Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/21/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California June 21, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez STAFF Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; John Baucke, Assistant Planner; PRESENT: Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 17, 1982: Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes of May 17, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Pickelson, Coontz, Hart NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vasquez Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 1982: Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes of June 7, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 964 - CITY OF ORANGE: A request to rezone property from the C-1 and R-1~-7 zones to the MH zone in conformance with the existing use on land located on the west side of Tustin Street approximately 88± feet south of the centerline of Trenton Avenue (1420 North Tustin Street). (Note: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Chairman Mickelson explained that this application is part of an in- depth program of determining land use policies for all of the mobile home parks i n the City of Orange. He pointed out that there had been a work session last Wednesday (June 16, 1982) in this regard, at which several questions were raised. He thought it might be possible that action might not be taken this evening; the application could be held over in order to get more information. He explained that the Planning Commission wishes to be very careful that they get the proper input from the citizens of the City of Orange and be wel 1 informed on the subject. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that at the work session other aspects than rezoning had been discussed. This particular hearing this evening is for a zone change only. Chairman Mickelson asked for the testimony of everyone who wishes to speak because this input is needed for the Planning Commission to make proper decisions. Planning Commission Minutes June 21 , 1982 Page Two Norvin Lanz presented the application to the Commission. stating that this property contains 11.87± acres of land located. on the west side of Tustin Street approximately 88± feet south of the centerline of Trenton Avenue (1420 North Tustin Street). The property is developed with a 153 unit mobile home park and zoned R-1-7 and C-1. Mr. Lanz explained that on May 27, 1980 the City Counci 1 moved to postpone hearings on Amendment 13-79 which, among other changes to City Codes, would have established a park conversion ordinance re- quiring a public hearing to evaluate adequacy of relocation plans. It was intended that the Council would have initiated rezoning of existing parks as part of their action. Hearings were postponed to await State action on proposed Assembly Bill 2234. This bill would require the filing of relocation plans and empowered cities to require mitigating measures when a mobile home park was to be reused. Mr. Lanz pointed out that Assembly Bill 2234 was adopted as Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code and became effective January 1, 1981. This section requires the preparation of an impact of conversion report prior to the conversion to another use and per- mitted cities to mitigate adverse impacts via a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan. It was then explained by Mr. Lanz that on May 18, 1982 City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 15-82 prohibiting the conversion of any mobile home park to any other use pending completion of a study on the appropriate land use provisions which should be applied to all mobile home parks. At the same hearing, the City Council directed staff to commence public hearings to rezone existing mobile home parks to the mobile home district. This rezone procedure is the first of nine mobile home park rezoning actions on existing parks in the City. Effective January 1, 1982, Section 65852.7 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that a newly proposed mobile home .park use shall be a permitted use on land planned or zoned for residential use, but a city may subject the re- quest to the conditional use permit process. The Staff has reviewed this proposal and has expressed several concerns: 1. That it appears the intent to stabilize existing mobile home park housing in the City by rezoning them to the Mobile Home Park district may not accomplish the intent of the City Council. It is presumed the park owner would request a new zone and initiate the public hearing process. However, if a rezone request is not processed simultaneously with the decision to merely go out of the mobile home park business, no public re- view would be required while tenants were required to relocate. City Staff differs in their opinion as to whether going out of business constitutes a change of use. 2. Rezoning to mobile home district may be giving tenants of a park a false sense of security. 3. Procedural options, such as an ordinance or an overlay zone requiring an impact report upon any use change in a park could be equally or more effective and less costly to process. 4. The dwell i ng uni t density of use i n th i s park exceeds the underlying General Plan densities. Mr. Lanz told the Commission that the Staff has prepared a report on mobile home rezoning issues and options to be considered by the City Council at their June 8, 1982 meeting. r a Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Three Mr. Lanz explained that this mobile home park use and site is situated to the rear and adjacent to commercial uses, the latter uses having frontage on arterial streets both easterly and southerly of the park. Single family residential uses surround the other two sides of this mobile home park. It is unlikely that additional space will be required for the adjacent commercial uses in the fore- seeable future. No foreseeable demand for another use exceeds the present use as a park. From the point of view of compatibility of land uses: 1. This park is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. This park does not intrude on the foreseeable long term uses of adjacent properties. However, Staff is concerned that the procedure to rezone existing parks to the Mobile Home District is not necessarily an affective means of insuri ng the tenants of the park's stability. As a resul t, Staff has prepared a report suggesting alternative methods be con- sidered by the City Council. New direction may be issued to the Staff. In light of this uncertainty, the Planning Commission has several options 1. Continue the hearing of this request with the suggestion to the City Council that City Council consider another option, such as establishing an ordinance, an overlay zone or requiring a dis- cretionary permit that requires a tenant relocation plan if the owner initiates any new use for the park, including conversion to vacant land. 2. Deny the zone change without prejudice and request the City Council to consider the options above. 3. Approve the zone change with the directive to City S~taf~ to study appropriate code amendments and revisions to the lements of the General Plan. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Staff picked this particular mobile home park because of the closeness of the zoning to what it would be under mobile home parks. Mr. Lanz explained that this was correct. Chairman Mickelson read from the Staff Report, reiterating the concerns which the Staff had expressed, explaining each one in greater detail to the audience for their further clarification and greater understanding. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Len Spurlock, Manager of the Orange Village Mobile Home Park, 1420 N. Trenton, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that he had talked today with the owner of the land, Frank Fisher, who expressed the opinion that the park will remain as it is today as long as he owns the property. The people who have purchased the park also feel the same way. There is no intention of changing this park to anything else but what is now is. He explained that the new owners have leased the land from P1r. Fisher and they now own the mobile home park. Walt Cook, 507 S. Euclid, #73, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that he is the Associate Director of Region 5, GSMOL. He told the Commission that in today's housing situation in Orange County, despite the fact that it is claimed that mobile home parks were never intended for other than temporary use, there must occur a change in attitude and action on the part of local governments. He pointed out that an appointed task force in Anaheim is working on this problem, as he sees Orange doing. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 19 82 Page Four Mr. Cook passed out copi es of the Anaheim plan for overlay zoning to the Commission, stating that he thought this might be of assistance to the Commissioners in determining the course of action they might wish to follow. Mr. Cook then went on to say that it was his understanding that instead of rezoning Orange mobile home parks enmasse, that the City is con- templating doing this piecemeal - two parks at a time. He wondered if they are considering this route in order to give them the opportunity to clearly define what parks should be left intact and which become possible candidates for conversion under the city plan. If this is the case, he wanted to point out that the waiting period for residents in parks downstream will be an agonizing experience in itself. State legislative intent, as embodied in California Mobilehome Residency Law, was clear in its desire to protect mobile home residents in the "quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their homes". Conversion and other considera- tions are making this a hollow promise. He suggested that the City of Orange consider total rezoning or overlay zoning - as Anaheim appears to be adopting - and put an end, once and for all, to the spectre of the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of these park residents who deserve better. Mr. Cook said that he earnestly hoped that the local government of Orange, pioneered by this Planning Commission, wi71 see to it that what happened to the Lampl fighter Mobi 1 e Home Park wi 11 not be allowed to repeat itself in the name of profit. Carl Pace, 1414 Trenton, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this zone change, stating that he represented the adjacent residents on Trenton to the mobile home park. He stated that the majority of the people on the street are all in favor of keeping the park the way it is. It is well kept and he thought it to be an asset to the city. He also pointed out that these are senior citizens living in this park and he felt that they make a tremendous contribution to the city. He felt that it is the Planning Commission and City Council's duty, plus the citizens of Orange, to provide something for these senior citizens who have contributed so much to their city. Chairman Mickelson commented that he has heard opposition in the past from adjacent residents of mobile home parks and he was happy to hear such positive comments from the neighbors of thi s park . ~ Woody James, 446 S. Tustin, Val Verde Mobile Home Park, formerly a resident of El Mirador Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stati ng that she thought there was no sense i n making more statements regarding the emotional distress that the people have gone through in the mobile home park conversions. She read a statement asking that the City of Orange make mobile home parks safe for the some 12,000 peopl e residing i n them i n the City of Orange. She fel t that i t woul d be a most important accomplishment for the City of Orange to complete rezoning of mobile home parks. Chairman Mickelson asked some questions of Mrs. James, stating that the City Council has been considering setting up more mobile home parks within the city. He asked Mrs. James to speculate how she would feel about moving her mobile home to another park in the city when a park is converted. Mrs. James replied that at the time of El h1irador's conversion they were promised another park, which never materia]ized. She explained that a forced move is a tremendous emotional problem. Chairman Mickelson asked for a show of hands in the audience of those attending who were neighboring residents of the Orange Village Mobile Home Park. There were nine residents from Trenton, who expressed their approval and support of the park and its residents . Planning Commission Minutes June 21 , 1982 Page Five James Minor, 1420 N. Tustin, Space 128, Orange, addressed the Com- mission, asking if there would be another hearing with Mr. Fisher being present. Chairman Mickel son explained that the owners of the park cannot be forced to attend these hearings. Mrs. Carl Pace, 1414 Trenton, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that when they purchased their house 19 years ago, they agonized over the decision because the house abutted this mobile home park. They have proved to be ideal neighbors. They do not wish to have anything else neighboring their property. They are very satis- fied having the mobile home park residents as their neighbors. Commissioner Coontz brought out that at the study session had in this regard, the fact, that this had been advertised as a zone change had been discussed. They had discussed the reason for doing this and de- cided that a change to mobile home zoning would give the residents some sense of security. Now, however, the Staff has pointed out that this might be a false sense of security and could cause more harm than good, particularly with regard to the State law and because of the rights of any landowner. ~ John Powell, 1420 N. Tustin, Orange, addressed the Commission and pointed out that we are talking about mobile homes. After this year these will no longer be considered mobile homes. They will be known as community housing developments. The residents will be paying real estate taxes, just like everyone else. Chairman Mickelson explained that they were aware of this ruling. How- ever, this does not change the fact that it is still a mobile home park owned by someone else. Chairman Mickelson closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. Commissioner Hart said that he felt that these people must be given some sense of security and that security would be rezoning to the mobile home park use. Commissioner Master said that he could support a similar position. However, because of possible action by the City Council, it would probably be best to continue this action. Commissioner Coontz felt that they were stepping into a big area when they discussed mobile home parks. She felt that more should be done than just a zone change at this point. All of the concerns expressed here should be expressed to the City Counci 1 . She thought there shout d be more study sessions in this regard. Commissioner Hart still supported a positive action tonight, even though the Commission were to go on to further study and work sessions later on. Chairman Mickelson said that he could support a zone change on this property, but he was not sure the action should be taken at this time, since there is further work to be done in this regard. He thought by taking this action at this time, it would lead people to believe that the Commission would take the same action about all the parks in the City and he was not sure that this would be true. He was a little afraid of a false sense of security which was mentioned by Staff. There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the action which should be taken at this meeting. Chairman Mickelson thought that he could support a zone change with a statement to the City Council that before they take action on it the Planning Commission and City Counci 1 would si t down together and discuss these issues . u Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Six Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Zone Change 964, with the recommendation that thi s be carried to the City Counci 1 i n a general study session to discuss its ramifications prior to their decision. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1207, VARIANCE 1687 - MARIE H. JONES: A request to convert a seven unit apartment complex into a residential care facility for passive, dependent, adult, mentally handicapped residents and to provide less than the number of parki ng spaces required by the City Code on 1 and located at the northwest corner of Maple Avenue and Parker Street (701-713 West Maple Avenue). (Note: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission,~stating that this property is a rectangular parcel containing .45 acre of land located at the northwest corner of Maple Avenue and Parker Street. It is .zoned R-M-7 (Residential Multiple Family with a seven thousand square foot lot size) . Mr. Lanz explained that the applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of an existing 7 unit (six one-bedroom, one two-bedroom) apartment complex into a live-in care facility for rehabilitating mental patients. The six one-bedroom units will have their kitchens and living rooms converted to bedrooms, bringing each unit to three bedrooms. A maximum of 30 patients, all women aged 18-64 years old, wi 11 be housed i n these units; maximum of 5 per unit. The two-bedroom unit will remain intact and serve as housing for the single resident full time caretaker. The applicant proposes to convert three garage spaces of an existing 4 car garage located on the north- east corner of the property to a dining room facility. The remaining one enclosed garage space will be used fora van that will be used as the sole transport vehicle for the caretaker and tenants. (None of the tenants can obtain a driver's license). The applicant further proposes the conversion of an existing three car garage (northwest corner of the parcel) into a recreational room. Mr. Lanz pointed out that in addition to the live-in caretaker, the facility will employ a groundskeeper and a cook who will be present at the facility daily but will not live there. Residents will clean and maintain their rooms and the facility. All meals will be prepared in the kitchen of the caretaker residence. Mr. Lanz explained that the project site currently has two access drives leading to the existing garages (one drive entering off Parker Street and one off Maple Avenue). He further explained that the project will not allow on-site visitation by relatives of the residents. A caseworker from the State of California Department of Social Services will make at least two visits to each patient in the facility each year. The occupants will be ambulatory and, except for occasional visits by doctors for illnesses, a71 major illness or non-ambulatory persons will be treated at other facilities. Mr. Lanz stated that the applicant has requested a variance fora re- duction i n the number of parking spaces required by the City of Orange Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space for every two beds fora care facility of this nature (15 parking spaces required). The applicant proposes to provide 8 parking spaces. Four of these spaces will be located in the east driveway that accesses to Parker Street, one will be retained in the dining room conversion and three wi 11 be 1 ocated i n the driveway that accesses to Maple Avenue at the west side of the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Seven It was explained to a 36 inch block wall the site(this fence area). The fence is Department. the Commission that the applicant will construct and wrought iron fence around the perimeter of steps up to 6 feet beyond the re~,quNred setback a security feature required by the City Police The facility will require approval from the State of California Depart- ment of Social Services. At least annually, a licensed evaluator from this department checks staffing quantity and quality, facility opera- tions, clientele qualifications, programs, services, management policies, and procedures. The facility requires an annual license renewal unless no deficiencies are found and then may renew for two years. Staff has concerns that the project may generate parking problems that the applicant has not foreseen, and that the applicant may encounter expensive structural difficulties in converting the existing garages into different. us es. Staff feels, however that the proposed use is consistent with the existing General Plan, zoning and surrounding land use; that there is a need for such facilities; and that the requested variance for the required number of parking spaces is justifiable on the basis of the uniqueness of the operation. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the project, Staff recommends approval subject to the 6 special conditions and 12 standard conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Coontz asked for a further explanation of the kitchen facilities and Mr. Lanz explained that there is one kitchen to prepare al l food for the residents . Thi s must be passed upon by the City Health Department. Commissioner Coontz then questioned the condition which states that no resident other than employees will have a driver's license. She asked for clarification of the description "developmentally disabled" person. Mr. Lanz explained this in further detail and also explained that this condition was asked for by the operator of the facility. Commissioner Coontz then asked why the residents of the facility would be required to wear identification bands. Mr. Lanz .replied that these people are ambulatory and it was thought that they should be identified in case they should have a problem while walking in the immediate neighborhood of the facility. Commissioner Master questioned Condition 2a, stating that the number of on-site full time manager personnel be limited to one person. He won- dered why this limitation was specified. Mr. Lanz replied that this was for parking purposes. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the special conditions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson-this facility requires approval by the State of California Department of Social Services. He wondered if they review and approve the site plan and floor plan and alterations to the structure. Mr. Lanz replied i n the affirmative, s tati ng that they i nspect the site and require final approval. Chairman Mickelson also expressed concern over the kitchen being in a separate building. He thought that there should at least be a covered passageway between the buildings. He also pointed out in Unit 1 that you must pass through one bedroom to get to another. He thought that this seemed strange and asked for more clarification on it. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Piarie Jones, 1211 W. Walnut, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that she agreed that there should be a covered passageway from the kitchen to the dining room. This is in the plan. She further explained that all of the bedrooms will have separate ~ entrances. She pointed this out on the plan in front of the Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Eight Chairman Mickelson asked if the State of California will be interested in this situation and Mrs. Jones explained that, by law, they must have separate doors into each bedroom. Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification regarding driver's licenses for residents. Mrs. Jones explained that the mental age of the residents is seven years and they would not be able to drive. Questions were asked about the fact that there will be just one fu]1 time manager. She replied that she will also be there as owner and administrator. Commissioner Master asked if the State has a ratio of full time employees to residents and was answered that the ratio is one to eight. Michael Copeland, 2414 N. Tustin, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that he is an employee of Robinson Residential Care, which operates other small residential care units in the City of Orange. He said that Mrs. Jones is considered highly qualified in the field and operates a high quality unit. He expl ai ned further with regard to community care units, specifically care for the disabled. He said that this was quite different than care for the emotionally disturbed or for the mentally ill. The residents are required to be in regular programs during the day, during the eveninas and the weekends, these programs being structured and regular program plans are followed. He explained that this is not a case of a group of people who are wandering the streets. There is a precise planned program for them. The State of California is very precise in its regulations regarding the com- munity care plan. This is a highly regulated situation. The type of people who reside in this .type of facility are not capable of driving a car. If they become capable, they will be moved to another facility. Mr. Copeland explained that Mrs. Jones operates a very high quality unit in Santa and Ana and one in Orange. She has a fine reputation. Commissioner Coontz asked for Mr. Copeland thoughts with regard to Condition 2a, limiting the number of on-site full time personnel to one full time manager. He explained that this bothered him also, He felt that the City is overreacting on the parking situation. He clarified that the traffic situation in this environment is very minimal. Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification of the statement that these residents are "passive". Mr. Copeland explained this statement in further detail. Chairman Mickelson asked if they attempt to get a residential family aura i n thi s type of si tuati on and was answered i n the affirmative. He then asked if they are acting under a strict time limit, as he would like to visit these facilities to further familiarize himself with this type of care facility. This was discussed further with Mrs. Jones. Mr. Copeland then addressed the identification band situation, ex- plaining that they are talking about a normalized "non-institutional" type of identification. Chairman Mickelson then asked Mrs. Jones if it would be a problem i f thi s were continued to July 7th so that they could vi si t the faci 1 i ty. Don Hendricks en, applicant's real estate broker, addressed the Commission, explaining that there was a problem because the owner has kept most of this complex vacant, creating a financial burden on the present owner until this property changes hands. Several members of the Building Department, Police and Fire Departments have visited this ~- facility in order to make their decisions. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Nine There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1207 and Variance 1687, for the reasons as outlined in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, except that Special Condition 2a "that the number of on-site full time manager personnel be limited to one person" be 1 imi ted to "that mandated by the State", and 2f - "that all tenants/clients are to wear an identification band...." that the means of identification be left to the discretion of the management of the facility. Also that an additional condition be added to read that a deed restriction be recorded, limiting the use of the facility to the use as outlined in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master none Vasquez Marjorie Hyatt, employed by the Orange addressed the Commission, stating that excellent operation and she invited the facilities. VARIANCE 1688 - DOUGLASS ROSSMAN: MOTION CARRIED County Regional Center, Mrs . Jones ' faci 1 i ti es have Commission to visit these A request to allow construction of a 22,787 square foot warehouse addition to an existing machine shop and to place an unscreened loading door facing a public street on land located on the east side of Glassell Street approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Grove Avenue (1927 North Glassell Street). (Note: This project is exempt from an environmental review.) John Baucke presented this application before the Commission, stating that this property contains 1.7 acres of land located on the east side of Glassell Street approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Grove Avenue (1927 N Glassell Street). The property is zoned M-1 and presently contains a 21,600 sq. ft. machine shop building plus four exterior storage sheds, two outdoor storage areas, and 49 deli gnated parking spaces . The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit a building addition that places an unscreened loading door i n the front of the property which faces a public street. Mr. Baucke explained that the applicant proposes to increase his floor space from 21,600 sq, f t. to a total of 44,387 sq. ft.; provide 76 parking spaces with 30 compact, 45 standard, and 7 handicapped (meets City Code) ; and retai n ingress/egress to the property from two existing drives along Glassell Street. The applicant also proposes to maintain his present loading area at grade on the north side of his existing machine shop building. Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has several concerns, mainly: a. That the unscreened front loading area will create a visual intrusion problem. b. That the present practice of utilizing Glassell Street as a backing up area for loading/unloading creates an unacceptable traffic hazard condition. c. That the potential loading/unloading of trucks outside the building areas will cause the blocking of internal circulation patterns and access to designated parking spaces unless loading/ unloading takes place inside the structures. d. That insufficient backing up room is alloted for the loading/ unloading area on the north side of the building addition if a truck is to back into the loading area. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Ten e. That the designated parking spaces are not used for outdoor s torage. f. That a fire hydrant be installed at the rear of the proposed building addition. g. That the entire building addition be equipped with an interior sprinkler system. Mr. Baucke explained that the applicant's present use of Glassell Street fora truck bad<i ng up area strongly i ndi cates that he has out- grown his present site. Approval of the applicant's request to allow a warehouse addition with a front loading door location would seem to further aggravate the problem. The inherent access limitations ~~~~e~idted with the site cause Staff to feel that Variance 1688 should be denied for three reasons: 1. The applicant's request for a variance is self-imposed due to the overbuilding of his lot. 2. The applicant's need fora variance can be mitigated through redesign of the proposed structure which would likely reduce the size of the addition and not require the overhead door to face the public street. 3. Maneuvering and backing problems now experienced by truckers making deliveries to the present building occupant will con- tinue to be experienced with the proposed addition for this occupant or his successor. However, should public hearing discussion result in a conclusion to approve Variance 1688 then Staff would recommend that the approval be subject to the 27 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson asked if the existing building was equipped with sprinklers and was told that i t was . Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Jem Clark, 1215 La Mirada, Laguna Beach, addressed the Commission on behalf of Douglas Rossman, the applicant, pointing out that it is quite clear that the issue centers around the door being in the center of the addition. He emphasized that in building this addition for a ware- house there is no extension of the operation of the company. Functions which will go on in this covered area are now going on in open areas. Parking now being used will be the same. He explained that their big problem is that materials are left in the open at this time and there is a problem of thievery, weather damage, etc. He showed pictures to the Commission which made it obvious that the building will be an excellent addition to this Ci ty and be a benefi t to the area. The door wi 11 greatly facilitate the movement of material into the area. Gates now exist to the present yard where trucks go through. The only difference will be that the area will be covered. With regard to the location of the door, if they do adopt a one way traffic pattern into the building this will probably result in trucks pulling in, turning and stopping in front of the building, and backing up to the loading dock. He explained that their point is that it would be a little more awkward for the tucks to do this if the door is shifted to the north. They do not think that the view into the doorway wi 11 be an i nconveni ence to anyone and wi 11 be just a snapshot view i nto the doorway. They feel that they are not asking for anything unique with the request for this particular door. It is their answer to their operation. Planning Commission Minutes June 21 , 1982 Page Eleven ~ Mr. Clark then addressed the conditions suggested by Staff, stating that i n the event that the Commission would entertain some of these conditions which have been suggested by Staff, they feel that some of them are rather difficult to live with. He believed that Conditions #8 and 9 should be deleted. Standard Condition #14 was of concern to them, as was Condition #26. He also questioned the limitations pro- posed by Staff to be included in the CC&Rs mentioned in Conditions #3 and 5. Condition #27 is of concern and he proposed a change of wording, as follows: rather than "...shall confirm the requirement has been met.", they suggested the wording be changed to read: "...shall resolve each requirement", or "shall confirm that each requirement has been resolved." Commissioner Hart explained that the issue is whether this is a hard- ship that would allow the Commission to vote in favor of the variance to allow the door in the location shown on the plans. This is the only basis on which the Commission can vote. Mr. Clark asked for clarification of this and Commissioner Hart explained that a door facing the street is not allowed by the city and the applicant does not show hardship. Mr. Clark explained that he pointed out that the door i s the same faci 1 i ty as the gate at the present time. The gate now enjoys frontal ingress. Commissioner Hart further explained that if the door were moved 9 ft. to the north they would not even need a variance. Mr. Clark pointed out that the forward part of the building is utilized for staff offices so that the door must be behind this area. If they go back as far as proposed, they would lose much of the use of the building itself. The hardship would be the reduction of space to a degree that would make i t i nadequate for the use of the facility. Commissioner Hart pointed out that this would be by choice. Commissioner Master asked if part of the storage area now used is part of the parking area. It would be incorrect to claim a hardship when some of that area is incorrectly used. Mr. Lanz explained that this has not happened. Douglas Rosman, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that things have come to pass in these times that a fence is no longer adequate to protect his property. He loses a lot of tools and materials to thieves. It is also an eyesore to the community. A warehouse building will eliminate these problems. With regard to front exposure of the door, thi s i s not different than other bui 1 di ngs i n the area . From the standpoint of loading and unloading to bring materials to where the city suggests would be dangerous and take more time in loading and unloading. Mr. Mi nsh ew explained that the applicant i s showing practical di ffi cul ties . The Commission is asking for legal hardships which justify they granting this variance. He read from the code which states that because of the size, shape or topography of property being so unique that the applicant would be denied the same use of his property as other properties. Mr. Rosman then stated that their materials are being stored almost to the street and there is absolutely no screening whatsoever at this time. He said that he had reviewed the Code carefully and he is satisfied that he has met the requirements. Chairman P~ickelson then explained that the doors which have been re- ferred to by applicant could be the doors for which the Code was written to prevent more of these problems. Mr. Ross man then explained that no matter where the driveway is put there will be a certain amount of exposure to the door. He pointed out that when this building was built i t was a showpiece i n the county. He intends to keep i t this way. He wishes to get rid of the eyesore and get rid of the pilferage which goes over the fence. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Twelve Wesley Bos, 1926 Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he is across the street and to the west of the Rossman property. They have six industrial buildings on six acres of land. He is objecting to this addition because of obstruction to the traffic on Glassell. He explained that this is already a very heavy traffic area on Glassell, He felt that this warehouse would not add to the com- munity, but would distract from it, With regard to crime, he agreed that it is there. They had a breakin last night. However, this will not stop by building another building, He pointed out that there is a constant water flow in that area across the Rosman frontage. It runs from beyond P9eats and i s a hazard. He felt that moving the door to the north would only make a further problem because it would be harder to get into. Commissioner Hart wondered what he was objecting to. The only issue here is the door. The building is legal, therefore there is no need to discuss that. Commissioner Coontz felt that Mr, Bos was asking whether the building would be used for storage or possible future industry. Staff has stated that there would be no way to enforce this. Mr. Clark again addressed the Commission, explaining that the 14'x65' area would be inside of the building. It is the intention of Mr. Rossman to have the truck drive into the building and unload. The door is 68 ft. back from the gutter on Glassell. Mr. Rossman again spoke and explained that the drainage problems have been fixed since the 1 ast rains . Chairman Mickelson asked whether trucks are primarily single axle and the answer was that they are semi-tractors when they come in. When they leave they are flatbed trucks, Much of their material comes in on pallets and they must be far into the property in order to unload. Chairman Mickelson then pointed out on the plan where the truck would probably maneuver out onto Glassell in order to back into the driveway. Mr. Rossman said he has no control over the truck drivers. They will do what is best in their opinion. He felt that by having the door where they show it in the plan it will be safe for the drivers to drive in and unload their merchandise, Mr. Bos pointed out that the trucks have a backing area of 68 ft. but the building will be 65 ft, from the street. How can the Commission enforce that they will back into the building? There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification of the Code requirements in this matter. Mr, Lanz read the Code requirements to the Commission, which explained that an unloading door shall be screened from public view. Commissioner Coontz asked how it could be screened from view and Mr. Lanz suggested that in this instance a wall could be built along the south perimeter, together with heavy 1 andscapi ng i n that area. In most cases, the door would be turned 90 so that the public could not see it. Commissioner Hart thought the Commission should vote for denial from a legal standpoint. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the degree of angle of the door so that it could be screened from the street. Commissioner Hart pointed out that the standard conditions cannot be negotiated. However, Chairman Mickelson thought that some of the ~, conditions which were a problem could be worked out. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1982 Page Thirteen AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN RE: Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to continue this matter to July 7, 1982, in order that the applicant and the Staff might get together and work out an acceptable solution to the door problem. Chairman Mickelson expressed the thought that Condition #3 should not be i n the CC&Rs . It was the cons ensus of the Commissioners that some of these conditions needed to be worked out more thoroughly be- tween the applicant and the Staff. Commissioners Mickelson, Commissioners none Commissioner Vasquez Hart, Coontz, Plaster MOTION CARRIED P1r. Lanz asked for a special study session on the paraphernalia ordinance. Chairman Mickelson did not feel that a study session was needed in this instance. He thought it could be taken up as an agenda item and be continued to another meeting. Commissioner Coontz asked fora report from the City Attorney's office as to what direction was given by the Council. A~,I~URNMFNT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m, to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 7, 1982 at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. C•7 EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 21, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this meeting adjourn at 10:30 p.m, on Monday, June 21, 1982 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 7, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, June 21, 1982. Dated this 22nd day of June, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. =1i~~ -(~;`~jl-C e e P. Murphy, City Planner d Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. V n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on June 21, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on June 22, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of June 21, 1982 was held.