Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California June 6, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer, Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF h1AY 16, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve the minutes of May 16, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: PRELIMINARY BUILDING PLAN REVIEW - ZONE CHANGE 983 - ANACONDA-ERICKSON C/0 LE BLANC APJD ASSOCIATES: A request to approve building plans preparatory to reading the resolution to rezone property from the R-D-6 (Residential Duplex) District and the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) District to R-M-7 (Residential Multiple Family) District and permit the construction of a 54 unit condominium Planned Unit Development on land located on the south side of Palm Avenue approximately 535 feet easterly of the centerline of Batavia Street. ~ Jere Murphy explained that the applicant, Anaconda-Erickson had asked for a withdrawal of this item, since their plans were not yet ready for review by the Planning Commission. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to withdraw Preliminary Building Plan Review - Zone Change 983 - Anaconda-Erickson, applicant, from this evening's agenda. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTIOPJ CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 999, VARIAPJCE 7717, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 83-1 - JAMES MARKUM: A request to adjust the lot line between two existing parcels; one zoned R-1-40 (Residential Single-Family with 40,000 square foot minimum lot size) District and the other zoned R-1-20 (Residential Single-Family with 20,000 square foot minimum lot size); adjust the zoning to the new lot line and create a lot with less than required frontage on land located on the east side of Calle Grande, approximately 181 feet southeast of the centerline of Cal l e Baja (325 Call 1 e Grande) ( Conti Hued from f~1ay 2, 1983 Planning Commission h~garing.) (Note: This project is exempt from environmental review. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Two u By consensus of the Planning Commissioners, no presentation was given. Commissioner Coontz asked questions with regard to the two parcels involved and the common driveway between the two parcels. She wondered if the entire driveway was to be used for both parcels, including the access from the street. She pointed out that that there is hardly any acreage left to support any kind of building more than a guest house, as far as she could see. Mr. Murphy explained that the proposal is to exchange identical portions of the two lots and to create a panhandle lot out of the smaller lot, which is presently fairly rectangular in shape. After looking at the larger map on the bulletin board, Commissioner Coontz felt that her questions were answered. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. James Markum, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he had nothing further to add to the Staff Report and was in agreement with Staff's remarks. There being no one else to speak for or against the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. P1oved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 999, Variance 1717 and Lot Line Adjustment 83-1, as presented, for the reasons given by Staff and subject to the special condition suggested by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Flart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner h1ickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NE4J HEARINGS: 'J ZONE CHANGE 1002, CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT 1281, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11956 - THE BALDWIN COMPANY: A request to approve construction of a 116 unit Planned Unit Development Condominium; the creation of lots without frontage on a public street; to exceed the height in the RM-7 zone within 70 feet of a single family zone; to rezone from the R-1-6 and R-1-20 zones to the RM-7 zone and from the RM-7 zone to the R-1-20 zone on land located on the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Canyon View Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 840 has been filed in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Planning Commission, stating that this property contains 7.597 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Canyon View Avenue, containing substantial slope areas. The property has approximately 400 feet of frontage on Chapman Avenue; 1150± feet of frontage on Canyon View Avenue and 1140± feet on Rocking Horse Way. The property is vacant and is zoned RM-7, R-1-6 and R-1-20. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes to construct a 116-unit Planned Unit Development Condominium project on lots 187 and 188 of Tentative Tract 9605, refit e Tentative Tract 11956 on the lots, with minor revisions to lot dimensions and bring zoning into conformance with lot areas in Tentative Tract 11956. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Three u Mr. Murphy pointed out that developer plans to build 56 1-bedroom units and 60 2-bedroom units, with 116 covered parking spaces and 143 uncovered parking spaces, totalling 259 spaces overall, for a ratio of parking spaces per unit of 2.23. He explained that overall parking ratio is .02 space less per unit than City code requirements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designated the area for Medium Density Residential Use (6-15 units/acre), Open Space and Low Density Residential Use (2-6 units/acre). Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has expressed concern all through the development review process for the lack of alternative parking in the surrounding area. He pointed out that all of the streets, including Canyon Vie~N, Chapman Avenue, Knightbridge, as well as the interior street leading to the upper portion of the development, Rocking Horse 4Jay, will have no parking on them. Therefore, these two parcels must be able to accommodate any needs, including parking, for the development that occurs on them. He said that Staff has looked at a number of alternatives for the property, pointing out that this particular design contains a ~' substantial number of dead end driveways, which are of concern to the Staff. He explained that the plan as shown at this time, has been worked out between the developer and Staff to as good a plan, under the circumstances of those dead end drives, as can be pro- vided. Another plan previously designed by the applicant showed loop drives, which are much preferred by the Staff. particularly the safety/service departments. He explained that those two depart- ments particularly expressed concern regarding the limited access to the corner unit of Canyon View and Chapman. Mr. Murphy further explained that Staff is also concerned about the close proximity of units to streets that would not have parking on them and the the attempts by residents or their guests to park on those streets. They are also concerned regarding guest parking spaces being occupied by residents of the units, even though it might be identified as guest parking. Therefore, guests would be encouraged to walk some distance to parking spaces, thereby perhaps parking improperly within the project. Staff has some concern with the overall parking count and, looking at the mixture of single bedroom to two-bedroom units, and their concern is not so much a general concern for inadequate parking, but more for specific events within the complex where there would be a parking problem. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Commission has received two letters from residents of the Old Chapman Townhouse project across the street from the proposed project, to the east., and these letters address the basic issues of a traffic signal at Chapman Avenue and Canyon View and/or one at Brianhurst and Chapman; concern for no sidewalks the entire length of Chapman Avenue; a request that no parking whatsoever be allowed on Canyon View Road, in view of the amount of traffic that could potentially be traveling on that road; and a request that sufficient area between Canyon View Road and the buildings be required as a buffer area to keep traffic noise to a minimum. There was also concern expressed regarding sufficient on-site parking to handle guest parking for the proposed develop- ment, the feeling being that 2.25 spaces per unit not being sufficient for the needs of the proposed project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 840, subject to completion and the filing of a noise report reflecting mitigation measures to be installed to meet City and State noise codes. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Four Staff recommends three alternatives with regard to Tentative Tract Map 11956: Al tennative I: Staff finds the project as proposed provides ina equate on-site parking because an unusual situation exists where adjacent streets do not provide on-street parking. Further, the internal circulation of the project should be improved to provide for better Police and Fire protection, and tenant access to covered parking, particularly in Phase I. As a result, Staff recommends the project be continued to permit the applicant to redesign the project. Alternative II: The Planning Commission may elect to recommend denial of the project for the reason that the project proposal does not provide adequate on-site parking and circulation. Alternative III: Should the Planning Commission find Tentative Tract Map 11956 should be approved, the 10 conditions of the Engineer Plan Check sheet, as listed in the Staff Report, are recommended, plus an additional condition to be added as Condition #11: Condition #11: That participation be required by the developer in the installation of a traffic signal at Canyon View and Chapman Avenues. Staff further recommends that Zone Change 1002 be approved for the reason that the request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Orange General Plan Land Use Element and the surrounding land uses. Staff recommends three alternatives on Conditional Use Permit 1281: Alternative I: Due to the lack of adequate on-site parking and circulation, Staff recommends the hearing be continued to allow redesign of the project. Alternative II: If the Tentative Tract 11956 application is denie this Conditional Use Permit 1281 should be denied. Alternative III: Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of Con itional Use Permit 1281, approval should be subject to the 25 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Coontz pointed out a paved area on the map before the Commission, asking for clarification from Staff as to whether this was a part of permanent improvements which might be being made there. Mr. Johnson responded that he did not think there had been any permanent improvements made in that area. He thought the street had been graded but no final improvements made there. That graded area will be part of the final improvements. He explained the specifics of what would be taking place there. Commissioner Coontz asked if there would be quite a bit of grading done and Mr. Johnson responded that most of the mass grading has been done and only fine grading is left to do. Commissioner Vasquez asked for further explanation with regard to reference being made to the project being within the 65 CNL noise area. Mr. Murphy felt that they are talking about the Chapman Avenue and Canyon View area. Commissioner Coontz asked if this would be a walled project and Mr. Murphy replied that Staff has suggested that a wall be erected at Chapman and Canyon View, as this could be an answer to the noise problem. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Five Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Katherine Thompson President of AMC Properties, representing the applicant, explained that they are in escrow to purchase the property from The Baldwin Company. She explained that they have revised the plan to accommodate some of the Staff's concerns. She pointed out that 2.25 units is meeting the present code and the Master Plan and zoning for the particular project. She mentioned a study which had been done by the County of Orange, at great expense, covering affordable housing. This was a very extensive and complicated report, but according to that report, this project would be satisfactory with the bedroom mix which they have in their design. She pointed out that they are trying to provide an affordable unit for first time buyers, with prices being between $75,000 and $100,000. She explained that they have done a number of condo conversions over the past several years and have found that 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling has not been a problem. Ms. Thompson requested a change of wording from "wall" to "physical barrier", since they felt that perhaps some kind of landscaping might be a better solution than a solid wall. She also pointed out that, on the Canyon View side, the paths range from one building at the very south end of the project, 2 feet from the street, to 20 feet at the north end. She did not think that people would be using that street access very often. Commissioner Master asked if there had been street parking available in any of the condo conversions which they had done in the past and Ms. Thompson responded that in one particular project - MacArthur Village - there was on-str•e et parking, but because of security gates which were installed, all parking was on-site. Commissioner Coontz pointed out the parking problem on Rocking Horse Way. Robert Barnes, 123 S. Waterwheel Way, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, addressing the parking problem first. He pointed out that they have two-car garages in their development and still have problems because of no parking on the street. He felt that the parking is a serious problem because of the fact that there is no on-street parking for this development. He thought that there will be an imperative need for a signal at the intersection of Canyon View and Chapman, since t-here is al- ready a hazardous situation turning off of Canyon View onto Chapman at this intersection and there will be a much greater hazard as the remaining parcels are developed. It was his understanding that the signal will cost approximately $60,000 and he was told that the city would probab]y not be able to finance this for two years. Chairman Hart questioned Mr. Barnes with regard to parking and he further pointed out the problems involved with parking when some- one has a special event, i.e. a wedding. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Six Temple Gibbons, 172 Stonebrook, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he wished to addressed some areas of concern: 1. Safety. He felt that unless a traffic signal is provided at Knightsbridge, there will be a serious problem. 2. Practicality. own tract with over to public unit and he fe where else .for their tract. He stressed the problem they have in their parking because of .the inability to spill streets. They have 2.7 parking spaces per It that 2.5 is a disaster since there is no- the traffic to go and it will spill into 3. Esthetics. He thought this tract, from the plans he has seen, isis a~isaster. They were assured by The Baldwin Company that this project would be quality and he is not seeing quality in this plan. He pointed out the noise problem at the rim of Canyon View and said that he felt there must be a very clever use of sound deadening materials used in the project ~, to avoid the noise problem. This project is creating a street which is scheduled to become a major arterial. He asked the Commission to look very carefully at the esthetics of this project an d to demand that The Baldwin Company alleviate the parking, noise and esthetic problems which are seen here. Ms. Thompson addressed the Commission in rebuttal, saying that it is sometimes difficult to look at plans and see the actual design. She said that the landscaping budget is quite generous and she felt that it would be quite nice when the project is finished. Since these are affordable units, they will not be luxurious, but they would fit into the general area quite nicely. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz felt that this is definitely a problem, with noise, safety and parking in that area, and it would get nothing but worse. She noticed parking problems in the area when she went to look the area over and felt that it was not too much to ask to have 2.5 parking for this project. She thought that circulation of units and e]evation could be better in the project and that a wall with landscaping would be beneficial. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Johnson if he knew anything about a proposed traffic signal in that area. Mr. Johnson replied that this would have to compete with other traffic signals in the area and timing would be at least two years. There is a list of needs for traffic signals in the city and they are listed according to the most need. He did not believe this signal was even on that list at this time. Chairman Hart asked about the possibility of the builder paying for this kind of thing and Mr. Johnson explained that in the past builders have paid a portion, but never the whole thing. He felt that in that area the main problem is the speed of the downhill traffic, rather than the amount of traffic. The approximate amount of cars traveling that area right now is 1,000 cars per day. Commissioner Coontz asked if the warrants are based on actual experience in projects and Mr. Johnson answered in the affirmative. She wondered if there was some assistance from the developer whether this would be moved up on the list. Mr. Johnson said that he could not promise anything in that direction. It is a matter of going by the property list or saying that the signal should be put in right away and money should be appropriated. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Seven Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to continue this matter for redesigning, for the reasons brought out by the Staff and the points brought out by people speaking at the public hearing, mainly circulation, which needs to be improved; parking, which needs to be increased; and sound attenuation, which needs to be addressed more specifically; plus there needing to be some participation by the developer in the cost of placing a traffic signal at Chapman and Canyon View. Commissioner Master felt that with regard to the question of noise, a noise report should be included in the motion, as suggested by Staff in their recommendations. This was acceptable by both the maker and seconder of the motion. Chairman Hart felt that if we have a deficiency in our parking requirements, then they should be changed. He agreed with the statements regarding noise and a traffic signal, but could not support something that is in direct opposition to the rules set down by the city. Commissioner Coontz felt that these rules are made by men and we cannot always foresee what is coming in the future. She thought that compromise was acceptable in cases such as this. Commissioner Master asked Mr. Murphy about special parking conditions under the RM-7 District and Mr. Murphy explained that the RM-7 District allows the Planning Commission to require an additional 2/10 space per unit parking requirement and this is based on the RM-7 parking requirement which goes from 1.7 to 2.0 parking spaces per unit, based on a bedroom count. This is used as a guideline which is attached to the condominium parking requirement of 2.5. Robert Kaczmarek, representing the Baldwin Company, addressed the Commission, explaining that they would prefer that the Planning Commission vote on the project and not continue it. Commissioner Coontz withdrew her motion for continuance and reworded it for denial, for the reasons as outlined in her previous motion. Seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, wha stated ~- that he wished to underscore the concerns which have been ex- pressed by Commissioner Coontz. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1288, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-760 - DUNfd PROPERTIES CORPORATION: A request to permit the construction of a square foot office building in the Indust creation of three parcels on land located Main Street, approximately 170 feet south Alvarez Avenue and approximately 580 feet Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 845 lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) two-story, 30,000 vial zone and the on the west side of of the centerline of north of Orangewood has been filed in By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was given. Mr. Murphy commented that the Staff wished to add Condition #8 - that access rights from the south side of the public street be dedicated to the City of Orange. He explained that these are basically rear and side yards of industrial areas and the city would like to easily access in this area. This has been discussed with the applicant in the past. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Eight ~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. George Bernharth; Keyboard Engineering Company, 1100 South Beverly Drive, Los Angeles, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He agreed that they have discussed the dedication of land with the Staff and have no objections to this. They would like to have two minor clarifications with regard to the conditions. With regard to the question of how the landscaping will be maintained. If they have an option, they would like to take care of this under CC&Rs, which would state that each property owner fronting on the street would be required to maintain the landscaping on both sides of the street. With regard to the condition stating that a masonry wall be constructed along the south property line of the entire property and along the north and west property lines of the subject development. He wished to extend the wording to read: ... "be required or otherwise suitably guaranteed." Therefore, if both developments are found to be compatible and there would be no need for a wall, this would be taken care of. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Johnson for clarification in this regard and Mr. Johnson felt that some versatility could be put into these requirements. The requirement was placed there to be sure that no problems would be created. Commissioner Coontz asked questions with regard to the fact that walls are mentioned twice - in Conditions #6 and #14. She wondered if they are speaking about the same wall. Mr. Murphy stated that Condition #14 is a duplication and could be deleted. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaratio n 845. Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Nickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve Conditional Use Permit 1288 and Tentative Parcel Map 83-760, for the reasons stated by Staff and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report, with the following addi tions and changes : add Condi tion #8 under the Tentative Parcel Map 83-760, reading "that access rights from the south side of the public street be dedicated to the City of .Orange." Under special conditions for Conditional Use Permit 1288, that Condition #2 read "that means be established within the CC&Rs for maintenance and provision of landscaping ...". Condition #6 read "That a 6-foot view obscuring masonry wall .... be constructed.... with the west wall being bonded or some other method approved by the City Engineer." Exclude Condition #14, which is a reiteration. Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Nickelson MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page N i ne CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1286 - RAYMOND J. SANDANT AND CLAYTON, CLAYTON AND COMPANY: A request to construct a duplex in the commercial zone on land located on the north side of Sycamore Avenue, ap- proximately 103 feet east of the centerline of Glassell Street (117 East Sycamore Avenue). (Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) By consensus of the Planning Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Nick Clayton, 2909 S. Holiday, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. They are the builders working with the applicant to construct a quality duplex on the site in question. He explained that they have been building quality projects for 30 years and have done several projects in the City of Orange. They agree to comply with the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Jean Gretchen, 421 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she has a business on her property and lives in the back of the property. She objects to a change to residential because of her business. Chairman Hart assured her that this action will not affect her property. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve Condi tional Use Permit 1286, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ,~ ABSENT: Commissioner Mickel son MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 1001 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to rezone two parcels from the R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential 6,000 square foot minimum lot) District to the PI (Public Institution) District for a City fire station use on land located at the northwest corner of Compton Avenue and Manchester Avenue, approximately 700 feet north of the center- line of Chapman Avenue (formerly 206 and 218 North Manchester Place, which street is now abandoned). (Note: Negative Declaration 846 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) By consensus of the Planning Commissioners, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Arden Peterson, Orange Fire Department, addressed the Commission, stating that he was available for questions in this matter. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Ten v Commissioner Vasquez referred to Page Two of the Staff Report wherein it was stated that there would be two phases of construction: Phase I - Start clearing £~ reconstruction after July 1983 for a 3-man engine company. Phase II- Add parking spaces when a probably 4-man company is added within an estimated 10 years, as com- mercial properties develop in the area and as budget allows. He wondered if this wording meant that eventually there would be a fire truck housed there. Mr. Peterson explained the dif- ference between a 3-man and a 4-man fire station, explaining in greater detail how the station would be set up. Commissioner Vasquez expressed concern based on the high rise growth in that end of the city that this station was being designed for a hook and ladder company in the future. Mr, Peterson responded that this was the plan. Commissioner Vasquez then expressed concern that the bend in the road there, which has a history of being hard to negotiate, would present safety problems. Fle pointed out that this is a family oriented area and there are children in the area. He -~as troubled about a hook and ladder truck traveling in that particular area along Manchester. Commissioner Vasquez then asked Gary Johnson a question with regard to what the city might be planning to do about safety in this area. Mr. Johnson explained that the city was thinking of realigning that road in the near future. They think that the character of the street needs to be changed. However, this would put the burden on Anaheim rather than Orange and they are not getting any cooperation from Anaheim at this point. Mr. Peterson explained that they currently have seven engine companies and two truck companies, which is a good mix at this point. He did not see a hook and ladder truck at that proposed station in the very near future. This would be a long way down the road, if ever. Commissioner Coontz was concerned about high rises which are going up in that area, feeling that it would seem more logical to ac- commodate a fire station on the south side of the street rather than where they are planning it. Mr. Peterson explained that they have reciprocal agreements with Santa Ana, Anaheim and Garden Grove for fire protection. Commissioner Master agreed with Commissioner Coontz' viewpoint, stating that he thought the station should be placed along City Drive, closer to the high rises. Mr. Peterson said that the County had been contacted with regard to the property in that area but the final decision was to purchase the property they are dis- cussing this evening and he felt that this will be a good location. He understood the concerns expressed that there might be air horns, etc. and noise in that area, but the fire department feels that they can control this and it will not have an impact on the area noisewise. Commissioner Hart was disturbed with regard to the fact that the city has already purchased the property and is almost forcing the Planning Commission to agree with their wishes. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that one of the things the Planning Commission is supposed to do is protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orange. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Eleven Mr. Peterson explained that they will try, to the best of their ability, to provide good public relations for the city in that area. They will be contacting the people of the area to assure them that they will not impact the area adversely. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner P-Laster to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 846. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Zone Change 1001, for the sole reason stated in the Staff Report that the request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Orange. General Plan Land Use Element and the surrounding land uses; but also commenting that concerns were expressed as to future expansion of that station and its impact on the local area both on traffic and the public safety, specifically heavier equipment to deal with the anticipated high rise growth in the west end of the city. Commissioner Vasquez .further stated that he did not think that one southbound lane would be able to absorb a hook and ladder truck. Commissioner Master commented that he thought the reason being given was not valid and he would like to see a better reason. Commissioner Coontz had concern for the fact that the land has already been purchased and the Planning Commission is being asked to go through the public hearing process when the whole thing is almost an accomplished fact. She felt that we need more sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Vasquez felt that the primary concern here is public safety and traffic and thought that the minutes will reflect these concerns. Mr. Murphy commented that the zoning action itself is incon- sequential. Even denying the zone change would not make the fire station cease to exist. 6~Jhether it is approved or not is not as important as concerns and editorial comments that the Com- mission might wish to accompany their recommendation. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz asked if the resolution will carry some of the comments made here this evening. The Commissioners asked for special treatment on the resolution so that the main comments will be carried to the Council. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-753 - ME RIDAN CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIES: A request to subdivide a parcel into three parcels on land located at the southeast corner of Angus Avenue and Batavia Street. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Twelve Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 6.17 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Batavia Street and Angus Avenue. The property has approximately 325 feet of frontage on Batavia Street and is developed with truck terminal operation. The surrounding land uses are industrial and the surrounding zoning is M-2. Mr. Murphy explained that as part of the three parcel split, the applicant is proposing to retain parcel two (4.03 acres) as a continuation of the truck terminal operation and sell parcels one and three. Access to the truck terminal is proposed to be relocated from the Batavia Street frontage to Angus Avenue. Parcel three was originally intended for the communications tower proposed by S.P. Communications, which was recently withdrawn. Staff is concerned for. two reasons with the precedent of allowing a truck terminal to take access from a local street. First is the guesswork of structural stability of the street, since local streets are not normally designed for a high percentage of heavy vehicle usage. Secondly is the possibly impact of the truck termina] use on adjacent uses within the confines of the typical local street industrial tract, i.e, traffic circulation, on-street parking, nois e, etc. Although there are no present minimum requirements, Staff has also expressed concern for shallowness of depth of parcel one. The 135± ft. depth may limit access alternatives to Angus Avenue and encourage multiple driveways on Batavia Street. Minimal lot depth may eliminate secondary access possiblities and negate chances of anything but minimal street setbacks and parking dimensions. Mr. Murphy pointed out that that the existing truck terminal building is located approximately 35' easterly of the proposed parcel line between parcels one and two, but according to the applicant will not pose a problem. to on-site circulation of trucks. He further pointed out that two portable office trailers have been approved in recent years by the Zoning Administrator for the owner of this property, with the removal of the existing house as a condition of the approvals. Mr. Murphy stated that ordinarily parcel maps of four lots or less are approvable by Staff. However, because of the number and nature of the Staff concerns regarding this request, Staff feels that it is more appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the application and take whatever action is found to be appropriate. If the Commission finds the application acceptable, the conditions on the Engineering Plan Check Sheet are suggested. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that Batavia is so heavily traveled that to have a truck station outlet on Batavia would pose problems. She felt that Angus, being an industrial street anyway, would be easier to use for access. Mr. Johnson said that it was not really important whether the trucks go out on Batavia or Angus, since they would eventually be on Batavia anyway. Staff's main concern is not to break up Angus. He explained further the problems that could be incurred by using Angus for ingress and egress. He pointed out that the concern is for the life of the street, which should be 10 years. If there is a large amount of heavy traffic on a street, it lasts no longer than 5 years. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1983 Page Thirteen Commissioner Coontz asked what the logic was for the division of the parcels. Staff explained the 3-lot configuration including retention of the truck terminal on Lot 2. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Jim Brennan, engineer representing the applicant, 191 S. Orange, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, explaining that the parcels were .created initially, based on the area and what was needed to continue the truck stop operation. The depth on the front lot was determined because of the location of the existing structure, which is used as an operation of the office. Parcel three was originally created for a communications firm, who then decided not to use it. Mr. Brennan said that they have no objections to the conditions set forth in the Engineering Plan Check Sheet. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz asked whose responsibility it is for the upgrading of Angus and Mr. Johnson replied that it would be the responsibility of the developer. He thought that Angus would have to be looked it and evaluated as to the condition of the street with regard to heavy traffic. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to approve Tentative Parcel Map 83-753, subject to the conditions as outlined by the engineer. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, June 20, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman..Avenue, Orange, California .