Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/1/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California June 1, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:45 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; John Lane, Associate Planner; Dori s Ofs thun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 4, 1981 AND MAY 18, 1981 Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes of May 4, 1981 and May 18, 1981 , as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mic kelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none h10TION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS A request was made on behalf of Nicky Calagna by her husband, Victor, to place Item #1 on the agenda at the end of the agenda. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to place Item #1 on the agenda at the end of the public hearings. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1124 - McDONALD'S CORPORATION: Request to allow construction of a drive-thru restaurant on the south side of Chapman Avenue, east of Esplanade Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 701 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow the construction of a drive-thru restaurant. The property contains .87 acre of land located on the south side of Chapman Avenue approximately 212 feet east of the centerline of Esplanade Street (4200 East Chapman Avenue). The property is zoned C-1 and contains a motorcycle shop in a converted service station and two single-family residences. The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 3700 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru window service. A condi tional use permi t is required for a drive-thru restaurant. Per. Soo-Hoo pointed out that applicant proposes to provide 46 parking spaces , of which 37 are required by Code . One-way circular access i s provided through the parking 1 of and separate drive-thru service lane. The speaker for drive-thru service is located at the rear of the restaurant. The Interdepartmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and has com- e mented that the front two parking spaces adjacent to the restaurant should be eliminated in order to provide a greater turning radius for access to the drive-thru 1 ane; and that the speaker should be located at the southwest rather than the southeast corner of the bui 1 di ng so that the speaker faces away from the residences to the rear. However, since the time of the revi ew, a revised plan has been presented, wherein these two problems have been attended to, thereby eliminating the need for Condi tions #1 and #2 i n the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Two Mr. Soo-Hoo further explained tfTat the property is in the E1 Modena area and the proposal has been referred to the East Chapman Improve- ment Committee for revi ew. The 1 and Use El ement of the General Plan designates the area for local commercial development. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negati ve Declaration 701 . Two primary concerns i n the review of a dri ve- th ru restaurant are parking lot circulation and the impact on neighboring residential properties. The applicant has provided a separate lane for drive- th ru traffic which al 1 ows unimpaired ci rcul ati on through the parking 1 of and adequate space for s torage of cars wai ti ng at the dri ve-th ru window. The applicant has agreed to move the speaker so that i t faces away from ad joi ni ng res i denti al properties . A 5-foot 1 and- scapi mg strip is provi ded along this southerly property 1 ine whi ch will also serve to mitigate the noise impacts of the drive-thru operation. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1124 for the reasons that the proposal is compatible with surrounding zoning and 1 and use; the proposal i s consistent with the City's adopted General Plan; and that all applicable development standards have been met. 22 conditions are recommended with approval, although Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that Condi ti ons #1 and 2 wi 11 not be needed with the revised plan. Chairman Mi ckel son opened the public hearing. Emily Isemi nger, 10960 Wilshire Blvd, , Ste. 600, Los Angel es, representing McDonald's Corporation, addressed the Commission for the applicant, stating that they had nothing more to add to the re- port already presented. However, she was available for any questions that might be asked. Mrs. Anastasia Quintana, a neighboring resident in Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She pointed out that she is in favor of this project and of fast food restaurants because of the part time employmen t which they offer to the many teen agers who reside i n this area. She expl ai ned that one of the fast food chains had hired her daughter when she was 16 years of age and had no previous experience. A. Robert Jack, a veteri Hari an who operates his practi ce next door to the proposed project, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He also had a few questions which he wished answered. He wondered which way the traffic will flow -which way will they enter and which way will they exit? He was asked to step up to the map which was displayed and Chairman Mickelson explained this to him. He also asked i f the residents behind the proposed drive-thru restaurant will have a wall separating them from the project. H e was assured that there would be a wal l . He then asked i f there woul d be some kind of a wall between his office and the project. He was told that this would either be voluntary on the part of McDonal d's or i t could be a condi tion added by the Commission, i f they though t i t necessary. Dr. Jack then asked i f there would be a doubl e stripe on the street. Mr. Johnson answered that there i s a pro ject begi nni ng within the next year which will provide a left turn pocket wherever needed all the way down Chapman to Crawford Canyon Road, Dr. Jack pointed out that a left turn pocket would be helpful in getting the patrons who are driving westbound into McDonal d's , Pl anni ng Commission h1i nutes June 1, 1981 Page Three Gilbert Reyes, 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, the construction engi Weer for McDonal d's, explained that there i s a 1 andscapi ng s tri p between the project and the veteri Hari an's buil di ng, but there coul d be a small block wall put there also. They are very willing to co- operate i n this matter. Commissioner Ault thought that this is a matter which could be handled between Dr. Jack and McDonald's. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 701. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 11 24 for revised Plan 52181 , for reasons set forth by Staff and subject to Conditions #3 through 22. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissi oners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ~10TION CARRIED PRE-ZONE CHANGE 949 - FRICK: Request to pre-zone property from County R-1 to Ci ty R-1-7 at the northwest corner of Tustin Street and Fairhaven Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 702 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to pre-zone the property to the R-1-7 (Single Family Residential, 7200 square foot minimum size lots) District prior to annexation to the City of Orange. The property contains 14.84 acres of land and is located at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Avenue and Tustin Street. It is presently zoned R-1 in the County and contains 42 single family homes on individual lots. The applicants are requesti ng pre-zoni ng of the area to City R-1-7 in order to facilitate annexation into the City of Orange. Mr. Soo-Hoo expl ai Wed that the area is within the sphere of i nfl uence of the City of Santa Ana and was actually approved to be annexed to Santa Ana by LAFCO i n 1979. Strong protest by residents , however, influenced the Board of Supervisors to terminate annexation proceedings. Mr. Soo-Hoo further explained that a property owner in the area subsequently approached the City regarding possible annexation into Orange and Staff investigation indicated that provision of water and sewage collection services is and/or would be by the City of Santa Ana. It was further determined that the pity of Santa Ana was not wi 11 i ng to sel 1 the 42 water services nor al 1 ow connection of non-City residents to thei r sewer system. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that at their meeting of May 12, 1981, the City Counci 1 directed Staff to proceed with the process to annex the area into Orange. Staff recommends that the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 702 be accepted. Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Four Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that obviously there are a number of considerations which significantly complicate proposed annexation of the area into Orange; the fact that it is a confirmed (by LAFCO) part of Santa Ana's sphere of influence, infra structure questions, the expressed desire on the part of Santa Ana to annex the area into their City, etc. Despite these questions, however, the issue before the Planning Commission presently is the appropriate zoning of the area should it be annexed. Since the proposed R-1-7 zoning is Orange's equivalent to the County's R-1 zone, Staff feels that it is the proper pre-zone classification. Approval of Pre-zone Change 949 is, therefore, recommended for the reason that the proposed pre-zone is equivalent to the existing County zoning. Commissioner Master wondered i f the 1 ots backing up to Tustin were 7000 square feet. These lots are located the other side of Woodbury. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that thes e lots were 1 arge 1 ots - hal f acre lots - and there probably is an option to pre-zone it for a larger lot size, or since it is an existing R-1-7 zone and since the probability of further subdivision is remote, it was felt that the ~ R-1-7 is appropriate. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Walter Frick, 16841 Fairhaven, County of Ornage, addressed the Commission i n favor of this appl i cati on, stati ng that he has 1 ived at that address for 53 years and his mailing address has always been Orange, California. He does his business and banking in the City of Orange and also has enjoyed being in the Orange Unified School District. The residents in this area consider themselves residents of the City of Orange and wish to be annexed to the City. The residents are 100% i n favor of thi s annexation. Elizabeth Castro, 10871 Greengrove, County of Orange, addressed the Commission i n favor of this appl ication, stating that she loves the City of Ornage and woul d not consider 1 ivi ng i n the City of Santa Ana. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 702. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none non e MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Pre-zone Change 949. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-757, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1123, VARIANCE 1645 - CALAGNA: Request to allow crea ti on of a two-unit planned unit development with a higher density and less off-street parking than stipulated by the Orange Municipal Code at the southwest corner of Sycamore Avenue and Pine Street (394-394 2 Pine Street) . ( Note: Negati ve Decl arati on 700 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission. He stated that this is a request to allow the creation of a two-unit Planned Unit Development. A variance is requested to allow a higher density than allowed by Code and to provide less parking than is required by Code. The property contains .13 acre of land and is located at the southwest corner of Sycamore Avenue and Pine Street. It presently contains two dwelling units and is zoned RD-6 . The applicant wish es Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Five to create a two-unit planned unit development with a higher density than is allowed by Code and with less off-street parking than is required. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the site presently contains 5,824 square feet which is substandard in size to the 6,000 square feet required i n the RD-6 zone. The applicant pro poses to sub divide thi s existing lot into two parcels which would contain 3,024 square feet and 2,800 square feet and detached residential units would be cons tructed on each parcel. The applicant proposes this project as a planned unit development which they feel legitimizes the smaller lot sizes. Variances are designed to allow a density of 14.96 du/ac in lieu of the maximum permitted of 14.52 du/ac (assuming that Amendment 1-81 is adopted, i t i s now 1 i mi ted to 10.89 du/ac) , as wel l as to al 1 ow provision of two parki ng spaces per unit rather than the 2.5 per unit required of a planned unit development. The Staff Review Committee has evaluated the proposal and i ndicated that: a) Though the project is proposed as a planned unit development, the subdivision, as submitted, would actually create two significantly substandard lots from one which is already de- ficient in lot area. Such a subdivision is seen as a circum- vention of the minimum lot size requirement of the RD-6 zone. b) Though the applicant proposes the subject development as a planned unit development, thus attempting to justify the ex- tremely small lot size, they seek to justify the parking deficiency by explaining that the parking should be similar to that required of non-PUD projects. This appears to be a contradiction. c) Approval of this proposal would establ ish a precedent whereby Staff would anticipate applications for other duplex zoned properties thus 1 eadi ng to the wholes ale creation of substandard lots . Staff recommends that the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 700 be accepted. Mr. P~lurphy pointed out that a number of i ssues are generated by the applicant's request, the principal one being the true intent of the FUD Ordinance and the desirability of utilizing the provisions to create a two-unit project. Practically, however, the analysis can be reduced to the question of whether the Planning Commission feels that the creation of two approximately 3,000 square foot lots per single family residential development is justified and acceptable. Staff feels that it is not and predicts that favorable consideration of this application will lead to a number of future similar applications by duplex property owners since it is unquestionably an economically attractive means of capitalizing on property. Staff notes that a similar appl ication was considered i n February, 1978 (Ref. C.U.P. 877-Setton) which was denied by the Planning Commission for four reasons: 1 . The site is much smaller than the required four acres and, therefore, cannot effecti vely uti 1 i ze the fl exibi 1 i ty granted to provide for a superior development. 2. The proposal does not consti tute a residential envi ronment equal to or better than what might be accomplished under traditional development practices. 3. Off-street parking proposed is inadequate to accommodate the need generated. Planning Commission Minutes June 1 , 1981 Page Six u 4. There is a significant lack of usable open space to meet the needs of residents . Though the first reason is no longer applicable, since the minimum site area requirement has since been repealed, the other reasons appear to apply to this request. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposal is acceptable, the conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet are recommended with approval. The Commissioners commented that they had not received a copy of the Engi neer's Plan Check Sheet. Therefore, Gary Johnson read the five condi tions on the sheet to them. Mr. Murphy explained that there were three letters received by the Commission in opposition to this project. Copies of these letters have been given to the Commissioners. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Nicky Calagna, 1135 E. Culver, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission i n favor of this application. She showed a peti tion which had been signed by residents in the area who are in favor of this application. Chairman Mickelson explained that copies of the three letters of opposition would be given to her. Mrs . Calagna replied that sh e would like to see these letters so that she would know exactly what i s bei ng opposed . She then went on to explain to the Commission that they feel that this project will upgrade a substandard lot. She spoke to the state- ment which Staff made with regard to the two parcels being substandard, stating that she resents the wording as this implies they are doing something illegal. She pointed out that only one unit will be on a 1 of which is not 3,000 square feet. The other uni t wi 11 be on a larger lot. She explained that most townhouse concept dwellings are on small lots, some much smaller than what is being proposed. Tha t is why they are classified as townhouses. She also pointed out other projects where 1 ess parking has been provided than that which is bei ng required on this project. She explained that they are providing a two-car garage for each unit, with atwo-car private parking apron with private drives for each unit. This parking is similar to single family dwellings, which have two-car garages and private parking aprons. Pers. Calagna then called attention to the map which shows other small lots i n the communi ty, upon whcih are built townhouses and condos. Therefore, she does not feel they are setti ng a precedent i n this area. She hopes that the approval of this project will start a precedent in that substandard buildings can be removed and private omes can be built for young people who need lower cost housing. She pointed out that the PUD Ordi Hance does not state that a common recreational area must be provi ded. She then read from the Ordi Hance wherein they are complying with these rules and regulations. She explained that the private yards, which is reserved space, will be addressed i n the CC&Rs and wil 1 be maintained by the owners. She found it hard to understand that apparently the project is fine if it is owned by one owner and rented out, but if it is owned by separate owners, it is not OK. Planning Commission Minutes June 1 , 1981 Page Seven Mrs. Calagna explained to the Commission that her two sons had purchased the property in question with the purpose in mind of fixing up the two dwellings already on the property. However, it turned out that it would be too costly to try and fix them up to be habitable, so they had decided to tear them down and build two new dwel 1 i ngs . She went on to say that if there is an imposition of the strict application of the PUD Ordi Hance as far as common areas are con- cerned, then she would ask for strict application as far as the 10 feet of common area between the two proposed dwellings is con- cerned. She stated that she would 1 ike this project to be judged on its own merit. She then pointed out on the plot plan a view of how these townhouses will look. Commissioner Coontz asked what Mrs. Calagna considered privacy meant and Mrs . Calagna replied that i t woul d mean their own back yard. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson commented that he did not want the applicant or the Staff to think that there was anyth i ng personal i n this application. The Commission asked for an evaluation of this property and he felt that the Staff did their job properly. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the Staff Report is prepared by the planning staff -not just one individual doing this evaluation. Commissioner Hart felt that this project closely resembles another concept which recently came before the Commission, the three-unit development which was considered at the last meeting. At that time he agreed with the concept. However, he did not 1 i ke the way i t was being carried out. He stated that he cannot subscribe to a 2800 square foot lot idea. He believes there is a way to do this through a parcel map. Chairman Mickelson felt that it is not a parcel map problem, but rather the smallness of the lots. Commissioner Coontz agreed wi th this statement. Commissioner Master asked Staff if the development would meet duplex requirements. Mr. Murphy replied that the project does fit the dupl ex requirements i n terms of setback and parking. However, there are almost no duplex units which are separated as this one would be that he could remember. Commissioner Ault felt that the Commission should look at whether this is a good use of the property. He pointed out that we can no 1 onger afford the 1 uxury of open space, etc. i n areas where housing is needed. The Commission needs to look at whether this is a livable project. The only objections he sees are density and parking. He did not think one small house wi 11 make much difference i n either of these areas. Chairman Mickel son asked questi ons of Staff with regard to the Dulebohn project and the fact that they were asked to come back to the Commission with an air space condo plan. At that time there were questi ons as to the CC&Rs and what each person's responsi bi 1 i ty would be wi th regard to the open space. He asked for more cl ari fi- cation in this regard. Mr. Minshew explained that if you have a common area, you must have some basis for commonality. The CC&Rs would come in if you wanted to have a common ownership. Chairman Mickelson wondered if the Planning Commission P1inutes June 1, 1981 Page Eight CC&Rs would suffice for the maintenance and responsibilities in- curred by the common ownership of the lot, without having a home- owners' association. Mr. Minshew explained that there could be mutual duti es involved between the two owners which could be outlined in the CC&Rs. There was further discussion in this regard among the Commissioners . Commissioner Coontz felt that the dupl ex development standards woul d be suffi ci ent here. The only problem would be subdividing the 1 and. Commissioner Master thought that perhaps the applicant should state her objections to the air space condo or "postage stamp lots". Chairman Mickelson reopened the public hearing in order to give Mrs. Calagna an opportunity to speak to this situation. Mrs . Calagna responded to the 1 etters o f oppos i ti on . She agreed with the letters because they did not understand what Staff had told them i n the 1 etter whi ch was sent out to the nei ghbori ng ~ residents around the proposed project. She said she plans to contact the people who wrote the letters and explain exactly what they are doing with this pi ece of property. She stated that she objects to a condo concept because she feels that the advantage of having a home is to be able to go outside and walk around. She wanted to know what "common area" means. Mr. Mi nshew explained this to her. Chairman Mickel son then explained that they can put both uni is on a singl e lot and then give excl usive ri gh is i n the CC&Rs to each owner. He then expl ai ned further with regard to the meaning of the PUD ordinance. It was also explained to her with regard to the size of the lot and the statements made i n the PUD with regard to 1 of size. Victor Calagna, 1135 E. Culver, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that one of the letters of opposition spoke of increasing the density. He pointed out that there were two dwellings on th i s property when they purchased and they plan to place two dwellings on that same property . Where is the increase i n density? Regardi ng parking, they not only comply, but they exceed parking for thi s project when looking around at other projects in the City of Orange. He felt that some of the statements which have been made are not true. Commissioner Master commented that the Staff makes these statements - not Jere Murphy, as an individual. The statements are merely reflecting what is in the Code. Chairman Mickelson explained that if a lot is substandard and the units are turned down as a pure technicality of the Ordinance, there is not sufficient area on the lot to build two units. The variance is probably i n order and they are not concerned about the few feet that they are short. However, Staff must make these statements i n order to comply with the law. Mr. Murphy commented that Staff attempts to advertise variances in a general manner so that changes made during the public hearing process do not have to be readvertised. Mr. Calagna stated that most people do not understand what a PUD is . The reason for this whole thing is that they are asking for separate deeds . If they woul d have duplex plans there would be no problem. Chairman Mickelson asked for clarification with regard to density i n the Code and Mr. Murphy explained this . Planning Commission Minutes June 1 , 1981 Page Nine Nicky Calagna again addressed the Commission, explaining that in the Ordi Hance under parking, i t says that tandem parking is al 1 owed. Mr. Murphy explained that al though the Code allows for certain tandem parking, no applicant has ever requested such parking. Chairman Mickelson again closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson stated that he has no real problem with this project and thought that this could be reconsidered wi th ei ther an air space condo concept or own-your-own postage stamp 1 ot. Commissioner Hart agreed with Chairman Mickelson. He thought that the project is OK and parking is not off that much. However, he has troubl e wi th the parcel map. Chairman Mickelson asked if the Calagnas would entertain a continuance to the next meeting in order to bring back an air space condo concept. Mrs. Calagna called attention to a project on Rose Street. In that project the yard space and the pad under the house was considered a lot. She got her idea from this project. She further explained how this project is set up. She asked i f the area between the two units which is now 8 feet wide were made 10 feet, would it make this project acceptable? Could that be considered the common area? The Commission answered in the affirmative. She explained that she would not want to go to postage stamp lots. She would rather appeal to the Council . Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negative Declaration 700. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Ault to approve Condi tional Use Permit 1123 and Variance 1645. Motion di ed for lack of a second. Commissioner Hart asked for the variance to be defined again. Mr. Murphy expl ai ned that the variance i s for a mi nor reduction i n density from 14.96 to 14.52 and to allow two parking spaces per unit rather than 2 Z, as required by the PUD Ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Variance 1645, with the fi ndi ngs that the 1 of was created many years ago and was not created by the applicant, thus being beyond thei r control . The 1 of is narrower and of 1 ess size than is currently required and yet the Code provides for the development of two units. Therefore, the hardship is confined to the 1 etter of the 1 aw . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Aul t, Hart, Master NOES : Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none h10TI0N CARRIED There was further discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the Conditional Use Permit and the intent of the PUD. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to deny Condi tional Use Permit 1123 with the finding that i t i s not the intent of the PUD Ordi Hance to create 1 ess than standard 1 ots with no common area or common open space. There are alternative approaches to accomplish this, such as air space condos or a town house subdivision. Planning Commission h1i nu tes June 1, 1981 Page Eleven Mr. Murphy pointed out that the residents of the area are aware of tonight's Planning Commission meeting to review Mr. Kibbe's revised plans and may wish to make comments. Mr. Murphy also pointed out that a few letters of comment have been received from residents in the area. Commissioner Coontz asked if there was one plan which met the require- ments of Staff more than the others . Answer was i n the negative. Questi on was asked as to what the thoughts of the Ci ty Council were in this regard and Staff replied that this was continued and referred back to the Commission for comments, Chairman Mi ckel son expl ai ned that this i s not a pub li c hearing. Bill Kibbe, 1631 Cris Avenue, Anaheim, addressed the Commission, asking if the Commission were aware of the comments which he made to the Ci ty Council on May 12th . Chairman Mi ckelson stated that thi s type of comments should be repeated at this meeting. Mr. Kibbe stated that these comments had been made at the May 12th City Council meeting. He stated that this piece of land that he is proposing to build upon is one of the few pieces of undeveloped land remai ni ng between Main Street and the Circle on Chapman Avenue and he feels at this time that it is an eyesore. He pointed out that the building which h e proposes to build will provide parking for 24 vehicles and thus eliminate some of the congested parking on Lime Street which is there now. He felt that his parking provisions will eliminate forever the need for parking on Lime Street. He explained that at the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1981, he proposed a bui 1 di ng which was two stori es and contained 7400 square feet of space. At that meeting, a motion was made by Commissioner Coontz and seconded by Commissioner Hart was "to continue this matter to April 6, 1981 for another look at a redesign of the property to include a 10 foot landscaped setback and a suggestion for allowance of motorcycle and compact car parking," He pointed out that the revised plan which is before the Commissioners tonight reduces the square footage to 5310, completely eliminates the second story and makes provision for an addi tional 10 foot setback for 1 a nds capi ng and also makes provision for 24 parking spaces , 13 full sized cars, 5 compact cars and 6 motorcycles. Strict application of the Code would be 262 vehicles. Therefore, his plan provi des for over 90% of the parking requi rements . They are 2 parki ng spaces short. He went on to emphasize that his business is service oriented and customers only stay for three to five minutes. He pointed out that St. Joseph Hospital and City Hall both have motorcycl e parking. He went on to explain to the City Council that after reducing the size of the bui 1 di ng, provi di ng a 10 foot 1 andscapi ng setback and provi di ng for more parking, they felt that the Commission would approve their revised plan. He pointed out that they are in favor of street widening and front lands capi ng, but many businesses which face on Chapman Avenue would have to be torn down i n order to faci 1 i tate the required setback . He stated that he had driven around the City of Orange and noted businesses which were defi ci ent i n parking spaces . Color Ti 1 e on Tustin Avenue has 5400 square feet i n their building and should have 12 more parking spaces. Big Five Sporting Goods is another store where the parking spaces are deficient. They should have 49 spaces for the size of the buil di ng and only have 21 > He mentioned the shopping center where he is now located and pointed out that according to Code this center should have 62 parking spaces. They are far short and yet there are always empty parking spaces in this shopping center most of the year. The only time there is a probl em is at Chri stmas time when everyone goes to Adray's to shop. Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Twelve He also pointed out the building at 21.0 W. Glassell, which is a two- story building of 12,000 square feet. It is built on a corner parcel which is next to a residence. It now houses a bicycle shop and 62 parking spaces are required by the Code. He counted only 14 spaces . Yet the parki ng seems to be more than adequate. Thi s property correlates al most exactly with what he wi shes to bui 1 d. He cannot understand why this was allowed and his building is not to be allowed. They are asking for approval of construction of a building with 90% of the parking supplied. He stated that he wished to remind the Commission that enough parking has been provided for this business or any other use. Mr. Kibbe stated that the foregoing comments had been made to the City Council on May 12th. He now wished to address the Commission with regard to the revised plans before them. He explained that one of the big concerns of the Ci ty Council was the setting of the building on the south property line. He offered Mr. Sheffield to move the building 5 feet to the north and either leave 5 feet between the bui 1 di ng and the chain 1 i nk fence or he would 1 et P~1r. Sheffield have the 5 feet to do with as he wished. The objection to this is that you now have a 5 foot dead area where debris could col 1 ect and chain 1 i nk fences or 1 eantos could be bui 1 t. His offer s ti 11 stands . Another concern was height. They have substantially reduced the height of the building in Plan #3. Inside of the building the ceiling would be 10 feet over the sales area, 3,620 square feet and 8'6" over the rest of the building. He then defined the storage attic which was shown in the May 20th plan. It is not habitable -there is no air conditioning or heating. This was designed only for storage. This plan also includes the Gomil roof line. Mr. Kibbe stated that he prefers Plan #3, but offered another plan because he feels that the residents would accept this more easily. They have a specialized situation where they are trying to squeeze a commercial building into an area bordered by residences. Some rules cannot apply. This is a case where the citizens come first because of thei r 1 ong residence in the area. ~" Mr. Kibbe explained that this is a family business and his sons intend to run this business after his retirement or death , He doesn't see this being any other kind of business for a long, long time. He pointed out that the 10 foot landscaped setback has been cut back to 2 feet. He prefers the 10 foot area. However, he also pointed out that there is very little front landscaping all up and down West Chapman Avenue. He explained that i f he took out the motorcycl e parki ng spaces, i t would leave 17 parking spaces. Even during the recent holiday, which was busy for this store, there were never more than three to five customers in the store at one time, He pointed out that the use of motorcycles has increased even more than compact cars and thinks a study should be conducted for motorcycles as well as for compact car parking. Commissioner Coontz asked that Staff reiterate the motions made by the Planning Commission for a continuance. She also asked questions with regard to the size of the building. Mr. Kibbe explained that the attic is inhabitable and should not be considered as extra square footage, which means more parking area. Mr. Murphy read from the March 16th minutes the motion made far con- tinuance of this application: "Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to continue this matter to April 6, 1981, for another look at a redesign of the property to include setback, and Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Thirteen a suggestion for allowance of motorcycle and compact car parking." He then read the Apri 1 6th minutes wherein the motion stated: "Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to deny the request for Variance 1623 because of the lack of adequate parking and on the basis that the applicant has not shown hardship." Commissioner Coontz asked if there is any consideration in our Code for something that would qualify as a 1 of that would not be for storage, that would not be of standing height so that you would not count this square footage for parking. Mr. Murphy replied that if i t could be administrated that this area is not occupiable this could be done. Chairman Mickel son explained that Mr. Kibbe's remarks are attacking the law. The Commission and Staff are not in a position to say that this parking situation i s OK because i t woul d be against the law. The Commissioners did not feel that they could find a hardship i n this case. The other buil di ngs which were ci ted by Mr. Kibbe are not the question here. This application must be decided on its own merit. Commissioner Hart felt that i t s til 1 comes down to the fact that thi s may not always be a motorcycle shop and then inadequate parking could be a problem. Errol Shuffield, 122 S. Line, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stati ng that he talked to Mr. Kibbe about the attic, who explained that no one could walk under it. He said he could walk under it. As far as the attic not being air conditioned or heated, this could be added at a later time. Regarding the garage area, he is assuming that on the west wall where the garage door is that there would be another wall on the east side of that garage. He cannot imagine that area for a wheel repair shop. With regard to Chapman Avenue widening, Mr. Kibbe did not think there would be a setback so he wished to move forward 5 feet. Mr. Shuffi el d did not agree with this . Miley J. Staser, 146 S. Lime Street, Orange, addressed the Commission, stati ng that i f you scouted the city, you would find many cases where there are not proper parking facilities. That is not a reason why more mistakes should be made. He pointed out that what takes place on the west corner of Chapman and Lime will influence what is going to take place on the east corner. This small piece of property can only accommodate so much. He spoke about the various plans which have been submitted and he told the Commission that the residents have been waiting for Mr. Kibbe to submit a plan which is more suitable for this piece of property. He addressed Plan #4, which now comes up with 7400 square feet. It is up to the Commission to decide whether this is the right plan or the wrong plan. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that the City Council has asked the Commission to evaluate the revised plan. This is what they are going to do . Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that the Commission relay to the City Council that they still do not find adequate legal justification for the variance, However, if the Council feels that this is in order, the Commission favors the May 20th plan because i t meets more of the Code requirements than the others . Planning Commission Minutes June 1 , 1981 Page Fourteen Chairman Mi ckel son explained that they sti 11 do not fi nd a jus ti fi - cation for the variance. Commissioner Ault felt that this has been pushed around for a long time. The applicant has a logical parking setup. There are more exampl es of wasted parki ng i n the City that someone i s paying for. He is being imposed upon fora 10 foot setback. Commissioner Ault stated that he is opposed to the motion. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED There was discussion among the Commissioners as to the intent of this motion. The Commissioners do not want to give absolute approval to any one plan. SKEETER BOAT RIDE WITHIN EXISTI~dG SKATEBOARD PARK AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF CH APMAN AVENUE AND WAYFIELD STREET. Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that the applicant has submitted plans for a proposed skeeter boat ride addition to the existing skateboard park. He asked the Commission to recall that Conditional Use Permits 850 and 1019 have previously been approved to allow the skateboard park itself, as well as to permit a water slide which is presently being constructed. The applicant is seeking a determination from the Planning Commission that the boat ride be permitted under the previously approved con- di tional use permit and that no further conditional use permit is needed to allow its construction. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out two problems here. 1. There is a noise element. This should be looked into prior to approval. 2. Parking. This has not been looked at with this type of situation in mind. He pointed out that there is a residential tract which abuts the operation of the ride just to the north. Staff feels that the previous approvals were very specific in nature and, since no request was made for a boat ride at that time, a new public hearing should be held in order to consider this latest proposal . It is therefore recommended that the applicant be directed to apply for a new conditional use permit. Commissioner Ault asked Staff what their feelings are about parking. Mr. Murphy explained that the two uses would peak at different times of the year. Staff anticipates, upon the addition of the boats to the other two uses, that more parking would be needed, since the boats could be used with the water slide. W.R. DeRanek, 1210 N. Knollwood Circle, Anaheim, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that they are here to ask for permission under their current conditional use permit to construct a pond for boats, At this time there is no construction on this, He described what a skeeter boat is and explained why they wish to put this ride in, He pointed out that this is a single person boat, They now feel , however, that bumper boats would cause 1 ess noise and be a better situation than the skeeter boats. As far as the noise level is concerned, he pointed out that there is a skating rink next to them and they abut the freeway also. He i s sure that the bumper boats would not be heard. Pl anni ng Commission Minutes June 1 , 1981 Page Fifteen Mr. DeRanek explained that they plan to allow peopl e a ri de ticket for the slide,which will be fastened to their arm. This is not a time element situation, but on a ri de setup. They feel that another attraction would be attractive. They are not trying to attract addi tional people or parking . Th ey want to enhance the entire attraction. They would 1 ike to conti nue on the condi tional use permit which they already have. Mr. Murphy clarified that their concern was not with the apartments which are already there, but the new homes to the northeast of this property. The applicant stated that a retaining wall would be acceptable to them. Chai rman Mi ckelson felt that a new condi tional use permit should be i n order since the fi rst two condi tional use permits were very specific. Anew one should be more general. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to instruct the applicant to get an addi tional condi tional use permit. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none none MOTION CARRIED The applicant asked i f there was addi tional wordi ng that could be used to make this more general. Chairman Mickelson explained that he could work with the Staff on this. He also explained that this is a rather small si to and that must be taken into consideration. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL OF A & C PROPERTIES LETTER REGARDING DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES. Chairman Mickelson stated that A & C Properties is his client and the Staff Report presented this evening was precipitated by a specific request from A & C Properties. However, the recommended action at this time does not pertain to any particular property - i t i s a General Plan Amendment and has ci tywi de appl i cabi 1 i ty . After discussion with Staff and the City Attorney, he does not feel he has a conflict of interest and will take part in this discussion. John Lane stated that he really didn't have anything specific to add to the Staff Report. They hope that the Commission will refer back to the City Council the recommendation that it be set for public hearing before the Commission. He explained that Staff have had discussion with the City Attorney and he understands and agrees with what we are trying to do at this point in time with the two elements of the General Plan. Staff and the Commission are certainly aware that there possibly will be problems later on in implementation of the density bonus provision. However, Staff position at this time is to take things i n thei r proper order and do first things first. Commissioner Coontz felt that the Staff di d a good job on this report and she was happy that they mentioned the site development standards. Commissioner Master asked for more clarification about conforming to site development standards. Mr. Lane explained that their intent is to make i t cl ear that i f a densi ty bonus is approved, such approval , i n itself, does not waive the development standards of the zoning on the property and the development project might require certain variances rel ati ng to setbacks (front yard or side yard setbacks) because obviously they will increase density on the property if they get the density bonus . He expl ai ned that they di dn't want anyone to construe the granting of the density bonus to mean that auto- matically they are getting all kinds of variances by that act of Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Sixteen granting the density bonus . They would have to apply for variances if they were necessary. Mr. Lane pointed out that there will have to be, according to the law, wri tten agreements between the developers who propose density bonuses and the local jurisdiction, clearly stipulating what the cri teri a for the granting of the density bonus is . This would be kind of a contract between the two enti ties , the city and the developer. This could be different for every application. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to what kind of constraint could be placed on the buyers so that they could not profi teer on these types of developments . Dick Harlow, representi ng A & C Properti es, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has had an opportuni ty to revi ew the proposal submitted by Staff to the Housing Advisory Commi ttee and the Commission and wished to make a few comments. He explained that they would prefer the wording at the end of the "recommended wordi ng" not to be i n the General Plan. He felt i t best to just facilitate the density bonus itself in the General Plan text and deal with whether they need some special relief from the development standards at the time of specific project plan approval . He thought that i t could be interpreted that by reques ti ng relief from the development standards they would not be enti tl ed to the density bonus. He hopes that since the General Plan only deals wi th the ranges of density that the density bonus provision woul d only deal with that i n its elf. Knowing that they must go one step further which is the implementing ordinance in which you can require a Conditional Use Permi t wi th certain controls . He pointed out that Orange County seems to be a 1 Bader i n that particular area and that is the way that the County found it best to administer. They added a provision to the Zoning Ordinance which set up development standards. He also spoke to the City of Orange's definition of an affordabl e unit, which he feels is basically the same as the County definition. He explained that since these were wri tten, the County has modified their defi ni ti on to be a 1 i ttl e more flexible. They added a secti on saying that i n order to provide some creati vi ty i n financing of thes e particular units that an affordable unit woul d really be a uni t that is occupied by an eligible buyer, an eligible buyer bei ng a person who is earning Tess than 120% of the median family income. He stated that they would also like some consideration given to the fact that in many instances the State of California is participating i n shared appreciation mortgages . The present definition whi ch Orange is using, al though it doesn't precl ude the opportunity for that shared appreciation mortgage (an in-law participating in the purchase of a unit so that a son or daughter can qualify). They would like to have some clarification so this would also be permitted. He explained basically he is asking for four things: 1 . To go along with the defi ni ti on recommended by Staff and the Housing Advisory Committee, but not to speak about the develop- ment standards . Deal with that through the Condi tional Use Permit or Zoning laws. 2. To expand the definition of Affordable Unit so as not to limit i t only to 25 or 30% of the income of the person resi di ng i n he unit, and, expand that opportunity so t at i f an elderly person who i s i n the "affordable" category can trade out the equity i n thei r present home, that this would not precl ude them from moving into an "affordable unit". Planning Commission Mi nutes June 1, 1981 Page Seventeen 3 & 4. To clari fy, when they talk about an eligible person or persons earni ng 1 ess than 120% of the median family income, that this would really only apply to their being able to occupy the unit and they could have additional persons hel p them to acquire or qualify for the loan. Mr. Harlow thought that any time you set up a system, there are people working 24 hours a day to beat the system, so the simpler you can make the system, the better i t wi 11 be to administer. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that she had made some suggestions and distributed some revised wording. She explained that even though this is a General Plan Amendment the State Code specifically talks about zoning. This is why some changes were suggested. She felt the Commission should keep this fact i n mind. Chairman Mickelson commented that he did not know that leaving the requirement in that provides for the conformance of the provisions of the existing site development standards of the zoning of the property would get them where they want to go. He thought that if i t is left i n he would request that the Staff devel op a coupl e of hypothetical examples to see if, in fact, a density bonus project could be developed without variances. There was discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Mr. Harlow pointed out that the whole basis of the density bonus is really discretionary with the Planning Commission and the City Council Whether they want to grant it on any particular specific project will depend on ci rcumstances. He is saying that development standards could be tied in to that discretionary process. He felt that they could es tabl i sh guidelines but i t would really depend on the speci fi c nei ghborhood, the qualify of construction going on i n the area, and many other variables . He felt that i t would be better to deal with this problem during the Conditional Use Permit process. Commissioner Coontz felt that what they are saying is that they are not wi 11 i ng to give up every thing . There was more discussion with regard to this requirement and whether i t should stay i n or be 1 eft out. Commissioner Hart stated that he 1 i ked the concept of provi di ng affordable housing. Commissioner Coontz felt that some of the things that have been talked about tonight need to be included i n the Commission's recommendation. Chairman Mickelson felt that they do not have much choice because State law says that they must grant density bonuses under certai n circumstances . Mr. Lane stated that what they are hoping for is that the Planning Commission will be directed to have a public hearing. During the intervening time Staff will fine tune the wording, based on the comments which have been made this evening by the Commissioners and also the comments made by Mr. Harlow. The public hearing will be on something more refined than the memo in front of the Commission toni gh t. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to forward the recommended wording which is stated in the memo to the City Council , along with the addi ti onal recommendation that the Counci 1 refer the matter back to the Pl anni ng Commission for publ i c heari ngs to amend the Land Use and Housing El ements of the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1981 Page Eighteen AYES : Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none none MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy brought up one more minor item to the Commissioners, that of 1 eavi ng the height at 30 feet i n the commercial zone, because they are going to redefi ne that as being the average height of the roof. He pointed out that he had talked to Chai rman Mickel son about this. Chairman Mickelson explained that he had made a request that Staff consider changing the commercial height definition from 30 to 35 feet because that was historically used in ordinances and i t had been pointed out to him that i n their definition they use the average height, so it can exceed 30 feet. On this basis, Chairman Mickelson withdrew his request. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeti ng was of the Planning June 15, 1981 at Chapman Avenue, adjourned at 11:30 p.m. The next regular meeting Commission will be at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, the Civic Center Counci 1 Chambers , 300 Eas t Orange, California. ~~ .,~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on -~,. June 1 , 1981 ; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on June 2, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which sai d meeting of June 1 , 1981 was held. %~.-+~; Jer P, urphy, Se etary c EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 1, 1081. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:45 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this meeting adjourn at 11 :30 p.m, on Monday, June 1 , 1981 to recon- vene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 15, 19 81 at the Civic Center Council Chambers , 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California . I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, June 1 , 1981 . Dated this 2nd day of June, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. Je N. Murphy, City Nlanr~er and Sec etary to the Planning Commission ofithe Ci ty of Orange.