Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/20/1988 - Minutes PCd ' ~ _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange ~~range, California June 20, 1988 Monday - 7:00 p.m. ESENT: Jack McGee, Administrator of Current Planning; Joan Wolff, Associate Planner; '"` 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 JUNE 6, 1988 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of June 6, 1988 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEM5 TO BE WITHDRAt~IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1670-88 - OLIVER & SUSAN NEWTON: __ ~*. Applicants have requested a withdrawal of their application. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission withdraw the application at the request of the applicants. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1660-88 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-127 - HANOVER REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES: Commissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide approximately 13.4 acres and a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the following: 1. Development of the site as an integrated commercial complex, consisting of office uses and accessory commercial services uses. G 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 2 2. Building heights exceeding those generally ~; permitted in the M-1 zone. 3. Creation of parcels without direct frontage on a """', public street. rrr° Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Eckhoff Street, addressed 2019-2211 Orangewood Avenue and 604-648 Eckhoff Street. Note: Environmental Impact Report 1206 has been prepared for this project. (This item was continued from the May 16, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting.) Mr. McGee presented the staff report and made comments to the memo Commissioners received dated June 2, 1988. There was some discussion on whether the item went to City Council as a recommended item or the Planning Commission was the final acting authority. He confirmed the Commission's action would be a recommendation to the City Council because of the tentative parcel map. The tentative parcel map was illustrated on an exhibit on the wall. It is the exhibit as proposed by the applicant. ~"""* The floor area ratio has been defined as a ratio of the amount of floor space proposed as compared to the lot area „r/ itself. The floor area ratio is proposed to be 1.5. The plans, which are in the process of being prepared by the Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency, do indicate a floor area ratio of 1 for this area, and this proposal is in excess of that proposal at this time. In response to information regarding the transition of uses from this project to the residential uses to the south, it is indicated the floor area ratio is .55. The fiscal review, which was presented to the Commission, has been reviewed by Finance and they have found the data and methodology to be accurate. Information has also been received from the City Traffic Engineer. A survey of other high rises in the area was also included in the Commission's packets. Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer, stated he has reviewed the consultant's findings and data base and has no problems with it. However, there is serious reservations with the volume of traffic proposed to use Eckhoff Street. The study indicates about 1,200 vehicle trips per day are projected to use the street and this would seriously impact the adjacent residential community in a negative way. A recommended mitigation measure would be to propose the implementation of a neighborhood preservation study. ',Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 3 ,, It would be a means of reducing through traffic into any given residential site as a protective measure. Commissioners should be advised that neighborhood preservation plans are not popular as any discentive "~ designed to keep through traffic out of a neighborhood "'~ also restricts accessibility to the adjacent arterial street system for the residents. The second issue to be addressed is the relationship of the proposed project to the 57 Freeway. It is their opinion there are very few sites easterly of the Santa Ana River that would accommodate a project of this magnitude. There is ample freeway accessibility, not only to the 57, but also to the 5 and directly to the 91, to the 22, and indirectly to the 55. There are two potential surface street by-passes that, in staff's opinion, due to operational problems at the freeway interchanges, may arise: 1. To avoid the Rt. 91/Rt. 57 freeway-to-freeway interchange: Rt. 91 to Glassell; Glassell to Taft or Katella; Taft or Katella to Main to Collins or Orangewood. 2. To avoid the Rt. 22/Rt. 57/Rt. 5 freeway-to-freeway interchange: Rt. 22 to LaVeta; LaVeta to Main; Main to ~"'+~ Orangewood. ~~ There are certain long-term area mitigation measures that are being enacted or being considered relating to the area. There are five that will have major emphasis to the project: 1. The proposed I-5 widening and it`s related Orangewood interchange with the 5 Freeway, including ramp connections. 15 years minimum. 2. La Veta Avenue improvements: 4-6 lane facility from Cambridge to Rt. 57 Freeway. A request for proposal for the E.I.R. has been issued. 3. Main Street improvements. 6 lane facility from Town and Country Road to Orangewood or possibly Eckhoff. E.I.R. scheduled for 1989/90. 4. Chapman Avenue improvements. 6 lane facility from Main to Rt. 57. E.I.R. scheduled for 1990/91. 5. Katella Avenue rehabilitation and re-stripe to 6 lanes. 1989/91 to include Santa Ana River bridge widening. In 1989/90 they hope to begin the environmental assessment and precise alignment of a brand new street -- extension t t i age o s ve of Metropolitan Drive, easterly from City Dr one, Chapman Avenue. 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 4 Commissioner Master asked about staff's difference of opinion on the number of vehicles that were in the applicant's traffic report. "'~, Mr. Dennis stated they had no problem with the numbers nor the distribution. He wanted to bring to the Commission's attention their concern about how if specific issues are not addressed, there would definitely be an impact to the adjacent residential area. The public hearing was re-opened. Dennis Abramson, General Partner, Hanover Real Estate Associates, 1254 East Katella, Anaheim, addressed the problem raised by Commission Greek regarding the tentative tract map. In order to clarify the position of the tentative tract map, he prepared a small rendering of their project to show how it would work once the project was completed. He brought his planners and consultants to the meeting in case there were questions. He gave several examples of high rise development next to residential areas in Orange County that have not felt negative impacts. Property values have gone up; not down. He recognizes their development may be more intense than what is desired; however, it may be justified in the 10 year ~" development that an FAR of greater than 1 would be `~' possible without impacting the City or community. Commissioner Bosch asked if Mr. Abramson had any specific solution as to how he would stipulate to controls to assure that review could take place over the next few years of phasing his development. Mr. Abramson said it would be appear if the land to the north were fully developed, that possibly an FAR of 1 would satisfy their requirements. They cannot see an absorption rate over the next ten years. They project to build Towers A and B within the next 5 to 7 years. Thereafter, other projects will be phased in. Commissioner Master asked if they were projecting development to take place with some kind of condition on it, based on traffic conditions that exist at the time of the next phase of development. Mr. Abramson said it would be difficult for them to fund a development of this magnitude with a pension fund or insurance company on the basis of speculative opportunity. A new application would be tough for future phasing. A lower level of the vesting could be increased in terms of the ability of the road system to absorb the traffic. 0 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 5 Commissioner Master and Mr. Abramson discussed the FAR of the project for now and in the future. Those speaking in opposition: Melanie Diedrick, 205 North Flower, asked what a FAR 1 was? Mr. McGee said it was a floor area ratio between the amount of floor space within the building as it relates to the ground area itself. An FAR of 1 would be an equal amount of floor area space as there is land area. Ms. Diedrick thinks the impact on the neighborhood is too much for this project. What happens if the developer runs out of money? Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, questioned how a property not yet in the Redevelopment Area, can become eligible for redevelopment funding and is there a possibility of this? She suggested Commissioners accept a lower FAR. After the last meeting, she asked Mr. Abramson of the names and addresses of the other properties he was involved in, but she was told she might have them if she promised not to contact those parties. She never did get those names and addresses. What is the TSIP fee now applicable in this area of development? She feels the bulk and building heights are incompatible and exceed those already in the area. James Oliver, 1845 West Beverly Drive, wanted to know if any noise attenuation studies have been conducted and what the sampling data was for the area. He is conducting a study of his own in the area with special sound equipment. What is the proposed construction material of the exterior buildings? V+That is the noise reflectivity factor? He asked who is paying for these studies and hopes it is not the residents. Emergency services were addressed. He offered his studies to anyone who wished to see them. Betty Owen, 458 N. Stevens, could not understand Mr. Abramson's answers and explanations to the questions addressed to him. She feels his answers were vague, nothing direct or specific. She wants to see the project denied. Before any consideration is made, more specific, direct answers are needed to the Commissioners' questions. John Blackerd, 2205 West Beverly Drive, asked at the last meeting how many trips are there currently at the intersection of Eckhoff and Orangewood so they could compare the 11,500 trips that are projected to occur when the building is completed. It was stated at this meeting there would be 1200 cars using Eckhoff. This is 10~ of the 11,500 cars and it is not a reasonable figure. '. 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 6 Richard Hall, 1926 West Orangewood, was concerned about - the congestion and traffic. He has lost tenants because of it. He feels this is not good planning. Ms. Baca, 313 North Center, she wanted to know if they were going to enlarge Walnut Street? Chairman Scott stated there was nothing proposed for anything east of Eckhoff at this time. Ms. Diedrick understood that Walnut will be enlarged as part of the Redevelopment Plan. It has not been approved as yet, but to the west of Eckhoff, there is a plan for widening of Orangewood and Walnut. Mr. Abramson answered the citizens' questions. There is already an impact of traffic in this residential area.. Their project is going to be the major catalyst by which the City will be able to solve the problems and assist the City in funding a great number of improvements. The project will be phased over a period of 10 years. An adequate solution to the problems is that the Commission would require approval prior to exceeding anything over FAR 1.2. Studies would be carried out at their expense. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master had reservations about conditioning a development for future analysis of impacts and looked to Mr. Minshew for direction. Nir. Minshew did not feel it was a legal matter, but he felt there was a problem. Each parcel of the tentative map will be subject to review. There is a considerable amount of time over the next 10 years. How can you deal with that at this point? Commissioner Greek said that two of the conditions indicate site plan review for each phase of development. He would like to see the most intense or the highest buildings be developed the way they are shown as Buildings A and B. He likes the transition going easterly and southerly as being reduced. He would prefer to see the reduction of the height go from the west towards the east. Mr. Minshew also felt the developer was asking he be given the 1.2 base all the way through. He did not know if you could reasonably do that at a practical level. Discussion ensued about the FAR of 1.2, other impacts in the area and high density. The site plan approval process was also discussed regarding this project. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 7 Commissioner Bosch feels the FAR 1.2 is a little high and ~""~"' leans towards 2.0 based on the previous studies they have ~' seen at this time. He feels transitional development is appropriate and the proposed density is a tad high. Commissioners and Mr. Minshew discussed procedural aspects of the E.I.R. relating to the traffic impacts and mitigation measures. Commissioner Master commented it was now a City policy regarding hauling procedures for a developer to obtain a permit for these operations. The Neighborhood Preservation Study was discussed and Commissioner Greek read the specific condition relating to that item. Commissioner Bosch raised the issue of overall building heights and those impacts on the area. Site lines are a concern. Twelve stories is a fairly major transition from 12 to 2 stories to the residences and believes the height is collateral to the FAR in terms of the major impacts of the project, which are excessive at this time. Commissioner Master supports Commissioner Bosch's concern about the height. He asked what the current restriction was as he was trying to get a ratio between a FAR and height. Mr. McGee said there wasn't any direct relationship between the FAR and the height. They are two separate issues. Commissioner Greek personally feels this is an unique area and situation; it is adjacent to the freeway and there is a similar project in the City -- the Tishman Tower across from single family homes. He would not like to penalize the project and would not like to start with a 6 story building adjacent to the freeway and later have the developer come back asking for a 12 story building at the intersection. He would like to see Buildings A and B; then C,D, and E be lesser than A and B. Having all four buildings the same height would be a mistake. With regard to the environmental limitation and with an understanding of the mitigation measures outlined in the Q E.I.R. and how they are linked then to further project approval, Commissioner Bosch offered the following motion: 0 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 8 rioved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to certify E.I.R. 1206 as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for implementation of CEQA, and that the mitigation measures outlined in EIR 1206 will eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level any adverse impacts associated with the project. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch questioned what may occur if the parcel map is approved, but later phases of the project may be delayed for some time. What is the possibility of finalizing the map and the impacts of the phasing plan. Mr. McGee said the parcel map is a tentative map that is being considered for approval. It will take a final map to be approved. What is proposed is that portions of the tentative could be approved separately from other parts of the tentative. For example, there could be three separate approvals working towards the ultimate implementation of the entire tentative map. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Parcel Map 88-127 subject to conditions 1-18, including addendum sheet #1 with 19 conditions; and revising condition 6 to require that the developer shall implement a neighborhood preservation study in the area bounded by Orangewood Avenue, Chapman Avenue, Batavia Street and the Orange 57 Freeway prior to the issuance of any building permits for phase one of project; and shall participate on a fair share basis in the cost of approved mitigation measures or impacts caused by phase one and any approved subsequent phases prior to occupancy of structures. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch feels the FAR proposed is too high for the area. Some extensive studies have been undertaken and will continue for some time. An FAR of 1 for the area might be both supportable and mitigated; however, the 1.5 goes far in excess of that. He concurs with the applicant there are many positive impacts to be found in mixed use ~~,~ 'Planning Commission Minutes dune 20, 1988 - Page 9 development and that many single family residential neighborhoods do exist and prosper both economically and environmentally in close proximity to major commercial. It is necessary, in his opinion, to look at a lower overall FAR for the property than the developer is requesting and a somewhat lower maximum height limit. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1660-88 subject to all of the conditions in the staff report, and subject to requiring the developer to submit a revised plan illustrating a maximum FAR development for the entire parcel of 1.0, and a maximum height of 10 stories with the 10 story height maximum limited to buildings within 700 feet of the 5? Freeway property boundary and decreasing in height easterly to a maximum height of 6 stories at Eckhoff Street. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek is in favor the project and thinks it is a good development, but he does not like the idea of limiting the first two buildings because there will be much less development. There are 18 story buildings across the freeway approved by the City of Anaheim. He wishes there were a better way to do it. Mr. McGee stated this is a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will also hear a public hearing on this. There will be notices sent out to the same individuals who received notices this time. Those hearings will be in approximately four to six weeks. Commissioner Hart returned to the meeting. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1090-88, TENTATIVE TRACT 12299 „ CONDITIONAL OSE PERMIT 1686-88, VARIANCE 1831-88 - ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF ORANGE: Commissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting. He is unable to act because he did not attend the previous meeting. 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: ~~,~ 0 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 10 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). C c C 2. An amendment to the Orange Park Acres Area plan, changing the designation of the property from 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. (This item was continued from the June 6, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting.) Commissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting. He is unable to act on this item as he was not in attendance at the previous meeting. The public hearing was re-opened. Pat Kapp, 15892 Pasadena, Tustin, is with J.P. Kapp and Associates. He had several letters and petitions signed by homeowners adjacent to the project indicating their approval. He met with Sea and Sage in the field to discuss the project and showed them the limits of the development. As a result of that meeting, they prepared a letter discussing the review and made suggestions for plant material and handling of the improvements along the channel. Consultants were also in the audience and had prepared a list of responses to the questions which were raised at the last meeting. Those responses were submitted to the City last week. He added, while meeting with Sea and Sage, there was a concern over an emergency access from the proposed street to the proposed equestrian trail. They could move that to another spot on the tract within the subdivision to avoid any harm to the existing trees. C `Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Fage 11 Larry Lazar, 550 #C Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, a,_ stated since the last meeting they listened to the ~~++'' Planning Commission tapes from the previous meeting and reviewed the comments. They responded to those comments, along with the assistance of Mr. Kapp and submitted them to City staff. They have worked with staff to refine them and they were submitted last week for review and consideration. Those speaking in favor of the project: V Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was not speaking in favor of, nor did he oppose the project. He would like to see the property remain vacant, then to see one acre homes, but this is the best they can obtain. He asked that several conditions be attached to the approval spelling out specific things they have already agreed to do, but want to make sure they are done: (1) Two feet of earth be placed on the rip rapping and that the landscaping will take place as the Sea and Sage group have recommended during the construction of the rip rapping. (2) Flat prohibition against any destruction of any habitat or vegetation on Windes Drive side of the creek. (3) Consult with the Orange Park Association on the nature of the wooden fence the County is insisting they build along the Windes Drive side of the access road and horse trail as it is important to the area. Don Lassen, 5526 East Crater discussed the project with m in favor of the project. He plans and feels it is a good transition from the existing Acres area. Lake, Maybury Ranch, has any neighbors and everyone is personally reviewed the tract plan. It is a good property to the Orange Park Ray Vetch, 6734 East Waterton, would like to see the project approved because of the nuisance of the vacant open land. Those speaking in opposition: Virginia Chester, 9731 Villa Woods Drive, Villa Park, spoke on behalf of Sea and Sage and as a friend of Santiago Oaks Park. She reiterated Sea and Sage's position with regard to Hidden Creek residences. Special consideration should be given to the significant trees and streamside vegetation which exists on that property. One way to save some trees would be to eliminate construction of houses on two of the lots -- numbers 8 and 9 -- where most of the large trees are, and re-draw lot lines to accommodate this change. The slight reduction in overall `Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 12 intensity of development could not be enough to render ~"'"""'`~ this project infeasible and would certainly result in ~+' preservation of valuable tree resources. It could also create a buffer zone of sorts between the development and Santiago Oaks Park. By leaving this portion of the property free of houses the. possibility of future flooding from Santiago Creek could be reduced and stream side vegetation could be retained. This is where the creek bends and flooding would likely occur. It is where additional width and well established trees and plants would be able to absorb the additional water flow. Commissioner Greek asked Ms. Chester to respond to Mr. Bennyhoff's request that rip rap be covered with two feet of earth. He said Mr. Bennyhoff's request and her report were in conflict. Ms. Chester stated if the rip rap is covered with soil, it would be much better if it were planted with willow cuttings. As the rip rap is being placed, the willow cuttings could be inserted. They will take hold faster and adhere to the soil and embankment much better. She does not feel there is too much conflict between the two. Marlena Fox, 2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana Heights, Orange County, was representing her clients, Mr. and Mrs. Amos Deacon who live on Windes Drive. She urged the Commission consider all the input she has given them. With regard the Environmental Impact Report, she addressed the adequacy of the hydrology report and hydrological impacts on the development. There are many differences between the two firms on this issue and they have retained the services of Mr. Robert H. Born, who is a consulting engineer, to study the matter. She submitted a report from Mr. Born and also cited his credentials and submitted his resume to the Commission. She submitted a document into the record that is four pages long that lists all of the various flood control and drainage problems/projects on which Mr. Barn has worked throughout the state of California. Robert Born, 1400 Quail Street #210, Newport Beach, said his practice is specifically in the field of water resources management. He attempted to summarize his points and briefly discussed them. He also had a chance to visit the actual site and look at the conditions that exist both upstream and downstream of Ms. Fox's clients' property. He raised a question with the role of the Santiago Creek's specific plan. The report indicates the County of Orange still relies on the specific plan, although one County employee has indicated some question 1 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 13 about whether it is still relevant today. He also questioned the hydrology and hydraulics of the project. Three different discharges were used. It is not clear whether the City is requiring the developer to adhere to a 500 year standard. He talked about the flooding in the area and the requirements of FEMA. Impacts and mitigation measures were addressed. He questioned if this were not in violation of the specific plan. He concluded, based upon what he has read, that the proposed project is in conflict with the lower Santiago Creek specific plan, it's in violation of the City Ordinance 87-10 with respect to protection of other properties, in violation of several requirements within Section 60.2 of the FEMA regulations, and it is not sufficiently described in the draft E.I.R. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Born to give them a comparison of a cross sectional design of the Santiago Creek specific plan vs. the Corp. of Engineers current plan. Mr. Born said the Corp. of Engineers' plan had many changes from what had been proposed earlier in terms of use of the retention basin for flood protection, as well as for water recharge. He does not see in any of the reports he has read the GED report addresses any problem up there. He does not see an impact on the project at all. Commissioner Greek asked if Mr. Born were aware that the specific plan has not been adopted by anyone. It has never been adopted by the County. The City would use the existing maps of FEMA which utilize the Corp. of Engineers standards of 10,000 cfs. Ms. Fox stated with regard to the County's specific plan of Santiago Creek, it has never been officially adopted. However, they do use it as their policy to which they have adhered. She was making the same point at this meeting that she has made in the past. CEQA requires information. The hydrology statement is not adequate and does not address the project. Her clients' life and home is placed in jeopardy. She referred to the E.I.R. which does not accomplish its task. Comments received are still general in nature and are not adequate. They disagree with the over intensity and over use of the project. Commissioner Bosch understood Ms. Fox desired them to accept the lower Santiago Creek specific plan as authority because staff of County EMA have been applying that. to projects in the area even though they are not the decision making body, and the Board of Supervisors did not approve it. `Planning Commission Minutes Jurie 20, 1988 - Page 14 Ms. Fox did not say that; he was misstating what she said. The County as a decision maker, has used that plan as policy, even though it has not been formally adopted. She knows of no instance where County staff has the right to do that. They are not decision makers. Mr. Kapp made some brief comments regarding the concerns of Pos. Chester. When they visited the site, they noted all the trees that were there. They have made a great deal of effort to preserve all of the major oaks on the property. They are losing a few oaks, but they have been determined to be diseased. He and Mr. Born are colleagues and was glad to see him in attendance. Mr. Kapp believes he is an expert in flood control design and a solution to major flood control/drainage issues. They have gone out of their way to follow the guidelines of the Santiago specific plan. The existing water way will be left in its natural condition. The property is not within the flood plain, as defined by FEMA documents. It would be to their benefit to use the flow rates suggested by the Corp. 10,400 cfs is significantly less than the 21,000 cfs water surfaces which they have tested. The graded channel is included in their original report. It was part of the report when they proposed a bridge crossing Santiago Creek from the site over to Windes Drive. When the adjacent homeowners and O.P.A. suggested and stated their concern about the Windes Drive link, they abandoned that alternative. He re-emphasized the points made from the previous meeting. The impact of their improvements are immeasurable. They will be presenting to staff a very detail hydraulics report once the project is approved. Commissioner Greek asked Mr. Kapp about the preliminary grading plan and the pad elevations; specifically, the relationship of that to the water surface based on the preliminary analysis? Mr. Kapp responded the pads and water surface of their hydraulic model for the 20,000 cfs is approximately one foot of free board. Commissioner Greek's point was that they were two feet less than the elevation of the Deacon's residence in the same general area. In Mr. Kapp's opinion, the Deacon residence was safe to the 20,000 cfs. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson mentioned a couple of conditions that were C 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 15 included in the recommended conditions. They are pertaining to channel improvements and flood protection. He read condition 4, a standard condition relating to all regional type channels. They believe it is possible to provide the protection needed. They have had several meetings with the County and have discussed it with the Corp. Condition 5 is somewhat of a betterment and he read that condition. In order to complete the improvements adequately, the entire channel should be looked a.t and ~dindes Drive should be made flood free. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to certify E.I.R. 1207 as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for implementation of CEQA. The mitigation measures contained in the E.I.R. are adequate to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level any adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master stated the comments entered into the record are to become part of the E.I.R. and passed on to the Council. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1090-88 and also recommend to approve the Orange Park Acres area plan amendment. ~~ `©°~0 . ~ AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ~ ~ NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek indicated the variance had certain lot line adjustments that could be made of the various parcels. It seems that Lots 1, 9 and 10 could be taken care of by an administrative adjustment and did not require a variance. Lot 6 could be made to conform and lots 12-16 could also be made to conform. Has the applicant looked into that? Mr. Kapp said they could moving the setbacks back work. There are two lots on cul de sac lots. take care of most of those by to 30 feet and make most of it they cannot make, but they are C 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 16 Mr. McGee stated the variance is for the lot width, as measured at a 20 foot setback on each of the lots. If the minimum width is obtained at that point, there would not be a variance required. Mr. McGee pointed out the lots requiring the variance and explained that Lots 1, 9 and 10 frontages cannot be met, but are in cul de sacs and knuckle locations and can be approved by an administrative adjustment. Lot 6, through a minor adjustment of the lot line, can reduce the need for a variance. The only remaining lots are 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 where they would measure lot width at the 20 foot setback in each of the locations. If at that 20 foot setback point, it does not meet the minimum width, then a variance would be required. Chairman Scott stated a variance would still be required on Lots 12-16. Commissioner Bosch had difficulty with granting the variance on lots other than at the cul de sac and the knuckle, which are routine conditions. It appears that the variance on Lots 12-16 and 6 is because of the number of lots to be developed. They have heard a concurrence by the applicant on the concept of relocating the emergency access easement to the maintenance road and trail parallel to the creek channel. The key to help eliminate the variance is a reconfiguration of their lot lines (Lots 8 and 9) to avoid loss of the significant oaks on the site. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City ~\ Council to deny Variance 1831-88. ,~1,~~ ~~ AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee said the tentative map needed to be redesigned in order to be consistent with the variance action. The applicant may be desirous of a continuance to return that map to the Commission with some modification. Mr. Kapp stated they have done a study and prepared a map with one less lot in it that requires no variances. He requested a continuance and will submit a revised tentative tract map. Commissioner Bosch would like to see the map address the issue with regard to the emergency access easement, preservation of the more significant trees and a study made with regard to condition 5 -- making Windes Drive passable during a 100 year storm. `Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 17 Commissioner Greek does not like Condition 5 and feels it will cause more impacts than what is realized for the area. He explained his reasons. Commissioner Bosch understood the reasoning and was convinced not to include that condition. They continued to discuss the elimination of the condition to raise Windes Drive. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continue Tentative Tract Map 12299 and Conditional Use Permit 1686-88 to the July 6, 1988 meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED t~is. Fox stated they could not be attendance at the July 6 meeting and asked for another date. The next available meeting would be August ?, 1988, to which the applicant did not agree to. Commissioner Greek asked Ms. Chester to work up a plan for the rip rap to include it with the conditions. Commissioner Hart returned to the meeting. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13529, ZONE CHANGE 1096-88, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1678 - CRAWFORD HILLS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: U Commissioner Greek excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Proposed request for a vesting tentative map, to subdivide property previously subdivided and recorded as Tract 9608 {also known as Jones Ranch). The previously recorded tract encompassed an approval for 381 residential units, including 300 condominium units, 43 detached single family units and 38 attached zero-lot line single family units. The applicant is currently proposing to develop 400 residential units including 300 condominium and townhome units, 33 detached single family units, 50 attached zero-lot line single family units and 17 estate lot single family units. Associated requests include a zone change to revisL zoning boundaries of the R-0, R-2-7, R-1-7, and 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 18 R-1-40 districts, and a Conditional Use Permit to develop property as a Planned Unit Development for the purpose of clustering development and consolidating open space areas. Subject property is located along the east side of the future extension of Crawford Canyon Road, north of Chapman Avenue. Note: EIR 496 was previously prepared and certified for this project. An addendum to the EIR will be reviewed at this time. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Philip Terhorst, with McLarand, Vasquez and Partners, architects for the project, stated they have been working on the project over the past several months. They have an approved 180 acre project with 381 units. They have been fine tuning the planning and grading with a result of increasing the open space by almost triple. They have been able to reduce the amount of grading by approximately one-third. They are asking for an additional 19 units and feel it is a better plan than before. John Svalbe, of CME, Development, 3194-C stated condition 91 to their client. representing Crawford Hills Airport Loop Drive #2, Costa Mesa, in relation to hauling is acceptable Herman Kimmel, 3300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, is the traffic consultant for the Crawford Hills Development. He spoke on the intersection of A Street and Chapman Avenue. This is the most lightly used of the intersections to provide access to the site. It is on a hill and is not quite a T-intersection. With the new 19 units added, there would be on a daily basis 30 cars turning left into the site. There would be 30 cars turning right out of the site on a daily basis; and 160 turning left out of the site to go up the hill, and 160 back do~,an to the right. He has reviewed the site and it looks like visibility is good to the crest of the hill. They do not anticipate any problems and feel it would be a safe intersection. Commissioner Bosch spoke about condition 5 calling for installation of traffic signal standards and related equipment at the Chapman Avenue/A Street intersection. He wanted Mr. Kimmel's opinion on the studies of that intersection with regard to the potential of signalization and what impacts it would have on the traffic flow and safe stopping on the grade at that point. `Planning Commission Minutes June 20, ,198£3 - P~ ge 19 PRr. Kimmel said the intersection does not warrant a ~!"'`~"' traffic signal. He does not believe it would be a ' problem; it would require a flashing light at the crest of the hill for westbound traffic to know there was a signal ,,.~.°~~~~~ """~ coming. The only problem he could see was stopping in ~, ~` t ime . Mr. Terhorst reiterated and are asking for some Commissioner Master sta that staff has added or has seen them (to which affirmative) and he has they do have an approved project minor revisions. ted there were added conditions revised and asked if the applicant the applicant replied in the no objection to them. Those speaking in favor: Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, thinks his Association generally approves of the project. It is the best project they have seen in more than 10 years. However, there are some things he would like called to the Commission's attention. (1) They have no objection to the hauling operation as outlined; however, they request at such time as the hauling operation is undertaken, if it is of sizeable proportions, a public hearing be held at that time for the purpose of informing ~ the public and getting their reaction. The public needs to be advised of what is going to happen. They approve of conditions 90 and 91. It is also requested at that time for a truck inspection. (2) They request another condition be made to use pumps at the underpass so it does not flood. (3) Left turns out of A onto East Chapman be prohibited. They have no objection to the left turns in, but the chances of trouble are too great at that location. (4) Attention be given to the lighting for the project. They are wanting to keep the lighting on the hill above Orange Park Acres as low as they can (i.e., the Lazy Creek lighting). They are not particularly concerned about the estate lots. On the tennis court planned for the southeast corner of the lot, lights should be shielded in some way so they don't have bright lights shining down into an area that has no street lights. Commissioner Bosch asked if Mr. Bennyhoff has reviewed the equestrian trail locations proposed on the map and what is the maximum grade acceptable for equestrian trails? Mr. Bennyhoff did not know the maximum grade. Lauren Fakero, 11202 Meads, Orange Park Acres, also wanted to know if the City had grading requirements for the horse trails? Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 20 dir. McGee said they did not have any maximum standard for grading on horse trails. Ms. Fakero was concerned about the horse trails and the ~+ steepness of them. ' Mr. Johnson stated there are horse trails in the City that are 25~ to 30$ grades; somewhere between a 4:1 and 3:1 grade. Suzette Gibbs, 5808 East Muir Drive, is pleased with the proposed project. She asked who owned the open space and how long will that be open space? The horse trail is 150 feet behind her property line and she has no fence as the property is very steep. She asked what their liability was and the City's liability if the horses come off the trail and hurt themselves? Mr. McGee addressed the open space as being owned by the homeowners association and is to be in existence for the life of the tract. Mr. 1+9inshew stated the homeowner would not be liable for i i people trespassing onto her property. nary Correa, 257 North Quail Lane, Orange Park Homes, favors the plan; however, there are two problems she would like considered. (1) The problem of hauling and the traffic that might incur on Crawford Canyon Road. She hopes the trips can be minimized; and (2) The traffic flow on Crawford Canyon. The street curves quite a bit as it goes up the hill. (The two streets that cross over there ' from Orange Park Homes, at Avienda Palmar and Bobwhite.) To go from the west side of those streets and to cross out onto to Crawford Canyon to make a left hand turn is very '~ hard. She suggests a stop sign on either Avienda Palmar or Bobwhite to at least allow the residents to get out of ~ their homes. Chairman Scott said that should be referred to the Traffic Safety Commission to review as far as stop signs are concerned. Ms. Correa also suggested left hand turns be made available out of the other side of Chapman Avenue to incur less of a problem on Crawford Canyon. (This suggestion to .-,. also be referred to the Traffic Safety Commission.) Larry Hoffman, Hoffman Business Consultants, representing Crawford Hills Development, addressed the hauling issue. The plan cuts in half the hauling necessity from the 'Planning Commission riinutes June 20, 1988 - Page 21 approved plan which they have already. They are happy to have condition 91, where the hauling operation shall be permitted during a certain period of time. That should be sufficient to let the public know there will be hauling. Those speaking in opposition: Mark Clanston, 5927 Creekside #19, asked what kind of security was being required of the developer as far as completing the project in the form of a surety bond or some other type of guarantee? He also wanted to know the scheduled completion time once the project begins. Would there be any type of penalties if the developer did not complete the project in accordance with a completion time? Chairman Scott said as far as the finished project was concerned it was based on the supply and demand of the market. Bonds are posted for the off-site improvements, but not for finishing houses. John Peters, 5749 East Creekside #7, was concerned about the grade of the proposed development. He was told there was a 50 foot buffer between the two properties; however, in reviewing the tentative tract they are now grading straight down to the property line. They have changed the natural grades that are there now and he is concerned about slope failures and potential run off. Felipe Paraud, representing Crawford Hills, 307 East Chapman, spoke about the hauling operation which will take about 120 working days (on the aggressive side) to maybe five years; it was hard to pin point an exact time frame. He suggested condition 91 be kept whereby the maximum guarantee be stipulated where they exceed their aggressive approach. They have provided safety valves in terms of inspection. A man will be stationed at the source of where the input will be coming so the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. An additional individual on their site when the trucks depart the site from Crawford Canyon Road. He suggested a compromise on the inspections. Regarding the left turns on eastbound Chapman, he sees no problems. He agrees to the no left turn, westbound onto Chapman. They are abiding by the master hiking trails and horse trails that has been adopted by Community Services. They met with Mr. Raves to discuss this matter. He spoke about the underpass and tennis courts. Approximately five million dollars worth of surety performance bonds have already been posted with the City as to the prior approval. There will be no bonds as to the finished buildings. The entire site has been broken into 17 maps, each containing approximately 60 units. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 22 Moved by. Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner " Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to certify the addendum to E.I.R. 496 as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and local guidelines for implementation of CEQA, and that the mitigation measures outlined in the E.I.R. and associated addendum will eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level any adverse impacts associated with the project. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve vesting Tentative Tract Map 13529 subject to conditions 1-90 in the staff report, plus the addition of conditions 91 and 92 from the Community Development memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 17, 1988, which cover in 91 the hauling indicated; and add to that condition that public information meetings be scheduled in the affected neighborhood prior to start of the hauling operations to inform the affected residents of the plans for immediate hauling operations; and condition 92 with regard to indemnification of agents of the City. Also to replace condition 28 in the staff report with replacement condition 28 in the June 17 memorandum, which indicates the design of all proposed gated entrances within the tract including those at Chapman Avenue and Crawford Canyon Road, and of all vehicle and pedestrian gates including activating devices shall be subject to the approval of the Environmental Review Board. Also, condition 11, which refers to adequate site distance to be provided to all street intersections, add as defined by City ordinance and Public Works policy. Both items, 20 and 21, which refer to public dedicated street and private street lighting, to add to both of those conditions that low scale street lighting shielded from tract boundaries to be designed. Condition 42, which refers to the geological report required for suitability of Lot E for future construction of a steel water storage tank, be amended to say above or below ground steel water storage tank. Condition 5b with regard to equestrian trails, add an easement recorded for the purpose of equestrian access across all private parcels created by the tract map, and trails designed to grades and tread acceptable to the City Engineer. Also, to add condition 93, per the stipulation of the applicant, the equestrian under crossing at Crawford Canyon Road be 0 `Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 23 designed to positively drain City Engineer; and condition court at the intersection of lighting design shall shield visibility of lighting to Ch private properties including landscape buffering. to the satisfaction of the 94, at the proposed tennis A Street and Chapman Avenue, fixtures from direct ~pman Avenue and adjacent use of earth forms and AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott ~Z'~jV NOES: None h ABSENT: Commissioner Greek P40TION CARRIED Condition 5, relative to the Chapman Avenue intersection with A Street, be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, including design for a no left turn from A Street to the eastbound direction on Chapman Avenue, was deleted from Commissioner Bosch's motion. Both traffic concerns voiced by Mr. Bennyhoff and a resident were directed to the Traffic Safety Commission for review and recommendation. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1096-88. ~i'~ AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1678-88 subject to conditions 69 - 77 contained in the staff report per the Planning Commission's June 17, 1988 memo in place of condition 2, condition that the rights conferred by approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect for the life of the vesting tentative and final map. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire if not used ,,.,~-~ prior to expiration of the final map. `' AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek returned to the meeting. NEL~~ HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1683-88 - JERRY BOLT: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction Planning Commission PRinutes Jurie 20, 1988 - Page 24 of a two-story second unit in the R-2 zone on property located on the west side of Shaffer Street between Palm Avenue and Sycamore Avenue, addressed 322 North Shaffer Street. Note: Negative Declaration 1227 has been prepared for this project. The staff report was presented by Ed Gala: The site is currently developed with a two bedroom, 1,200 square foot single family residence. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, 1,285 square foot second unit located at the rear of the property above a three-car garage. As indicated on the floor plan, the proposed unit will contain four bedrooms, a kitchen, den and downstairs living and laundry room. One open parking space is located near the rear of the existing house along the north property line. A 12 foot driveway is located three feet from the south property line, providing access to the rear of the site. It is staff's opinion that the floor plan submitted by the applicant is more typical of a boarding house, college dorm, or fraternity house, than a floor plan for family use. A boarding house or fraternity house is first permitted in the R-3 zone subject to a conditional use permit. The Uniform Building Code permits one occupant for each 300 square feet of floor area. It is conceivable that up to 8 people with 8 cars could reside at the subject property with the approval of this project. Also, permit parking on the street allows up to five guest passes for each unit. The project site is in Old Towne and complies with the Old Town Design Guidelines, as approved by the Design Review Board, should provide for a project that is compatible with the surrounding historic architecture in the area. Planning Commission action is requested on both Conditional Use Permit 1683 and Negative Declaration 1227. He would be happy to answer any questions the Commission had. Chairman Scott asked if there were any questions of the Commission for Mr. Gala. The public hearing was opened. The proponent, Robert Colin of JFP & Associates, 1190 North Tustin Avenue, was the architect representing Mr. Jerry Bolt. They are proposing a second unit, two-story. First of all, they attempted to submit a revised floor plan which showed instead of four bedrooms, a three bedroom -- a large master bedroom, bath and the additional two smaller bedrooms -- instead of going to four bedrooms as it looked like a frat house or dorm. They attempted to Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 25 on the site orient the building at the best location dealing with the existing building location. The best location for it would be at the back as they have it, with the garages underneath it. In trying to utilize the new building as possible for living space, they ended up Q having living area large enough for a family room or game room of some sorts downstairs. They have tried to blend in the architecture of the new building to match the existing building as much as possible and be compatible with the neighborhood. Again, that is, he believes, a determination by the Design Review Board to make more comments, to approve the colors and so forth. He brought with him a small photo board showing the existing building, one of the neighboring buildings, which has a similar development on it, and basically some shots of the neighborhood showing the typical construction of the buildings. His client wishes to rent the units out to family residents -- a family type situation. Not sa much the college student or fraternity. Do you have any questions at this time? Chairman Scott asked if the Commission had any questions of Mr. Colin? Commissioner Bosch had one. r1r. Colin mentioned he attempted to submit a three bedroom plan. Mr. Colin attempted to submit it last week. They were informed it was kind of late to submit it; they did not get it in time. They intend to make that a 3 bedroom instead of a 4 bedroom. Commissioner Bosch asked if that was the proponent's desire to do so? (Mr. Colin responded yes.) Mr. Bosch said the Commission was looking at a plan they did not want approved? Mr. Colin said not the floor plan, but the site plan and elevations. They were informed to submit the floor plan. Chairman Scott asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the project? Jerry Bolt, 19051 Mesa Drive, Villa Park, purchased the property with the intent of knowing it's R-2 property, he meant R-3, that he would build a separate unit on the rear of it. Not realizing the impact of being in Old Towne. Although there are units adjacent to them that have a unit behind them, it is not a two story and they don't have a garage. What they are building or are intending to build is a three car garage, a three car parking place, Planning Commission Minutes Jurie 20, 1988 - Page 26 which there aren't any parking places now, which would F~, improve the parking situation, plus above that, ave a unit for someone to live in. It is not their intent to, at this time, to rent to "college kids in a dorm situation". They did have some go in with that and they are not pleased with it because they are not as responsible as he had wished they had been. Their intent is to rent this to a small family like a couple, or a couple with a baby or something like that. He thinks it would improve the parking. Shaffer Street parking is not very good now. It would improve the parking on the lot itself by having the garage. The elevation structure would be in compliance to an Old Towne type unit. Do you have any questions? Commissioner Hart asked what the tenancy was now for the front house? Mr. Bolt said they have three people living in the front house at this time. We would expect to have two in the rear. Commissioner Hart asked if that was a family? Mr. Bolt said no, it was not a family. He gave his ''" background on this. They originally rented this to three college students. They had belonged to a fraternity, some type of honor fraternity and they had a bash there. It was very disturbing to the neighborhood. So they called him. To make a long story short, they realized it was a fraternity and they put the law down that they were not renting to a fraternity. You have to get a use permit, he thinks, to rent to a fraternity or to make it a frat house. That is not what this piece of property will be; it is not their intent to do that. They did get involve with the students. These particular three students had a year's lease on it, probably seven months left of that lease, which he intends to honor. At the end of that time, it is not his intent to rent to students as a whole. He's not saying he wouldn't if they are qualified individuals. But, not in the form of a fraternity or dormitory. Chairman Scott asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Bolt? (None) Were there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the project? Seeing none, it was time for those wishing to speak in opposition: Lisa Watts, 314 North Shaffer, happens to be on the south side of the residence. There is a fraternity living there now. He may not think there are; they may not declare it, ' Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 198Fi - Page 27 but there is a sign in the window, which has been there " the entire time since they have lived there. They moved in after the fraternity moved in. They tell them they are a fraternity. The last party they had was the day they moved it, that she is aware of. They sent around an apology letter to the neighborhood. The police were called in the middle of the afternoon -- 2 o'clock or so in the afternoon. The police campus security were there. They were raising heck. They said it was a twice a year type party and they didn't understand why the residents were having a problem with that as it only occurred twice a year. Chants were held in the afternoon with swear words. There are children in thA neighborhood. She was sitting in her family room and could hear every word they were saying. He has rented to a fraternity. If they are going to be in there for a year, she would say they moved in during March. They purchased their home in February, moved in in April; they were in there before, but they were not in the home when they purchased it, which was in the middle of February. Tf he is going to honor their one year lease, that means they would be there until approximately riarch of next year. She finds it hard to believe that he is going to get Mr. and Mrs. John Doe family with 2.2 children or so to move into a house in the back with a fraternity in front. He says he is going to honor their lease. It is going to take five months or so to build, how is he going to get a regular tenant to move in the back with a fraternity in the front? She thinks that would be impossible. She has a grave concern about this. Their bedrooms, which they are planning to have children in the near future, is on the north side of the building. They have about an approximately two foot setback, which means that driveway, with cars going in and out, would be about five feet from the bedroom windows. Th? houses ware designed and the driveways were designed, she thinks, with the houses in mind. The existing driveway is on the north side of the building. They have their driveway on the south side of the buildings and their bedrooms are on the north side. So the houses were built with the driveways in mind to keep the driveways away from the bedroom windows. She thinks by moving the driveway to the south side of the building would cause them a grave injustice and she does not know if it is necessary, other than the fact, that as they can see, he probably couldn't get a large enough driveway on the north side of the street. Again, the houses in the area are single family residential type homes. It is a family neighborhood and he wants to put an apartment in the back. As you can see, there is very little green left in the area. He has a large parking lot in the rear of the house, in between the new addition. She thinks that takes 0 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 28 away from the atmosphere of the neighborhood. In addition to that, he has two windows in his addition that overlook their home, their rear yard. The other side of the house has no windows on the north side. She doesn't understand why he has to have two windows on the south side. She does not know what this is actually continuing because he does not want us to approve the floor plan, which is a dorm style floor plan. Maybe he should have pulled his process until he could re-submit his proper floor plan. Overall, she feels this type of a building does not conform with the neighborhood, although, yes, he would be having siding, as the exterior of the building would conform to the neighborhood. But this type of apartment building to the rear of the unit does not conform with the neighborhood. She feels the realignment of the driveway is going to cause a great problem. Of course, the other problem of parking. Based on the information given them, they could have up to 18 parking permits. There is no way he could get even half of those cars off the street. You figure 18 people, even if they each had one person over to visit, which you are allowed, there is no way their street can accommodate one lot worth of parking. In summary, this is something that should not even be considered. It does not conform with the neighborhood. Changing the floor plan is not going to change the situation. She does not know what word they are going to take that he is not going to also rent the back portion to some other college student. Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood, is the president of Old Towne Preservation Association. He is sure all will agree that their Old Towne neighborhoods look better and better each year. It has been the tremendous effort of many people, with lots of energy and lots and lots of hard work that continues to make Old Towne a premier historical area. ~~1e, at Old Towne Preservation Association, continue to encourage and develop that community effort and spirit. He is distressed to address the Commission on this particular conditional use permit. Code 17.92.021 of the Planning Commission's powers and duties lists four '' criteria for the review of conditional use permits. Item 2 of this section states "a conditional use permit should not be granted if it will cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located." This two story second unit will cause special problems to the bordering land uses, the adjacent properties also zoned R-2 are single story and some with single story second units. The allowing for a 2 story unit places a negative burden on the adjacent single story residences. The design and layout of this quasi dormitory 0 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 29 apartment has a negative effect on this family neighborhood. Item 3 of the Planning Commission powers and duties section covers the problem of moving the driveway to the south imposes a great burden (and that is a phrase they use) on the adjacent residence, whose bedrooms will be next to the driveway. There is also a greater issue he would like to address regarding this particular project. He lives less than two blocks from the property and he often walks or bicycles on his way to other events or things, or walks with his children to Chapman College. His question to the absentee-owner developer is, what benefit is there specifically to the neighbors and what greater extent is there of benefit to Old Towne? The front house has been turned into a loosely fitted fraternity house with cars, camper shells piled around the property, beer busts, noise, destruction and general commotion in the midst of this family neighborhood. People in Villa Park do not stand for it; neither will Old Towners. The developer's lack of interest or concern for their neighborhood is appallingly apparent for the property and for the proposed project. If the applicant wants to come back with a more architecturally compatible structure, that copies the style of the front house and with a one story second unit, ® and with an intention to contribute positively to the family neighborhaod of Old Towne, then great. They support and encourage him. They ask the Planning Commission to deny the conditional use permit and to preserve the general welf are of the Old Towne neighborhoods. Richard Cavecche, 275 North Shaffer, said it was rather apparent that Mr. Bolt is trying to pull a fast one on the Planning Commission. Number one, he is renting to students, which is fine. He doesn't have a problem with that; he was a student himself and knows how hard it is to get housing. The problems he does have is if you look at the floor plan, it is rather apparent that it is just a modified dormitory. For him to come back and state he does not want to rent to students, he thinks is rather difficult to believe. He would say that this proposed development has a possibility of four, more than likely night adults. Students are strapped for cash so they will double up. Eight adults, eight cars probably. Parking on Shaffer, as you know, is horrible at best. He would say this proposed addition was a way to get around the existing zoning laws and the developer is trying to capitalize on an investment he made. He can't blame him for that, but he does not want another dormitory in the neighborhood. He lives behind the fraternity on Cleveland. He is new to the area, and he does not care U 'Planning Commission Minutes June 20, I~88 - Page 30 for the noise and the way they keep their properties up. He would definitely ask the Commission to turn down this particular conditional use permit. Karen Maze, 330 North Shaffer, directly north of the property in question. Her main concern with this is the parking. She lives in the front house. Her lot has a single story unit in the back. The lot directly north of her has a two story unit in the back. Parking is horrendous. They say there will be four cars per unit. She sees three garage spots and one outside parking spot. That takes care of the back house. That puts all of the residents in the front house on the street. And if there are four per unit, plus their guests, that is a lot of cars on the street. Currently, there are never Less than four cars in the driveway and on their front lawn now. Adding more students will just increase that beyond their capacity on Shaffer Street. He said it was not his intention to make this a dormitory. She witnessed hundreds of people coming to apply for renting the front unit and yet students were chosen. She has spoken with the students and they informed their landlord prior to their renting the unit that they were a college fraternity. He knew this going in and she feels these plans just increased that. She believes he chose to rent to students because of the financial gain. She also ,~.., agrees that a family is not going to move in behind that frat house. She does not think they will find anyone to rant it. She has no problem with renters per se. They are loud, but we were all loud at that age. They sent a letter of apology from their party that they had, but it lasted two days. It's bad now and this plan will only make it worse. She hopes the Commission will see the developers intentions are profit -- not in keeping with the Old Towne theme. Ms. Baca, 313 North Center, said her property is catty corner to Mr. Bolt's. There are two complaints. First, the noise that goes on. They don't even have to be having a party. A lot of the times on the weekend or during the week, boys are in the back yard. Her bedroom faces the back, about 50 yards to the fence, with a garage and tree. They have been outside at 2 or 4:00 in the morning -- out there laughing, talking loudly to wake her up. She doesn't appreciate that. That is not in keeping with the residential area. Another thing, she has observed at times at least three or four cars in the driveway, two in the front and a motorcycle on the lawn. They do have a sign that it is a fraternity in the window facing Pa1.m Street. She went around the neighborhood a few weeks securing signatures. She went there and knocked on the ` Planning Commission twiinutes Jurie 20, 1988 - Page 31 door. The music was real loud and nobody answered. She assumed no one was home, but they had left the door opsn. You could see inside. There were official documents that were framed, which has to do with their fraternity. After the party, she went up to the residence and knocked. There were four large orange-yellow containers marked Chapman College. The containers were fu1.1 of empty beer bottles and soda pop bottles. You could see them from the street. No family would rent under those conditions. She observed six boys going into the residence. She does not know if they all slept there, but they were coming from Chapman College and carrying their books. Maybe they told him 3, but that is what she observed. Chris Lundy, 349 North Shaffer, had one question he would like answered. Was he right in hearing that they want to change it from R-2 to R-6? Chairman Scott said no, it's R-2. Mr. Lundy said on a R-2 unit, how many conditional use permits do they get for parking on the street? (He referred to the yellow card or parking permits.) The audience responded five parking permits. Mr. Lundy said there was a two story apartment now at 346 or 347 Shaffer, right across the street. They don't use any of the parking on the street at all. They park in their parking area; that is all they are allowed. He would rather see a family residence; not college students in a fraternity type system. The house directly across from him use to be owned by the College and rented by the College people. They were generally a husband and wife couple going to Chapman College and they were very nice. His concern is the parking situation and is opposed to them issuing additional cards to park on the street. If they are not going to give them those additional cards to park on the street, he doesn't have a problem with it. As long as it stays R-2. He was told they were trying to get a R-6 rating and he didn't know what that was. Kay Martini, 638 East Walnut, was sorry it was so late. She has trouble with the fraternity name. It's Alpha Delta Phi. She went to school at Indiana University and Indiana University has an Alpha Delta Phi. That's more than 100 years old, a very respectable sorority. She thinks something is lost with the translation. They were there to talk about the building of the two story unit on the back of the property in Old Towne as it is rated for family residential. tir. Gala has spoken to the fact that Planning June 20, C G C Commission Minutes 1988 - Page 32 the plans do not fit a family residence, but more of a boarding house or fraternity. This is by the living room and wash room area on the first floor. If you subtract the width of the stairs, it works out to about six and one-half feet wide. That would be just about enough room to get two loungers squeezed in there. The reasons for speaking against this are found in some of the Orange ordinances and she won't go into that. But 17.04.230 says that any area shall not constitute a special privilege. The other two residences in the area are for families. This one is obviously drafted for a fraternity house and this would constitute a special privilege. Since it would be a greater income for the landlord. Commissioner Hart interjected and said the developer is not asking for a variance. Mrs. Niartini understood they were. In addition to all the other things. One of the ordinances states a fraternity must be in a different zoning. Chairman Scott said the only reason they have the project before the Commission is that if it were single story, they would go ahead and build it. It would not require a public hearing. Because it is two story, it requires a conditional use permit. i~irs. Martini will run through it faster: 17.26.010, R-D-6 is suppose to be low density. Mr. Gala told her four cars per unit is 8 cars. Then each unit will be allowed five parking permits. That's a total of 10 cars. Then add the eight, you have 18 cars parked there with only space for three cars in the garage. Tt's kind of flaky on the parking on a very narrow street with two lanes of traffic. 17.92.020, Mr. Rahn cited this one. It should not be granted if it will cause neighborhood deterioration. And number 3 in that same category, that it should be considered in regard to the neighborhood. She came prepared to show the Commission what the neighbors are putting up with. If Mr. Thompson will give her a hand. She had a series of photographs that were taken over four days before the property was cleaned for the City to look at it. Number 1 was taken on May 28. The first two are taken by a different photographer. You can see a motorcycle parked in the front. Number 2 was taken the next day. You can see the trash cans spilling over. That is visible from the street. Number 3 was taken the next day. She called to their attention the motorcycle, the beer cans and the empty gas can (or full gas can - who knows - but it is open) right on the front porch by the door. These are more Number 3. You can see the trash can 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 33 has fallen over and spilled out all over the driveway. '""'° These things, which you are seeing, are violations of 17.72.060. You are not suppose to park motorcycles in the front yard. Number 2, the fire code, according to the Fire Department, says it is against their ordinance to keep a gas can near an exit door of a dwelling. It does not sound like good common sense. She thinks according to the Health and Safety Code, trash is suppose to be gathered up and not thrown all about. Number 4, proof of fraternity and it is trash collection day. This is a blow up of one of them in case you cannot see the Greek name stenciled on the trash can, which shows that it is a fraternity. Thy four empty cases of beer are kind of interesting because you wonder if they have pledges in the fraternity, and if so, are the pledges under age. In light of this, this is a reflection of what the neighbors have undoubtedly been putting up with as far as quality of life. She thinks they cannot do anything else, but ask that the Commission deny the application. Martin Rigby, 333 North Shaffer, is also new to the neighborhood. It was mentioned the reason they were here was to discuss the second story waiver or variance. What he is hearing is that there are many additional concerns that he thinks the Commission should be considering about --- the subject property. He is not going to go over all the stuff he has because it basically has been said. Ho emphasized however that there is an awful lot of R-3 zoning surrounding Chapman College. He understands Chapman would like to encourage students to live nearby, fraternities, and so forth. He was once a student -- all five of them lived in a three bedroom home with their girlfriends. It was lots of fun, but he knows they annoyed their neighbors. Now he is on the other side of the fence. He finds himself feeling the same way. He suggested Mr. Bolt look at a single story situation that might ba more conforming to the property. He owns a R-2 property and he may build at the back some day. But he would like to do that with a little more sensitivity to the current neighborhood. Again, the parking issues -- he won't go over those, but he wanted to mention his concerns. Mr. and Mrs. Freddy live at 491 North Shaffer, stated each household is only to have five permits. No one else is to have any more than five. Chairman Scott said he was not familiar with the parking permits because it was not a part of Planning Commission. Carol Walters, 534 North Shaffer, asked if the architect '.Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 34 said JP? Doesn't that stand for Jessie Perez, our Mayor? '~"'~ This shocks her because he knows how they feel for him even doing this. There is a problem in the neighborhood ® with the college kid. One thing is the police department. If there is a problem, they are paying tax money for the citizens to have a right for the police. But if the kids are doing something, you call the Orange Police Department -- they do not come out until they feel like it. Then they call the security from Chapman College to go out. As long as they are on the public street, we should be able to be treated right with the police department. She is very upset about that. Chairman Scott said if she has problems with any Department in the City, contact the Council. Ms. Walters stated it doesn't do any good. They have complained and complained. Commissioner Hart asked which Councilmen had she contacted regarding the matter? its. Walters has talked to Perez, and everybody. They have gone to the Police Department. But when it comes to Chapman College, it's closed mouth or closed ears. "'^, Another thing, she lost the neighborhood behind her. One more house is going to be leaving on Center Street in the 500 block. The person will move out the first of the month. They have kids in other houses and they begin having parties; then force everyone else out. It's time to stop and give the residents their neighborhood back. Chairman Scott appreciates new information of public input. Tom Trischler, 703 Pdorth Shaffer, does not think anyone disagrees with the idea of someone putting in a second dwelling on a R-2 lot. They know there are limits on what you can tell a landlord, or who you can tell a landlord who you can rent to. He has been in that position, a landlord, himself. However, you had the property owner admit there is a fraternity there, had significant testimony tonight that there is a fraternity in there. R-2 zoning does not allow the R-D-6 zoning to allow a fraternity or a dormitory in there. It is a non-conforming use. This conditional use permit should really be a point and should be a matter for direction to the Planning administrators to force the non-conforming use on this property, as well as the one testified earlier on Cleveland Avenue, which is also in a R-2 zone in a non-conforming use. He questioned where the City's code 0 Planning Commission Minutes 3un-e 20, 1988 - Page 35 enforcement was? The fret house on Cleveland has been "'~` around for a couple of years. His wife works with a doctor who lives behind them and he's been having complaints and calls to the Police Department for that period of time. 4~There is this code enforcement? He thinks the Commission should turn down this application. He thinks if there is a modification of the plan, the living room downstairs, which nets out to eight foot nine, when they put a scale on it in the Planning Department, is limited by the setbacks on either side. It is not going to get any bigger. The upstairs is not going to get any bigger. If they take out a wall and make the two bedrooms on the right hand side of the plain into a third bedroom, master suite, what is that? That is a future division, commonly known as a boot leg unit. He thinks there is too much funny business going on right now with this unit and what's going on. The property owner's admission that he was going to maintain that lease where these people came in pretending they were not a fraternity, then they broke the lease anyway. He is in violation of City codes and that would negate the lease terms. His suggestion is to clean up the problems with the property and then get a decent plan that looks like the unit in front and has some relevance to the Old Towne Design Guidelines. Let's face it, you can paint a horse with a side that says dog on it and name it Bowser, but it is still a horse. Let's get rid of this dog and get something decent in the community. Marty Bolin, 317 North Shaffer, has the distinct privilege of looking at this house every day and he is not going to bore the Commission with all the details because they have heard them all. Everything that everybody has said is true. The parking problem, the party problem, all that is true. The main point he would like taken into consideration when they re-submit plans is that they do not change the driveway. The reason he submits for that is because his driveway, which he shares with the resident next to him, they both come out of the same easement. This new driveway will be basically lined up with his driveway. You will have two residences pulling out plus the apartments and everybody will be pulling and backing into the exact same area. The way it is right now, they are staggered. You don't have that problem the way they are now. Pat Wilson, 586 North Orange, commented that in their block within the last five years two people have applied for and built apartments over garages. These ar e two car garages with a single family dwelling above it. They are nicely laid out. They go with the surrounding h ouses. It has caused no parking problems in their block. She sees ai. ~ `Planning Commission minutes Junt 20, 1988 - Fage 36 this as an alternative to the plan that Mr. Bolt has drawn ' up. She could see it with a service area on the lower floor and perhaps rather than four bedrooms, make it two, with a larger living area to make it more comfortable. It does not seem to allow for very comfortable living space with a tiny, narrow living room blow with a kitchen above by the bedrooms. This does not seem practical to her at all. When he is allowed 18 spaces, she does not see the need for that either. Chairman Scott asked if there was anyone else wanting to speak in opposition? Seeing none, it was time for the rebuttal. Mr. Bolt has never been so worked over in his life. Maybe it is somewhat deserving. In fact, it is very deserving that this quantity of people came here and explained what type of situation they have created or "somebody" has created in the City of Orange. Possibly this unit should be denied in some respects. It gets down to people telling him that they have 18 to 20, he has heard different variations of parking permits, that are allowed to them that he knows nothing about. They have two parking permits. They are going to improve the property by building a three car parking place in the rear, which he doesn't know of any other buildings except the other two story apartment that has three parking places in the rear, the second unit away from them. He has been called a developer, he guesses in a sense of that being bad. He is not a developer, so to speak. He is trying to build a little apartment unit in the back to make, what they consider, break even profit. He is not going to hide in shame the fact they are trying to make money on this. You people that come up here with the insinuation that making a profit is bad or this is wrong, he is sorry. He was not raised that way. He is a capitalist. He intends to meet with the City codes. He would love to have a little place that meets all the requirements. But in order to build on a R-2 section, he has to have parking facilities. In order to have parking facilities, he has to go two story. When they go two story, he is not going any higher than the current building is right now as a single story. It's the same basic height. It's just got a garage under it. As far as changing the window from the lady's back yard, they can change that to the other side. That is not a problem. They will be very happy to change it to a two bedroom. He pointed out to the Commission they did get a letter from the City - the Orange Shaffer Street Group - that he could not read to the Commission or anyone else he knows of without being embarrassed over the things they said about their prejudiced ways of things they would `Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1988 - Page 37 operate because they had a black man that was visiting these students. He is not for renting to students. They have torn his house up. He is against that at this point. But they did rent to them and he does not break leases very easily. He doesn't even know how to break this lease. So he is going to continue to work with the lease as long as they are within the law. Iie will. continue his end of the bargain. He does not think this Commission would appreciate the letter. He may even forward a copy of this letter on to the Commission that this "Group" gave the students living at his residence. The point he is trying to make is that he would be happy to conform with anything. They will change the drawings and make it look older than Old Towne. He doesn't care how they want the place to look. They will change it to a two bedroom. He would even allow someone here to do the management of the rental. There are people here. They want their money out of their property. That College was there before they were, or many of them were. He is saying that the people who move in after he did, which he is very new and very unaccustomed and didn't realize they were getting into a sensitive area, there are people newer than that, that are complaining. They have a right to complaint. He does not blame them at all. He will correct that, but it takes time. If she had sent him the pictures instead of waiting till the meeting, possibly it could have been corrected. Someone had called him and told him they were having a party. He went over the next day and said that was the end of that. If it happens again, he would personally kick them out. But that does not solve anything. His basic concern is that their intent is not to set up a dormitory; their intent is not to make people in the area unhappy. Whatever it takes to do to meet within their guidelines, they will. So he thinks they need another shot at it. Maybe he can talk with the architect and he can re-design it in some manner that would work better and then get back with you. There were no questions and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek had a question. He was trying to follow this. ~1hy is the conditional use permit being required? Chairman Scott said it was because it was two story. Commissioner Greek stated the code section that is quoted does not say that. Commissioner Hart said it may not say it, but that is why it is there. Commissioner Greek said it stated the building height limit shall be two stories and shall not exceed 30 feet except as provided in Chapter 17.72. Planning Commission P~Iinutes June 20, 1988 - Page 38 Commissioner Hart said if he was not mistaken, he believed there is some kind of ordinance or policy that if there are single story houses on either side of a parcel, they ® have to get a conditional use permit. Mr. McGee responded that is in a normal R-2 zone. This also has the R-C-D overlay and so it is any two story construction within the R-C-D area. The problem Commissioner Greek sees is that they are listening to a lot of complaints that have to do with the operation of the house and with the neighbors. It kind of bothers him because they cannot sort this thing out properly. He thinks the complaints are with the college students and the recourse there is through Chapman College. The problem he sees is if they can't sort the data out (they have listened to a lot of testimony) that really does not have anything to do with whether or not this should be a two story building, and how this should be used as far as development. It all has to do with the complaints of the current tenants. It bothers him because there are laws and procedures to accomplish the goals and it certainly is not from their level. They are being asked to police a particular building with a particular use that he would not care to live next to either. But he certainly would not have put up with it for this Iong. He is extremely disappointed if there has been this much effort made towards calling the Police Department and calling City staff and calling the Councilmen and they have gotten no recourse whatsoever. He feels everything he has heard have to do with not whether or not this should be a two story building, but just that the people living there should not be living there. That bothers him just as much as it bothers Mr. Bolt. Commissioner Hart said it has not bothered Mr. Bolt enough to kick them out. He noted someone had made the statement, which he believes to be correct, if you have someone violating the law in your unit, that is grounds for breaking a lease. Commissioner Greek asked what law was being violated? If you ask the City Attorney if you could have three people from different families in the house, he would tell you yes you can. Can you have six? V~ell, probably. The limits the Commission is being asked to enforce here by a conditional use permit are really not within their purview. Maybe he is wrong. Commissioner Hart stated they are advertising the fact that it is a fraternity house by a sign out in front of the house. IIe believes there is a law against having a fraternity house in a R-2 zone. Y Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 39 Commissioner Greek believes a sign is not authority for a fraternity house. ® Commissioner Master said parties do, reflecting from the activity that has been going on. A sign does not do it. You can put any type of sign you want anywhere. Commissioner Greek feels they are the wrong forum to cure this. Commissioner Master said it should have been cured before it got to them. Commissioner Greek does not agree with what is going on. It should be stopped. Commissioner Master said the one gentleman summed it up in about five minutes of his presentation. There is a code problem. There is a parking problem. The parking problem is exacerbated by the use. Commissioner Greek is extremely upset that this thing is so bad. He thinks they are by passing the total issue. They are not really looking at whether this should be a two story building or not. They are looking at the bad way it is being used. How do you cure it? Chairman Scott said they do not have the power to cure it. Commissioner Greek said they could deny the conditional use permit, but next week his friend Chris Lundy will come up and request to put up a unit in his back yard and we'll say no, we denied the guy across the street; therefore you can't have one. That is not the intent. You need to be fair to everybody and protect everybody too. He does not think anyone who has spoken in opposition want the right to build a second unit taken away from them by denying this particular project. They are being asked to do something that nobody really wants. Commissioner Piaster does not think the issue is really to build a second unit. He thinks prejudicial use of the first unit is what is causing the problem. It's reflecting in the design. Look at the design before us. Commissioner Hart looked at the floor plan. He sees two bathrooms entering onto a hall, which in the normal home is highly irregular. One of the baths should be attached to the master bedroom and the other one should be a hall ball. But there are two bathrooms that come out into the hall. Tt is a tip off that there is something else. Commissioner Master stated the whole plan is sneaky. .Planning Commission minutes Junes 20, 1983 - Page 40 0 Commissioner Bosch heard the applicant say he was willing and desired to submit revised plans for consideration that might have less impacts looking at it solely from the land use and two story point of view. He agrees they need to separate the issue of code enforcement and Iegal deportment of residents. That is something they cannot deal with other than whatever we can do to ask staff to direct the issue to the proper department from the Commission's point of view relative to zoning code enforcement. They should inquire of the applicant how he wishes to proceed with his desire to submit a revised plan, whether by continuance or whether by having the Commission deny this without prejudice so he can come back at a proper time. Chairman Scott thought that was a fair question. t~ir. Bolt would like to have a continuance of 30 days. Chairman Scott stated it would be July 18 before it was heard again. coved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continue Conditional Use Permit 1683-88 until the Planning Commission Meeting of July 18, 1988 for submittal of a revised plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Riaster, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Scott asked before they voted if by chance this was reduced from a 4 bedroom to a 2 bedroom, as a suggestion, what would the parking requirements be? Mr. McGee stated in that zone, the parking would still be the same -- 4 spaces total; 3 in a garage with one outdoors. Commissioner Greek wanted to make a motion that they have a verbatim transcript of all testimony given tonight made and submit it with a letter of transmittal to Dr. Doty, listing the address and name of this illegal fraternity that is operating under the guise of the campus. ~-ie wants the specific things the people said, specific accusations, specific claims. Let's let Chapman be responsible. Chapman College is asking for a site plan review and asking to be good neighbors. Let's tell them what is going on in the name of their College within walking distance. Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 41 Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission have a verbatim transcript forwarded to Dr. Doty for his information. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Mast~ar, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1684-88 - RON LE FEBVRE: ~j ~"~~ Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a commercial recreation use (baseball school) in the M-1 zone on property located on the north side of Palm Avenue between Parker Street and the railroad tracks, addressed 607 West Palm Avenue. Note: This project is exempt from environmental review. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Ron LeFebvre, 607 ~+Iest Palm, stated they have been operating a baseball school there for the last year. Through a misunderstanding and some lost papers, they presumed everything was fine. He went. before the City Council and obtained permission to go in there. He moved 10 minutes from another location. They train baseball players. They do a lot of work for professional baseball clubs. They have been in the City of Orange for 10 years. Their business hours are from 3:00 p.m. until 11.:00 p.m. The location they have is backed up against the railroad tracks. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1684-88 subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1685-88 - PARR/ABRAMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow a dry cleaners and a music video operation in the C-P zone on property located at the southeast corner of Cambridge Street and Katella Avenue, addressed 914 East Katel.la Avenue. ., Pla,~ning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 42 Ldote: Negative Declaration 1229 has been prepared for this project. Ed Gala presented the staff report. The subject property is currently zoned C-P (commercial-professional), has a general plan designation of office-professional. City Council created the C-P district on April 27, 1965. The intent of the district was to enhance the appearance and environmental along certain major arterials and to encourage quality tourist-related services for the traffic going to and from Disneyland. The applicant has received approval for the construction of a 6,600 square foot commercial building with 33 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to lease tenant spaces of approximately 594 square feet to the dry cleaners, and 1,096 square feet to the video-music tape store. The applicant proposes to close both businesses by 8:00 p.m. to reduce the business impact on nearby residential areas. The proposed building meets the parking requirements of the general retail standards of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of parking area. The proposed dry cleaner and video uses will not require additional parking. The public hearing was opened. Mike Abrams with Park/Abrams Development Company, 15751 Rockfield Boulevard, Irvine, had Mr. Pereek, who is the ~'' proposed tenant to lease the space in the shopping center. Mr. Pereek has leased other spaces from them in the past and he also brought pictures of other stores that. he has. He passed them on to the Commission for review. The current status of the project is that they are under construction, the pads have been built and they have pre-leased approximately 50g of the 6,600 square foot center. Mr. Pereek has been a great tenant in the past and runs a very clean operation. They believe the contemplated use of a cleaners and a video-music store seem to be very complimentary uses to already existing uses in the C-P zone immediately adjacent to the site. We request that the cleaners be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the music-video store be open from 10:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Pereek, 6235 East Twinpeak Circle, Anaheim Hi1.ls, has been in business since 1975. He runs a very clean operation and is a family oriented man. He has three cleaners and one video store. All four stores are very family oriented stores. Those speaking in opposition: C r Pl..~nning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 43 • Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, had quite a few questions in regard to the project. She was concerned about the traffic and parking problems. During the school year there are many children crossing that intersection. She wondered where the ingress/egress drives were located and if the center is going to be connected to the property to the east and to the south? hTr. McGee said there is an office development that surrounds the property. It does not connect with that. It is entirely separate from one another. The ingress/egress drives are fairly close to the driveways that are on the property, but they may be slightly different in configuration. Frank Sater, 2320 East Orangethorpe Avenue, owns the property that surrounds the proposed development. His concerns are that his development is strictly office space and feels it's a good place for people leaving the video store to congregate during the hours. There might be an increase in vandalism. Mr. Abrams answered the public's concern about access. In the staff report, Page 4, #19, it shows the lowest possible automotive trips generation rate would be for a furniture show room -- that is the lowest possible in all. of the retail uses. Fifty percent of the shopping center is being taken over by a furniture show room use. The building behind them also has retail use. It has a hair dressing salon, as well as a church. Their uses are no different from the proposed uses. There will be no processing at all on the premises in regard to the cleaners. This will only be a pick up station. The public hearing was closed. Mr. P1cGee briefly explained the setback requirements and landscaping proposed for the project. The Design Review Board will review the plans at their meeting. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1229. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 0 . E. Al.R~.nning Commission Minutes June 20, 1988 - Page 44 Q Proved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional ~ ~-~ Use Permit 1685-88 subject to the conditions in the staff report. IN RE: P•tISCELLAtdEOUS 1. Reaffirm the Tustin Street Environmental Impact Report's conformity with the City of Orange General Plan. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Tustin Street Environmental Impact Report's conformity with the City of Orange General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Greek, Scott MOTION CARRIED 2. Confirm the boundary lines for both the Southwest. Redevelopment Area and the Northwest Redevelopment Area. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue this item to their joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting previously announced for June 21 at Yorba Middle School cafeteria at 7:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Hart, Master NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Greek, Scott MOTION CARRIED 3. Adjournment to a Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting on June 21 at Yorba Middle School at 7:00 p.m. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bosch to reaffirm our adjournment to a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting on June 21, 1.988 at Yorba Middle School at 7:00 p.m. to confirm the boundary lines for both the Southwest Redevelopment Area and the Northwest Redevelopment Area; and subsequently adjourn to a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a 6:30 p.m. study session at City Hall on Wednesday, July 6, 1988. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. /sld