of the Orange Municipal Code, to permit a lot frontage dimension less than the minimum required in the R-1-20 zone. The variance request is for lots 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. 5. A conditional use permit to allow private streets and the creation of lots without direct access to a public street. Note: Environmental Impact Report 1207 has been prepared for this project. The public hearing was opened. Pat Cap, J.P. Cap and Associates, Consulting Engineers, 15892 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, was pleased to present their project and was speaking on behalf of Associated Builders. He had copies of petitions signed by their neighbors in support of the development of the project and submitted them to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 5 He explained the site lies adjacent to Santiago Creek, property owned by the Orange County Flood Control District on its southerly and easterly boundary; on its westerly boundary, it is adjacent to the Maybury Ranch; and on its northerly boundary, property is owned by Texaco/Southmark. They submitted a site plan approximately two years ago, which took access to the site from Windes Drive through an existing access easement adjacent to Windes Drive. That particular site plan required-the construction of a bridge and considerable improvements to Santiago Creek. It had about 20 lots with a minimum size of 16,000 square feet. At that public hearing a great number of property owners expressed concern about the site plan. They were additionally required to prepare an E.I.R. as a result of the public hearing. In the meantime, their client, Associated Builders, purchased the 20,000 square foot lots immediately contiguous to the site along its west line. The Board of Supervisors passed a recommendation to the City of Orange to provide a equestrian trail and buffer from the existing Santiago Creek. They went back to the drawing board to try and take advantage of their access opportunities from Waterton Avenue ~""'>~ and eliminate any need to connect the project. to Windes ~r+ Drive. They were trying to come up with a project that was physically and environmentally and economically viable within the context of its location. They revised the site to 17 lots with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. They took access from Waterton Avenue into the project. They have provided a trail system along Santiago Creek which concurrently provides flood protection. At the same time, they were able to preserve the natural habitat in the area and there is a minimum impact upon the Santiago Creek proper. The closest house in the project to the Windes side, would be approximately 275 feet. There are less than 40 lots in the one acre category within a 1/2 mile radius, while the lots they are contiguous with, there are more than 400 lots of 1/4 acre or less. They believe they have isolated the site from Windes Drive. The site plan is very similar to the contiguous property and asks for approval of their project. Those speaking in favor: Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was not speaking in favor nor did he wish to oppose the project. He made the following comments: Orange Park Acres would prefer to see one acre lots; however, for valid reasons, it does not seem possible and the community could live with 1/2 acre lots. That piece of land has become a dumping ground. There is junk, kids are riding their 3 wheelers, drinking, Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 6 smoking and narcotics -- the area is a mess. He said he would oppose the project unless the developer could show him they were not going to destroy the habitat to such an extent that it would be worth more to the people of Orange Park Acres, City and County not to build it. He has changed his mind because he has looked closely at the habitat. They will lose approximately 10,400 square feet (less than 1/4 acre). A 15 foot road needs to be built along the creek, which will need to be rip rapped. He asked for some conditions to be considered by the Commission. (1) A minimum of two feet of dirt be placed on top of the rip rap; (2) Replanting on top of the rip rap -- the developer to obtain the approval of the Sea and '.Sage Chapter of the Audubon Society. He does not like where the County is insisting they put in a 15 foot access road for emergency vehicles. Another condition should be added regarding the emergency access road for the County Flood Control District, that there be some sort of chain or gate installed to restrict the area from the public. They will lose about five or six prime trees; the majority will be saved. He realizes it is not economically feasible to build one acre lots; the houses will cost $400,000 or more. The area is a fire hazard. ' s opinion on Commissioner Master asked Mr. Bennyhoff Kennymead and they discussed that project. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, asked if the homes would cost $400,000, to which the applicant responded yes. Greg Hunter, 6122 East Teton, voiced his support for the project because he feels the property is currently a detriment to the City and area. It is fairly contiguous to Maybury Ranch and it would be a natural extension to the area. Bruce Ferguson, 6732 East Waterton, said his lot is adjacent to the proposed project. His lot looks down on the property. He has four young boys and is concerned about the activity that goes on back there. He feels the plan is a good one; seems to be reasonable and is compatible with their lot. It would be a good transition into the one acre lots on the other side and help alleviate the eye sore which currently exists. ii Those speaking in opposition: Marlena Fox, Attorney, 3919 Westerly Place, Newport Beach, represented Mr. and Mrs. Amos Deacon, who lives on Windes Drive, directly across from the proposed project. They have participated in the administrative process on the Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 7 development of this project since it was originally proposed back in 1985. She addressed her clients' concerns and spoke on each main issue: Environmental Impact Report 1. Hydrology Report: Unable to find report. 2. Proximity of County Regional Park "Santiago Oaks" - wildlife habitat. 3. Habitat that exists along the creek bed. 4. Trees. Specifically, 18 trees. 5. Alternatives to the project. Impacts should be mitigated to an acceptable level. If they cannot be mitigated, other alternatives must be proposed. Zone Change and Amendment to O.P.A. Plan They do not agree that this is a transitional area; that this is logical zoning to decrease the lot size on the parcel from the required one acre minimum to the 20,000 square foot. Ms. Fox referred to the one of the problems with the undeveloped land in that the property owner is not taking care of his property and is allowing problems to happen by neglect or negligence. The dumping ground could have been eliminated by gates or fences and posting of the property. Ms. Fox and her client are not opposed to growth and development. However, the property does not lend itself to 20,000 square foot lots. To say it is a logical extension of the Maybury Ranch, they disagree. This is not the area to have a transition. The builder is requesting a variance from frontage, required by City code. The variance is being requested for 9 out of 17 lots -- more than 50$ of the project. The property does not lend itself to 20,000 square foot lots; it is not consistent and they do not believe it is in the best interest of those citizens. If it were developed at a lower level of intensity and use, it would not destroy the wildlife or habitat. The tentative tract, as proposed, has problems which are identified in the staff report and E.I.R. Ms. Fox believes the hardship involved in this project is man made because the application seeks to overbuild the site. She also addressed the conditional use permit, direct access to a public street and the fire hazard in the area. ® They are suggesting that the project being considered is not suitable; it has too many inherent problems and questions that have been raised repeatedly. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 8 c G 0 0 0 0 Virginia Chester, 9731 Villa Woods Drive, Villa Park, is the president of Sea and Sage Audobon Society, and spoke in opposition to approval of the project. She asked if the E.I.R. for the project has been certified (to which Chairman Scott responded it had not). She did not receive any response to comments and has never seen it. (She submitted a letter in response to the E.I.R.) She spoke about the variance for the 17 homes. She listed Sea and Sage's reasons for not approving the project: 1. Property is subject to flooding. 2. Parcel supports a large number of oak and sycamore trees and a significant strip of stream side vegetation, including willows -- a diminishing habitat in Orange County. 3. Parcel is adjacent to Santiago Oaks Park and has a chain of wildlife habitat along the creek and in the park. 4. Construction of 17 homes would require extensive flood control measures in Santiago Creek, which would destroy the habitat. 5. Construction would cause the removal of five specimen Oak trees and one Sycamore tree. 6. Alternative plans have not been presented for the property. 7. Removal of vegetation will take away all the visual barriers that exist between Windes Drive and the proposed project. Sea and Sage is very concerned about the effect the construction and rip rapping will have on Santiago Oaks Park and they urge consideration of reduced density. Ms. Chester suggested that lots 8 and 9 be removed from the development and houses not be built on those lots. Those lots should remain a buffer between the development and the park. Pete Jay, 2145 North Windes Drive, is the Senior Park Ranger at Santiago Oaks Park. He reiterated and clarified a few of the problems facing the park. The project is immediately adjacent to Santiago Oaks Park. The park has significant resource to the citizens of the City and County of Orange. They run programs for approximately 1,300 kids per month so they can learn more about the environment they are growing up in. The proposed development is one more incremental loss of habitat surrounding the park. The trees are between 150 - 200 years old. If the park were to act as a buffer, it will lose a significant amount of wildlife habitat. He spoke briefly on the flooding of 1982/83. He also suggested using the same aggressive program they implemented in the park of posting the property and gates and its maintenance to stop the vandalism and trespassing of people onto the property. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 9 G G T c v Commissioner Greek stated the County made a decision not to purchase the property for development of the wilderness park. Why was that made? The County owns the land in the creek bed all the way to Loma and the Board of Supervisors made a decision as to how they are willing to see that land developed. It sounds like there is a controversy between the Park and County. Mr. Jay stated it was too expensive for the County to purchase that property; it exceeded fair market value. He is only familiar with the Board of Supervisors' intent that the area not be used; the access be denied. The Resolution of the Board of Supervisors was to avoid access from Windes Drive for the purposes of trying to minimize the impact along Santiago Creek. Mr. Cap made a few brief comments in rebuttal. The E.I.R. they prepared is a result of the direction from the Planning Commission at the previous hearing. There was no previous E.I.R. In terms of hydrology, they prepared a hydraulics report. They made a study of the hydraulics of Santiago Canyon and its ability to convey the maximum possible storm in that channel. The study was based on 20,000 CFS in 1985 -- a 25~ increase over what the Corps. of Engineers had done in their flood plain study. Their site is not contiguous with Santiago Oaks. The entrance to Santiago Oaks Park lies about 1/4 mile up Windes Drive. He believes this is a logical extension of the zoning. Their client has tried putting up gates and fences, but they have been destroyed. To protect a site such as this three full-time guards are needed, which is not economically feasible for a raw piece of ground. The site is isolated from Windes Drive and will not be visible from Windes Drive. They are not going to be doing any construction within the wetted area of the Santiago Creek; they will not be destroying any of the major impacts in that area. He believes the variances are justified by the odd shape of the site. They have kept the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size. The property in question is the Villa Park Country Club; a raw piece of ground that sits above Santiago Oaks. There is no indication of flooding in that area of that site. The flooding that has occurred in the past on Windes Drive is a result of the artificial dam that has been created from Windes Drive to the site. That has caused the flooding upstream. There will be no flood control improvements near the Santiago Oaks Park. Chairman Scott asked what the CFS was in the 1969 flood? Mr. Cap did not recall the CFS. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 10 Mr. Johnson stated it was in the 6 to 7,000 cubic feet a second range at this location. Windes Drive did wash out in 1969. Commissioner Bosch noted Lot 1 was designated on the tentative tract map to carry a channelization of an existing stream flow into Santiago Creek across a portion of the lot. As the staff report indicated, it appears to create some difficulties with regard to potential maintenance of that lot and/or maintenance of that stream flow. Upstream, the developed channel of the side stream is significantly greater than that proposed across Lot 1. He wanted to know about the impacts and what mitigation measures would be taken on the side stream to prevent erosion of property or back flow into that bed. Mr. Cap anticipates a better solution would be to get those flows into a closed conduit through the open space lot and across Lot 1, and then provide an energy dissipation structure to get it back into its natural flow. They are trying to clean up that whole reach through there. Commissioner Bosch noted the southerly property line shown along the area toward Santiago Creek is presumed to be the existing property line. The proposal indicates grading beyond that into the Santiago Creek property, which is an easement, if not owned outright, by the County of Orange. On what basis is that proposal undertaken and with what approval by the Agency or property owner? Mr. Cap said they have undertaken the grading of the trail and embankment along that property line as a result of the Resolution of the Orange County Board of Supervisors who wanted to come up with a plan to create an equestrian trail and a good transition between the riparian corridor and the proposed development. Based on that Resolution, the plan and mitigation measure they came up with meets those needs. They presented their plan to the County. They have not received any approvals, but anticipate that process to begin through the encroachment process that is normally required once the final plans are started. Commissioner Bosch questioned in lieu of the encroachment, the necessary protection of grading were taken on the property, would that have a greater impact on the specimen ~ trees identified on the parcel or a lesser impact? Mr. Cap stated if they were to move that access road onto the site, they would lose more significant trees than they would placing it where they did. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 11 Commissioner Bosch stated the trail and access road is proposed on a bench level over most of the length of the property line between the two slopes of rip rap. How would the trail and access road be envisioned to transition to trails easterly up the creek bed or emergency access roads across the rip rap? There is a minor toe shown at the east end of that. Mr. Cap said once you get up to the easterly end, the trail narrows and they plan on transitioning into the smaller trail that is out there. The existing land forms become very steep in that area so they are going to transition back down. They are providing for a vehicular turn around at the most eastern edge of the property for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Bosch, relating to the emergency access, noted on the plan it was proposed to have a 15 foot wide easement from the easterly end of the private road cul de sac (Lot 8) to the creekside access road and trail. It appears that the position of that road and grading impacts several of the existing trees in the vicinity or makes impassible of vehicular traffic. What other sites were looked at and who did they confer with regarding this particular site for access? Mr. Cap stated his planner had been working with the Fire Department. This was a selection they made working with them. There are other alternatives on the site which would move it away from some of the trees and they would investigate that alternative. Commissioner Bosch's last question regarded the bluff to the north of the property. There is no evidence shown of easements for drainage to take that water off without a continued sheet flow to the rear of the residence as proposed on the north side of the private street. Has that been addressed and what are the solutions for that impact? Mr. Cap said they would design it in accordance with the grading ordinance of the City of Orange. They would provide down drains to the proposed street and then into the proposed storm drain system. Protection would be provided. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek's concern related to the E.I.R. He would like someone to respond to the comments that were voiced. Larry Lazar, 550 #C Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, prepared the Environmental Impact Report, working with City Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 12 staff, and was available to answer the Commission's questions. He responded to the hydrology concern stating they incorporated the hydrology report from Mr. Cap's office into the E.I.R. along with the appropriate mitigation measures to the impacts. They are not hydrological engineers and they depend on consulting engineers to provide information to them. He feels they have addressed all concerns in the E.I.R. Commissioner Greek asked the questions raised by Ms. Fox and Mr. Lazar responded to them, stating they are also identified in the E.I.R. The actual wetlands area will not be impacted. There will be some removal of vegetation near the creek bed. The creek bed will still support wildlife and vegetation. Commissioner Greek believes these concerns should be responded to by the proponent in writing and considered at another time. He would like to postpone action on the project to give the consultant a chance to respond to the E.I.R. questions raised by Ms. Fox. Chairman Scott endorses the suggestion. Commissioner Bosch felt they could work with regard to some of the major impacts of the development once they got past the E.I.R. He would like to have more detailed answers. Commissioner Master suggested the attorney provide her questions to the applicant so that they could respond to them. Ms. Fox stated her client would be happy to cooperate with the City; however, it is important to understand that her client is bearing the cost of the court reporter. She does not feel it is fair for her client to provide this; someone should help bear the cost. Commissioner Bosch felt they should hear from the applicant what time-frame they thought would be necessary to respond to the questions raised relative to the E.I.R. Mr. Cap requested to continue his project to the next meeting, June 20, 1988. They could have their comments back to staff within the week, after listening to the tapes tomorrow. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue Zone Change 1090-88, Tentative Tract 12299 and associated land use issues to the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 20, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 13 IN RE NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT 1682-88 - MIYARO OSHIRO: Commissioner Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an existing convalescent hospital as a 24 hour care facility to provide shelter, safety and other basic needs for up to 40 abused youths, ages 12 to 17 who are in need of protective custody. Subject property contains 1.70 acres of land located on the west side of Flower Street, south of Almond Avenue, addressed 238 South Flower Street. Note: Negative Declaration 1225 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Ann Farrell, Project Coordinator for New Alternatives, 483 The City Drive South, Orange. They are requesting a conditional use permit to allow them to operate a 24 hour care facility for children. This would be a temporary program location -- 24 months -- until another facility is built. Mrs. Oshiro, the property owner, plans to construct a senior citizen apartment building on the land within the two year time frame. Presently, New Alternatives operates two group homes in Orange County which provides comprehensive care and treatment to approximately 44 children each month. One program is located in the City of Orange on City Drive, and the other program has been located in the City of Costa Mesa for over ten years. The Flower Street program will provide services up to 40 children who are classified as low risk. They will not present a danger to themselves or the surrounding community. The children will be at the site on a short term basis, anywhere from 24 hours to two months during which time a more suitable long-term placement can be found. Negative connotations might arise in the surrounding neighborhoods. New Alternatives recently met with neighbors on May 24, 1988 where neighbors were able to voice their feelings. Specifically, the neighbors presented three areas of concern, which were safety, the increased level of noise, and whether or not the number of visitors would obstruct the flow of traffic. New Alternatives is sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors and has proposed the following actions. In terms of safety, the children will be under 24 hour supervision, with a client to staff ratio of one to Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 14 five. Children will not be permitted to leave the facility unattended. To decrease the level of noise, all outdoor activities will occur on the west lawn to the rear of the building. The children will be allowed to possess Walkman radios only, rather than large stereos. Restricted visiting hours and restricted visitors limited to immediate family members will help alleviate the flow of visitors to the neighborhood. As for traffic congestion, employees and visitors will be encouraged to utilize the Chapman Street entrance to the site. Traffic will involve approximately 10 to 12 cars at three distinct time frames throughout the day during their shift changes. Other traffic will be minimal as all activities, except doctors appointments, will occur on the grounds. No deliveries are made to the building except milk, which occurs only twice a week. Parking will not be a problem since there are 33 available parking spaces on the grounds. Commissioner Greek asked if they have read the conditions of approval? Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative. They plan to be there at least 12 to 24 months. She would have to defer the /~+, question of building to the owner. Those speaking in favor: Tim Smith, 2314 West Almond, attended the community meeting in which several concerns were brought up. They took their concerns into consideration and have gone out of their way to accommodate the neighbors. One person did not like the fence and wanted to see something done with it. New Alternatives will work with the neighbors to resolve that concern and not impact the neighborhood Victor Herrera, 619 Nightway, La Canada, works for Mr. and Mrs. Oshiro. They are aware the conditional use permit expires in January, 1989. As a property owner and developer, they realized they needed a tenant in there after it was vacated. The property is substantially improved the last two or three months. Their intention is to apply for an extension for the conditional use permit or do whatever is necessary for their other project. Gene Howard, Director of Children Services for Orange County, is involved with the children who will reside at New Alternatives. His responsibility includes the Orangewood Emergency Shelter Facility, Child Abuse Services, Foster Care, etc. The intent of the project is to provide a home, on a temporary basis, for abused, neglected children. This is an excellent program and it is well staffed. New Alternatives are good neighbors and will go to any extent to alleviate any concerns or problems that the neighbors may have. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 15 William Stiner, 1894 North Chateau, Director of the Orangewood Children's Foundation. He spoke about the children requiring shelter services. To be effective, W~+' Orangewood Children's Home needs to have a network of other resources in the community to carry out a successful program. New Alternatives have been operating at the Albert Sitton Home, which is going to be demolished in October to build a new juvenile court building. It is urgent that the children be relocated to another site within the community prior to the demolition of Albert Sitton Home. Those speaking in opposition: Walter Frantz, 2324 Mills Drive, He was requested to pick up some around Fruit Street, Santa Ana. shelter and does not believe the up. He does not like the six fo property. is a retired peace officer. of these children years ago He is opposed to the children want to be locked ~t fence surrounding the Paul Shaner, 215 South Flower, was not notified of the public hearing. He objects to the wall, but he does not object to the children needing care. He also questioned the expiration date of the retirement home. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, asked if this were a private organization rather than a government organization, to which the Commission responded it was a private organization. It was mentioned this was a temporary facility; where will they relocate? Commissioner Greek said they were going to be here for a couple of years until they find a permanent location. It's not for sure if they are going to be in the City of Orange. Chairman Scott stated their proposal was for a two-year lease at this particular location. Esther Rosen, 400 South Flower #120, was not notified of the public hearing. She has lived in her unit for eight years and has seen the crime rate go up in the area considerably over the past few years. People are installing protective mechanisms. According to Neighborhood Watch statistics, they are in a high crime rate area. She is certain the children are creative enough to find their way out of a locked facility. Is there another location for these children that is not in a highly populated area? Ms. Farrell spoke regarding the fence; they will tear the fence down if neighbors are strongly opposed to it. It will not be a locked facility. They are currently negotiating Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 16 c c with the County for some property to build a facility, but at this time, they do not have any idea where that will be and she promises they will try not to locate in the City of Orange. To address the issue of crime, they have a program in Costa Mesa and during that time the program has not had any problems with the neighbors, nor any criminal activity. It will be a program housing low risk children. They will screen out any child that has a past history of criminal activity. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek's concern was if the applicant read and understood the Police Department's requirements and understand that there are certain improvements, including lighting, required by the Police Department. He hopes that is not in conflict with what the neighbors are expecting to see. The applicant is aware of the conditions as presented in the staff report. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to accept Negative Declaration 1225. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1682-88, subject to the conditions. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting. TN RE: NEW HEARINGS n MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT 1681-88 - GEMINI GYl~IIdASTICS, INC.: Proposed Conditional Use Permit for a gymnastics school in the M-2 zone on 3.50 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Angus Avenue and Batavia Street, addressed 714 West Angus Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1224 has been prepared for this project. ~...- _ __ Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 17 A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Collin Moody, 11811 Holyoak Lane, Garden Grove, is the co-owner of Gemini Gymnastics. They are requesting a conditional use permit to locate their gymnastics school in an industrial complex. One of the problems faced with gymnastics schools is the location in suitable buildings. Because of the nature of the sport, they need large open spaces and fairly high ceilings. These are extremely difficult to come by in commercial areas. There is always a problem with parking in an industrial area; however, he does not feel they have a parking problem. They encourage the parents to drop their children off and they make available on weekends shows and demonstrations for the parents to see how their children are doing. Eight spaces are more than adequate for their use. He made reference to the staff report, Page 5, Item 5, regarding the hours of operation. He objects to the limitation of the 3:30 hour. Some of his classes meet in the morning hours. Chairman Scott asked the length of Mr. Moody's proposed lease? Mr. Moody stated it was five years. Commissioner Master wanted clarification of the hours of operation. What hours would be applicable? Mr. Moody stated the pre-school classes run from 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon. The majority of the classes are in the 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. range. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to accept Negative Declaration 1224. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Chairman Scott wondered if they should put a review period on the conditional use permit to see if parking does become a problem in the industrial area. Commissioner Greek also hoped Mr. Moody would give them an alternative to Condition 5. • Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 18 Mr. Moody proposed to operate between 9:00 a.m. and 12 noon on a daily basis; then, 3:30 to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Greek asked what the new proposed parking requirement would normally require for a building of this size for this type of use? Joe Faust, traffic consultant with Austin-Faust Associates, prepared the draft parking ordinance. Their recommendation for gyms is 5.7 per 1,000 square feet. For 4,000 square feet it is about 20-21 spaces. Chairman Scott suggestion this conditional use permit be reviewed in two years, if approved, to evaluate the parking. Commissioner Bosch noted the buildings 1 through 5 provide parking at the office ratio and as the tenants move in, there may be an excess of parking. He feels this suggestion is reasonable. Moved by that the Environm~ /I~'+ 1224. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, Planning Commission accept the findings of the ~ntal Review Board to file Negative Declaration Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott None Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1681-88, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report; and with the additional condition that the conditional use permit be brought back before the Planning Commission for review in a period not to exceed two years to determine if the parking reduction, approved by the C.U.P., continues to be justified by operational conditions; and changing the hours to add on Condition 5 allowance to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on weekdays. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERl4IT 1672-88 - ALEXANDER'S ENGINEERING/MARTY ADAIR: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to temporarily use a trailer as an office for an equipment rental and general Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 19 ~' contractor's business, and outdoor storage and manufacturing within 300 feet of residential zone on approximately 4 acres of land located on the west side of American Way between Freedom Avenue and Fletcher Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1128 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was presented by John Godlewski. This item was presented to the Zoning Administrator who noticed there was outdoor storage and manufacturing taking place on the property within 300 feet of a residential zone, which requires a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. Therefore, both items were forwarded to the Commission for their consideration. The trailer is located in a fenced yard near the middle of the property. The property was previously approved for a conditional use permit for Marty Adair to allow an office complex that was partially built on the south part of the property. The remaining property is currently undeveloped and fenced. It is used by various tenants for storage and outdoor industrial uses; pallet storage yard. At the northern part of the property, along Fletcher Street, is an older single family home. Commissioner Greek asked if a parcel map has been filed? Mr. Johnson stated this has not been done. The applicant may feel they are being rented rather than leased or sold other than under the provisions of the subdivision map act. It may be subject to interpretation. The public hearing was opened. Chris Alexander, owns Alexander's Engineering and the 35 foot office trailer. He was fortunate enough to expand his business during the last couple of years; he outgrew the previous space he was renting. The trailer was located on the previous property and when he moved, he moved the trailer onto the Adair property. He did not realize he needed a conditional use permit. It was placed on the property approximately five months ago and has been there since then. He thinks there are problems of conditions needing to be met on the property, but as a renter, there is nothing he can do about them. The space he rents is approximately the middle of American Way, which is more than the 300 feet away from the residential property on Fletcher Avenue. He rents a space 120 by 64 feet. The access is on the west side of American Way via an alley from Fletcher to Freedom. He has a small construction company and equipment rental. He dispatches his trucks and tractors from the Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 20 yard. There is no walk-in traffic. It is not a storage yard for his company. The space is rented on a monthly basis. He feels he has improved his space since moving in. He installed security lights, which he cannot use because he does not have a conditional use permit. Those speaking in opposition: Kevin Nickles, 639 West Fletcher #15, spoke on behalf of the Fletcher Avenue Community Association, which he is the secretary of the Board of Directors. They have no complaint with Mr. Alexander; he seems to be sincere. Their concerns are for the property in general and basically the complete disregard that has been exhibited by the owners on that property. There is a school directly across the street from the property. When the conditional use permit was issued in 1979, the geographic make up and the population of the area was significantly different than it is currently. Within the last five years, two complete condominium projects have been built housing 80 new families. They are experiencing many problems with transients using their pool in the middle of the night, catering trucks come by in the early morning hours; heavy machinery and large trucks have no business going in and out of the area when they have to cross in front of the school. Traffic and parking problems are a continual hazard. The lighted security area would be unsightly. Past violations have been made on this property and are referred to in the staff report. Linda Gunion, 621 West Fletcher #2, submitted a petition against the project. She represented the homeowners of Calafia Townhomes. They have nothing against Alexander's Engineering, but against the property owner. Traffic, dirt and noise are a real problem; it is a dangerous hazard. She also spoke about the loud music, parties and parking problems. Joe Adair, 2390 American Way, is the owner of the property. The area was all industrial area at one time. Across the street, at American and Fletcher, it is zoned M-2. Pallets have been removed and there are no catering trucks on the property. The City's two code enforcement officers spent three hours going through every trailer looking for criminal activity, but did not find any evidence of anyone living on the property. He feels he has the right to know who filed a ® complaint against him. As far as the conditional use permit, it makes no difference to him if it is granted or denied. He spoke briefly about his pending court trial. He has tried to discourage trucks from parking in the area. He agreed to fence his surrounding property and has tried to keep the noise level down. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 21 C ~1r~' Bill Hood, 621 West Fletcher #22, on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association, reiterated their main concern is the safety of the children. The industrial area is getting out of hand. The speed on that road is unbelievable and cars have been stolen in the neighborhood. Mr. Alexander appreciates the concerns of the neighbors; he has those same concerns. His rigs have never had an accident. All the workers are hired by him. Ninety percent of his rigs leaves at 5:00 - 5:30 a.m.; noise is not caused by his operation. The conditional use permit was applied by him; not the Adair's. As Mr. Adair said, he doesn't really care if it is approved or not. If Mr. Alexander has to move out, there are people on a list waiting to rent that space. It will create no hardship for the Adair's. He stressed his yard is clean and invited anyone to inspect it. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master hated to single out one applicant. He's taking the heat of several different uses of the property. If there is a code enforcement problem, or misuse of the property, it should be taken care of by code enforcement. The applicant is asking for a use within the confines of the typical use of the property. The problems are not the applicant's responsibility. The owner of the property has an obligation in this too. Code enforcement needs to work with the owner to work with the tenants to bring it under control. As part of the motion, code enforcement should be advised to get in there and be active enough to control what is going on inadvertently. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1128. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek wondered whether the City wanted that type of use. There are so many violations of uses on the property. There is use of an alley that has never been approved. Anything used on the property should be in accordance with the normal uses. Commissioner Bosch thinks it is unfair on the applicant to have to bear the burden if this is approved of trying to obtain conformance on the entire piece of property. The key issue is what is happening on that property today. The principal responsibility lies with the owners of the property to meet the general requirements of the City. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 22 G C 0 Commissioner Master stated it was not clear to him whether this is the only non-code use of the property. Commissioner Greek said none of the uses are within the code. Mr. Johnson said this is what they call a boot leg subdivision. There are a number of them throughout the City. The owner has a large piece of property and wants to put it to some interim use while he is formulating an ultimate plan for development. So he rents out a portion to different people. Pretty soon there are several uses. Commissioner Greek said there are so many violations and unless they are cleaned up, then permits cannot be issued. Code enforcement needs to go out there on a daily basis and issue citations to the owner. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission rescind their motion accepting Negative Declaration 1128. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott NOES: Commissioner Greek ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION RESCINDED Commissioner Greek feels the Negative Declaration indicates that the usage is in conformance with the zoning. It is the way these uses are applied that is not reasonable. Mr. Minshew spoke about a case pending court action. There may be a possibility that there is a violation of the subdivision map act and the City should start proceedings. A property owner cannot divide his property and rent it to anybody he wants to. That is a violation of the subdivision map act and also violates the zoning code. Mr. McGee stated code enforcement has been very much involved in this. piece of property. In fact, that is one of the primary reasons why it is before the Commission. There are two questions relating to land use determinations: (1) a trailer within what would be a permitted storage yard on that portion of the site; and (2) the allowance of a portion of the storage yard within proximity to the residential zone to exist. Code enforcement action will be pursued. There a number of deficiencies related to the code that do exist. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 23 *, ~,,,,~ Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission not accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1128. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 1672-88. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED It was emphasized that the legal aspects of code enforcement for the illegal subdivision be forwarded for appropriate action. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 80NE CBANGE 1093-88 - JOE VALENTI: Proposed Zone Change from C-1 to R-3 on a portion of a .31 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between Glassell Street and Cottonwood Street, addressed 215 East Lincoln Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1211 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Joe Valenti, 21068 Via Toledo, is proposing to down zone from C-1 to R-3. The other pieces of property are zoned R-3. It is one parcel and he would like to have it all one zone. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch received a site plan, but that is the purview of the Design Review Board. He does not wish to say that by approving the Zone Change the site plan accompanying it is something they also approve. U Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 24 ,,,,,~ Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1211. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Zone Change 1093-88, and note for the Resolution that the site plan accompanying the application has not been reviewed nor part of the Zone Change approval recommendation. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ORDINANCE AMENIkIBNT 2-88 - CITY OF ORANGE Proposal to revise the parking ordinance of the City of Orange to reflect the actual parking demands specific to Orange County and the City of Orange. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1226 has been prepared for this project. Chairman Scott would like to suggest that the item be continued to a study session where it can be reviewed in more detail. Mr. Godlewski stated City staff has received comments or letters from Chapman College and the Irvine Company. Paul Wilkinson, 1580 Corporate Drive, X122, Costa Mesa, reviewed the Ordinance and is concerned. His firm has been working with Chapman College with respect to the parking ratios specific to Chapman. They have conducted some specific field studies and would like to have the opportunity to speak to those findings. He does not object to postponement to a study session. Mr. Godlewski said they could review this item at the June 13, 1988 study session at 5:00 p.m. It was suggested the study session begin at 4:30 p.m. June 13, 1988. Commissioners requested the Traffic Engineering staff be present at the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 25 ,,,~ Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission continue Ordinance Amendment 2-88 to the study session on June 13, 1988, 4:30 p.m. ~~ AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT; Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOU5 Commissioner Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Letter from Orange Unified School District requesting Planning Commission report and findings relating to district acquisition of an 8 acre parcel in the Santiago Hills Development for construction of an elementary school. Chairman Scott stated it was requested that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC-35-88; a public hearing was not required. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, ~, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC-35-88 as written indicating that the proposed school site is in compliance with the General Plan Land Use. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Consideration of a revised Environmental Impact Report for the Northwest Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Thompson stated the Redevelopment staff has contacted the legal counsel for the Redevelopment Agency and they are recommending that action be deferred until June 13, 1988. He respectfully requests the Planning Commission adjourn this meeting until the 13th to take action on the Redevelopment issue at that time. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek that the Planning Commission adjourn to a meeting on June 13, 1988, commencing at 4:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to consider the revised E.I.R. for the Northwest Redevelopment r .~ Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1988 - Page 26 Project Area, the draft parking ordinance, vested tentative tract maps and the particular Crawford Hills Development vested map proposal; and to also adjourn from that to a meeting on June 14, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber for a joint meeting with the City Council regarding the Tustin Street Redevelopment proposed amendment with the intent further of adjourning to a joint meeting with the City Council on June 21, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. at the Yorba Middle School regarding the proposed Northwest Redevelopment Plan, and further with the intent of adjourning to a joint meeting with the City Council on June 28, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber to consider the proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, and note that the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning Commission will occur on June 20, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. /sld G