The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/4/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California May 4, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, 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 Ci ty Attorney, Gary Johnson, Ci ty Engi neer; Bob Beardsley, Assistant Ci ty Engineer; Norvi n Lanz, Associate Planner; Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer; Doris Ofsthun, Recordi ng Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 20, 1981 F~loved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the mi nutes of Apri 1 20, 1981 , as transcribed, AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 941 -CITY OF ORANGE: Request to rezone property from C-3 to C-2 generally along the east and west sides of Main Street between Chapman Avenue and Town and Country Road, (Note: Negative Declaration 675 has been prepared i n 1 ieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) (Continued from meeti ng of Apri 1 6 , 19 81 . ) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, explaining that this hearing was Conti Hued from the meeti ng of Apri 1 6, 1981 , at which time there were members of the audience who indicated that they could not remain at the meeting unti 1 this application was heard. Therefore, it was placed on another agenda to be heard as the fi rst item of the meeting. Mr, Murphy pointed out that the proposal is to eliminate the C-3 zone within the city as an admi ni s trati ve item, The area which i s bei ng discussed is from the Town & Country Shopping Center to Chapman Avenue on Main Street. This is an area of nine parcels containing approximately 3.69 acres of land located on the west side of Main Street between Chapman Avenue and Almond Avenue; an area of 29 parcels containing approximately 8.38 acres of land located on the east side of Main Street beginning at a point 168 feet south of the center- line of Chapman Avenue and extending to LaVeta Avenue; an area of seven parcels containing approximately 9.29 acres of land located on the east side of Main Street between the Garden Grove Freeway and Town & Country Road, Mr. Murphy explained that the Ci ty of Orange requests approval of Zone Change 941 to change all current C-3 zoni ng to C-2 zoni ng i n order to eliminate a superfluous zoning designation that is no longer relevant to today's needs or desires and is duplicative of the C-2 zone. "~ He pointed out that the Staff has prepared a list of the existing uses on C-3 zoned land. The list shows the lowest legal zone that the use would be allowed in. All uses with the exception of the two currently nonconformi ng uses (C.S , I . Vinyl Roof and Roseburrough Tools, Inc.) will be permitted in the C-2 zone. (Many of the uses Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Two wi 11 fit into even more restrictive zones .) Staff feels that the C-3 zone is superfluous and should be eliminated at this time to coincide with the overall zoning ordinance revision. Mr. Murphy stated that Staff had mailed a letter once more to all property owners in that area, in which Staff again attempted to explain why this zone change is being requested. Commissioner Coontz questioned Staff with regard to high rises in the industrial areas and the height 1 imi tati ons required. Mr. Murphy replied that the height limitation is enforced within all three zones - C-3, C-2 and C-1. Chairman Mi ckel son opened the public hearing. Charley Miles, business address-722A W. Chapman, home address - 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he could not see the reason for a zone change. He does not find that this clutters up the zoning ordi Hance. He has read the ci ty's 1 etter regardi ng the difference between the two, but still does not feel there should be a change. ~ He pointed out that his property is zoned C-3 and he was told that there would not be any downzoning and he considers this to be down- zoning. He does not see any reason for this change of zone and therefore opposes i t. Commissioner Coontz asked i f he was i ndi cati ng that he is operating i n C-2 and does not want to see i t go to C-1 . He replied that he i s operati ng i n C-3 and does not want C-2. His business i s a Vol kswagon repair shop at 185-187 S. Main Street. He explained that he does not anticipate any change in C-3 and does not see why this was proposed. Chairman Mi ckel son explained that the comments made i n the 1 ast meeting's minutes wi 11 be transferred into this eveni Hg's mi nutes. (Transferred from April 6, 1981 minutes): Duncan Clark addressed the Commission, stati ng that i n 1974 this area came up for downzoni ng and the City Counci 1 was quite irate that thi s change of zoni ng should be consi dered downzoni ng. C-3 zoning i s definitely bei ng changed to C-2. The Staff indicates that there i s no difference. However, historically that property along Main Street was zoned C-3 for a specific purpose. Some of the businesses i n that area i nfri nge on C-2 zoni ng a 1 i ttl e bit. He felt that no matter vrhat is said, C-2 zoning is downzoning. This was a major issue back i n 1974 and created a furor. Commissioner Hart .asked if Mr. Clark thought that if Roseburrough Tool were to go out of the space they occupy now, should another industrial firm go i n? Mr. Clark did not think so . Commissioner Hart explained that the reason why this zoning is being changed is that it is another section in the code that must be carried on the books . Mr. Clark thought that i t should then be carried on the books. Some of the people have owned property in this area for 30 to 40 years and C-3 zoning means something to them. It also means something to a realtor. Pride of ownership in property is very important. Geneva Fulton, 1801 N. Greenleaf, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that she only wants clarification of what i s permi tted i n C-3 and C-2. She does not want their property to be zoned so that i f someone wants to go high rise they may. She does not want i t to be restricted. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Three r~ Charles Miles, 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he has seen a list of C-3 and C-2 zone uses and does not think they are very similar. He pointed out that he has an operation at 185-187 S. Main Street, which is a Porsche and Volks- wagon repair facility. They have machines that possibly could not come under the C-2 zone. There are differences of opinion regarding C-3 and C-2. He still goes back to the guarantee they were given when they had the downzoning fiasco before and they were promised there would be no more downzoning. If there isn't any difference, why should there be a change? Joe Dickerson, 347 N. Ash, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that if more explanation had been given in the letters sent to the property owners there would have been less problems. If this is only an administrative move, there is no objection. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, Ch airman Nickelson closed the public heari ng. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 675. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to deny Zone Change 941. Commissioner Hart explained that this was a matter of principle, since most of the property owners are against this zone change. Mr. Murphy explained that if this zone change is denied, the denial would be final unless the Commission were to make a recommendation to the City Cou nci 1 . Chairman Mi ckel son also explained that i f th i s moti on carries i t wi 11 be a recommendation to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED The fol 1 owi ng minutes are transcribed verbatim, as required by Federal and State regulations. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF ENGINEERING DESIGN FEATURES, RIGHT-OF-WAY, RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF A PROPOSAL TO WIDEN WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND CLARK STREET. Jere Murphy: I be]ieve the City Engineer will begin the presentation on this, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Okay. Again, before we start the presentati on, 1 et me offer just a Nickelson: couple of quick comments. Someone .may have come in since we started the meeting. Anyone who's here and wants to speak on this issue of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of Chapman Avenue from Main Street to Clark Street is asked to speak under the normal public hearing procedure, but we ask you to sign one of the green cards that Per. Lanz has . So, i f you do not have one of those and you wish to speak, please raise your hand and he'll give you one of those and you can fill it out. There's a reason for this. This is a rather unique action before us this evening; one that we're not used to taking. Since there's Federal money involved i n the Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Four project, we're subject to Federal and State regulations, many of which are far more encompassing than those we're used to handling. What we're doing this evening is taki ng testimony on the envi ron- mental impact and not making a decision as to what's ultimately going to happen there. So, the purpose of toni ght's meeting is for you to give your testimony on this environmental impact. That testimony must be recorded verbatim and passed on to the lead agency which is the Department of Transportation. So, because we have to record your testimony verbatim and the Staff has to prepare responses to your testimony, we ask that you do two things, if you please. Keep your testimony as bri of and to the point as you can. We want you to say every thing you want to say, but try and keep i t bri of so that we can respond to i t and try not to be repeti tive so that we have to respond to the same statement. Feel free to say that you agree with certain things but please don't go through. the whole thi ng again. I say that because so far we have this much documentation on it (Chairman Mi ck el son displays material to audience) and, as I s ee i t, we're just getti ng started. I hate to end up wi th reams and reams of paper that no one will read anyway. We'd like to make this meaningful . '~ Comm. Coontz: May I suggest that Mr. Lanz put those green slips up here in front at the top of this box. Chairman Good suggestion. Mi ckel son: Comm. Coontz: When they choose to speak at one mike or the other, they'll be available. Chairman Fi ne. Mr. Johnson, the Ci ty Engineer, wi 11 proceed wi th the Mickelson: presentation, Gary Yes, thank you. The heari ng as you indicated before is to gather input Johnson: on the pros and cons to discuss the various alternatives of widening Chapman Avenue from Main Street to Clark. I think in order to get a better feel for wher e we've been and where we're going a chronology of events mi gh t be the best way to begin. This project, as a Federally financed program under the Federal Aid Urban System of grants, was proposed back i n 1976 and at that time the City Council voted to apply for the funds to widen Chapman Avenue. The limits at that time were from Lemon to Main Street and, of course, at that time we didn't have any specific width requirements. We were talking about a concept. We went through the Federal and State --- we proceeded through the Federal and State guidelines, giving us approvals. The County also has to endorse our project so that we can be i n competition with other County projects . So, it's a somewhat involved procedure. We proceeded to satisfy all of these requirements and we got approval for the design; for a field review, and we got authorization to begin preliminary engineering. We pro- ceeded along, as most Federal projects do. They take a lot of time. We formulated our project and in September of 1978, we had some in- formal heari ngs to 1 et the occupants and owners of West Chapman know what our thinking was . We explored various al ternati ves along the length of the entire route, which was from Lemon to Main. We held several hearings, several informal hearings. We also presented our fi ndi ngs to the Council . At that time there was a group who came forward which was "earmarked" to try and help to guide the goals of this project. It was called the West Chapman Committee. They, together wi th a group of downtown businessmen, met with the Staff and we for- mul ated our thoughts and reviewed the problems . Subsequent to that, Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Five the groups that were involved and considering the concerns of the people, it was decided that the downtown area was asituation ---, that once any increase i n traffic or any problems that were solved on the outlyi ng streets ---, we were just going to create bigger problems in the interior of the street, or the corridor area. So the Old Towne Committee was formed to create an Old Towne area. They determined that the Old Towne should be bounded by Batavia on the west, Cambri dge on the east, LaVeta on the south and Wal nut on the north . Upon the formulation of the concerns of this committee, which was established to determine the problems of the downtown area, the Council said, we think that the project, any Federal project, should excl ude the area within the Old Towne because the problems there are a little more comprehensive than they are in what we call the outlying of "spoke street" areas. So, at that time, July of 1979, which has been almost two years ago, the Counci 1 decided that the project would be reduced to the area which you are now considering. That's the area between Clark and Piai n Street. We were proceeding along the processing trail, so to speak, with our Federal project, the environmental document and research was con- cl uded almost a year ago. It's been cri tiqued and revi ewed and we ~ fi 1 ed various copies of i t wi th the various agencies ; the S tate and Federal agenci es that revi ew i t. We're now to the point where we're ready to show the document which i s the envi ronmental consideration and along with our alternativerecommendations to the general public, the people on the street and to the Commission and Council. That's why we're here tonight. This is what's happened prior to this time, I thi nk what I' 11 do at this time is to call upon Bob Beardsley, the Assistant Ci ty Engineer, to describe the rudiments of the plan itself, the various alternatives to the physical pattern of the project and then he, in turn, I believe, will let Norvin Lanz, who prepared the envi ronmental considerations ---, he wi 11 then turn i t over to him for the environmental portion of the presentation. Bob Okay. Since Mr. Johnson went back to the beginning of this project Beardsley: and brought us up to date, I'll have to go back again now ---, back to the beginning when we first selected this project. (Slide presenta- ti on begins ,) There are several cri teri a under which we developed our submittal for Chapman Avenue, which was subsequently approved by the City Council, to apply for Federal funding. This is the project selection process we went through, First of all, the project had to be on an existing separate urban system, which Chapman is. One of the criteria would be traffic volume and the circulation problems which we did see on West Chapman Avenue. The third element was in the traffic problem areas, specifically accidents, which are very evident at the intersection of Batavia and Chapman Avenue which we'll see later. The fourth el ement of the project is that we must get the proper cost benefit ratio. Again, we determined that it would indeed be a beneficial project based on the cost incurred. The fifth was the evaluation criteria. We had to foresee that the County and the County Technical Committee would be approvi ng our project i n competi tion wi th other ci ti es i n the County . (Next slide) Now that leads us to this slide, which shows the sixth cri teri a which the County used to determine which projects would get Federal fundi ng and which woul dn't. Fi rst transi t related el ements and how that interfaces wi th the buses, ---; bus uses and railway uses and things of that nature. Secondly, the dollar magnitude of the project. They prefer that the project be of a significant magnitude for significant benefi ts, but not so 1 arge that i t took al 1 the money 1 Planni ng Commission Mi nutes May 4, 1981 Page Si x that was available for Orange County. Third, was the multi-modal influence which is a fancy word for bus and other uses other than automobiles. Fourth, the multi-jurisdictional criteria is how to keep this project going to fit i n wi th other ci ti es adjacent to us and throughout the County. Fifth, the state of readiness is how soon can we go into construction on i t. Obviously, we haven't moved very fast on this, but we didn't expect to see the Federal process this 1 engthy. Sixth , the availability of correlary funding which just means, are there any other sources of funds that would be available to participate in this project? So that was the i ni tial stages when we submi tted Chapman Avenue for the Federal Aid Urban Project. ( Next slide) We have four primary objectives which we wanted to accomplish and which are 1 i sted on the 1 eft as you can see on the slide. The goals which we hope to achieve by the construction of this project are shown on the ri gh t. First of al 1 , we want to provi de four travel lanes and a left turn lane which we thought was badly needed to improve our accident statistics on West Chapman and to improve the traffic circulation. Secondly, we want to provi de bus a bays in that reach of Chapman Avenue so that we could improve the ~ transi t access. and not have buses stopping i n the middle of the through traffic lanes and causing hazards from that aspect. Thirdly, we want to provide landscaping, underground utilities and to improve the street 1 i ghti ng. That, i n essence, improves the street appear- ance as well as the safety with the street 1 i ghti ng improvement. Fourthly, we want to resurface the street which is in a deteriorating condition, to improve the ridability and to improve the life of the street. (Next slide) The first criteria i s for providing four travel 1 anes plus a left turn lane. This is a slide of West Chapman Avenue looking west from just about Batavia, just west of Batavia Street. You can see the existing four lanes. No turn pockets. No shoulders for pulling over to stop in any emergency. (Next slide) This is rendering of the same slide and is projecting what i t would 1 ook 1 i ke i n the ul timate ocndi ti on wi th the 1 eft turn lane and four through lanes. (Next slide) This is an existing look at the intersection of Batavia, looking east from West Chapman, Primarily, what we want to show here i s the difficulty i nvol ved i n the 1 eft turns ng vehicl es at that intersects on, (Next slide) Similarly, you can see down to midblock, left turns - which are causing a problem at the same location. This is predominant throughout the area, which is causi ng many acci dents and needs to be corrected, (Next slide) This is a graphical representation of comparisons of the two intersects ons . On the upper right, you can see the i nter- section of Chapman and Cambri dge which was improved six years ago, with 1 eft turn pockets . Batavia and Chapman i s shown i n the 1 ower left. The accident rate there, shown at Cambridge, is prior to the improvement with the left turn pockets. We had an accident rate, left turn accidents, of 22.6 per million vehicle miles. After we improved that 1 ocati on, i t wend down to 9.6 . Now, this slide i s old; i t dates back to 1976. Currently, we have an acci dent rate over the last five years ---, 1 eft turn acci dents at Cambri dge and Chapman has numbered three. That's one every two years. Whereas, at Batavia and Chapman, we've had twenty-three accidents in the last five years, which is four and one-half a year; almost ten times what we are experiencing at Cambridge. If we proceed with improvements at Batavia, there's no reason why we wouldn't receive the same benefi ci al results from the 1 eft turn pockets at that intersects on. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Seven (Next slide) We're 1 ooki ng at the cost of the accidents . Thi s again i s an old slide, but i t i s valuable i n that the relationships are still the same, if not worse at this point in time. You can see the comparison, based on our value of property damage and injury accidents that we've got $23,000 worth of accident history between Batavia and Lemon where the others are well below $10,000. So, as a comparison, you can see that accidents are costly. (Next slide) This slide shows, in general, what Batavia would look like in its ultimate condition. This was taken at Cambridge and Chapman Avenue. Actually, this intersection is a little bit wider than that under our recommended eighty foot widening alternative. The outside lanes in this location are about 17 to 20 feet whereas we expect the lanes to be only 14 feet i n the recommended al ternate for West Chapman. The inside 1 apes at the intersecti on are j us t about the same width as we would expect on West Chapman. (Next slide) The second provision we want to make is for bus bays as the slide shows . The red 1 i ne shows the exis ti ng route of the Orange County Transit District through the area. They go eastbound on Chapman to Flower Street; down south to Almond and then parallel Chapman unti 1 they reach Cambri dge. Then, i t goes back up north and meets Chapman again, thereby avoi di ng the middl e of town. The Transi t Di stri ct would 1 ike to run straight through Chapman Avenue as shown by the green 1 i ne. However, they feel that the access for stoppi ng, pi cki ng up passengers and droppi ng them off i s not avai 1 abl e i n that reach . So they're avoidi ng i t at this time. If we proceed with the improvements to Batavia, they will extend their route up to Batavia before they drop south to Almond. ( Next slide) This i s a renderi ng showi ng what a bus bay would 1 ook like. We propose three of them on this project. They provide us full abi 1 i ty for the bus to pull out of a through 1 ane and provi de full safety for embarking and disembarking passengers. (Next slide) The third and fourth criteria are providing landscaping and underground utilities. You can see on this slide the existing power poles and a lack of landscaping along the streets; generally it is not environmentally desirable in its present condition. (Next slide) This would give you somewhat of an indication. Again, this is on Chapman near Cambridge. You can see the absence of the power pol es and the pl anti ng of the street trees at about 40 to 50 foot intervals along the street. ( Next slide) The fifth cri teri a that we want to approach i s the improvement of street lighting. This is an existing night shot looking west on West Chapman Avenue from about Lemon Street. It's fairly well lit, but not to current standards. I think you'll see somewhat of a difference on this street. (Next slide) This is City Drive looking northbound from about the City Shopping Center. You can see, it's much more evenly lit and this would be what we would expect on West Chapman in the ultimate condi tion. (Next slide) This shows the condition of the pavement on West Chapman, reflective cracking and a deteriorating surface. We would correct this in the final improvements. (Next slide) This is the cross section showing the existing street; four through travel 1 anes , eleven feet wide. The curbs are 44 feet apart and the sidewalks are 11 feet wide. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Ei gh t (Next slide) The recommended widening that we want to achieve on West Chapman is 80 feet with 8 foot wide sidewalks; three 12 foot 1 anes wi th one of those 1 anes bei ng a Conti nuous 1 eft turn 1 ane down the middle of the street and the outside travel lanes being 14 feet. There would be no parking on this street. (Next slide) There are two other alternates, basically, that are addressed i n the envi ronmental document. The wider alternative shows an 86 foot widening. It's basically the same as the recommended laternati ve of 80 feet except i t adds parki ng 1 anes on both sides of the street and narrows the sidewalks down to 7 feet on both sides. The inside lanes are one foot narrower than the 1 2 foot. When you start the left turn lane, it's only 10 feet. Basically it's the same configuration. The narrower alternative provides for basically the same again as the 80 feet except the inside lanes are narrowed somewhat. Again, the narrower alternative does not provide any parking alternative --- parking use on the street. (Next slide) Now I get to the affected structures. The ones I'm going to show on the slides that follow are for the recommended widening alternative. If we go with an 86 foot widening, it would be substantially more than these four that I'm going to show. (Next slide) This would be the first structure that would be impacted. This is the gas station at the northwest corner of Batavia and Chapman. (Next slide) This is another view of that location and to the left of the screen you can see the beige building there. That's the one we'll be taking entirely. It is only about 15 or 20 feet deep. The roadway widening would render that building useless. So, it would have to be removed. (Next slide) This is an earlier slide of the same location --- of the building that would be removed. It is now a thrift store. u ( Next slide) This is a shot of the taco stand at the northeast corner of that block. That building does have enough room on-site possibly to relocate it. If it cannot b e relocated on-site, it would have to be removed i n its enti rety due to the wideni ng impact on i t. All th es e bui 1 di ngs can be seen on the strip map on the wal 1 . So, you can have a chance to look a t it. If you can't see if from where you're sitting, you'll be able to see it after the meeting. You can see the impact of the wideni ng alternative on the bui 1 di ngs . ( Next slide) This is the bui 1 di ng on the south side of the street, 1010 West Chapman, which shows --- again this is an earlier slide --- shows aYamaha motorcycl e dealer. This bui 1 di ng could be remodel ed. At the present time, our best estimate is that it is going to be remodeled. We don't have plans that show structural configurations, so we can't tell for sure. IC (Next slide) This is the other half of the building, further westerly, And that's all the slides I have at this time. I think now that Norvi n Lanz will discuss the social , envi ronmental and economic issues which are also part of the environmental document. Norvin I think, in case you didn't pick th em up, there are a series of Lanz: handouts on the table in the front. If you wish to get more, they're still there. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Nine I want to explain that we are suggesting that it's a proposed Negative Decl arati on to the State to meet State 1 aw and a proposed Finding of No Significant Impact that we're recommending to the City Council. Since the Federal Highway Administration, under the Department of Transportation, is the lead agency, they are the ones who will make the final recommendation. At this point, this is only a recommendation from this group to the City Council. The City Council must process local and State environmental reviews and then recommend a course of action. After the West Chapman Ci ti zen Committee revi ewed this and the City Counci 1 recommended i t be reduced to a shorter 1 ength, the project now is from Main to Batavia, Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 in the Staff Report which is in the back of your packet and in the main assess- ment document, which is the rather thick document; all are 80 feet wi de through the shorter reach . So they essenti ally become the same thing. It was found i n the environmental document that speeds pro- duced on the 80 foot wide alternative were 35 mph . Al ternati ve 2 of these is 86 feet wide with parking. Surprisingly, that slows the speed down considerably. Providing for people parking along the ri ght of way slows speeds to 15 mph . Al ternate 5 i s 76 feet wide with no parking, but reducing the travel lanes slightly. Significantly, this reduces speed to 22 mph as the projected speed, showi ng that the 80 foot wide alternative is just about the ultimate or optimum. Al ternati ve 6 was a no project 1 eavi ng i t at the 66 foot wide width . Projected traffic speed as of 1998 would be about 15 mph or 1 ess . So i t wi 11 need widening. After revi ew of the committee, this pa rticular document has gone through a review by the Federal Highway Administration, the State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), other State agencies via the State Clearing House and the local office of SCAG. Local and County hi stori cal soci eti es, the O1 d Towne Steeri ng Committee have copi es . The Downtown Business and Professional Association, the Orange Chamber of Commerce received copies. The known acti ve members of the former West Chapman Ci ti zen Committee have reviewed the document. To date, no adverse comments have been received. So we're not aware of any concerns; I mean environmentally, of course. Existing conditions show the project that you have seen on these slides is on a flat alluvial plain and located about three miles from the El Modena fault. This is the nearest fault classified as a faul t that moved 2,000 to 11,000 years ago. They call it "Potentially Active". There are no mineral resources noted. No contaminated water sources in this area or endangered plant or animal life is known in the impact area. A Historic Property Survey was conducted rather extensively, which took a long time, and found no sites of historical significance in the area. Commercial development in the area has been found to increase i n value. Market value i ncreased 278% i n the 1 ast five years . The remodel ed businesses since 1977 have shown a tri pl i ng i n their retail sales . The general analysis reveal s the use of the route by commuters to and from work areas i n the city, mainly City people out. The land around the project is nearly all developed i n accordance wi th the City's General Plan. The impact that we're assessing and evaluating found that the plant landscapi ng on the project will improve the appearance wi th 1 ess energy expended ro consumed by the improved traffic scheme. Some labor, materials and fossil fuels will be consumed during construction. Bus access to ridership wi 11 be more centrally 1 ocated for residents both north and south of Chapman Avenue. Better turn lane access is expected to reduce acci dents and improve access to businesses along the route. Retail sales should improve at least 19%, which is what the expected traffic volume increase is for the next five years. Market values should increase at 1 east another 100% i n five years . Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Ten It's amazi ng, isn't i t? Employment and City revenues should parall el retail sales and the assessed value experience. One structure, a fast food outlet at 931 West Chapman Avenue, will have to be re- located and reconstructed on the site. That's a potential. Two business frontages wi 11 be rebuil t at 905 and 1010 West Chapman. You saw the pictures of two of those. The last structure will be removed at 925 West Chapman Avenue and the tenant will have to be rel ocated to another site. The current tenant is a thri ft store. These are the last two things here we've got data on. I have some slides as soon as I --- Comm. Coontz: Excuse me. Could I ask you to speak up a 1 ittl e bi t, pl ease? Mr. Lanz: You can't pi ck that up there? Let's try this . How is that? Comm. Coontz: Better. Mr. Lanz: These are the last two pieces of data. I'll turn this (slide projector) on. We may not need to turn out the 1 fights . (Pause) If you turn out the lights, I won't see my notes. So, don't do that (laughter). OK. In 1998, 11 parts per million is expected ... Stan --- you turned out the 1 i ghts (1 a ugh ter) . Turn o n the --- there. That does i t. Chairman You can still see it now. Mickelson: Mr. Lanz: Thanks Stan. The 1998, 11 parts per million peak hour carbon monoxide concentration for the project is less than the Federal standard of 35 parts per million which is not deemed to be significant. That (slide) is for noise. This one is for carbon monoxide. The key factor i n 1998, --- that slide i s a 1 i ttl e clearer --- is 11 ppm on the right side of the left column. The maximum 8 hour, which is the traffic that passes during the 8 hour period, it's the highest amount of traffic, an average hour concentration in there will be 8 parts per million in 1998, which is less than 9 parts per million, which is the Federal standard. That's the figure on the ri ght (col umn i n the slide) In addi tion, the columns show a total reduction in carbon monoxide. That's primarily because of the control of the automobile rather than the volume, because traffic increases considerably in this period of time. This data on the amount that is emitted into the basin is not on any slide. Traffic increases 46%. Carbon monoxide actually reduces 2.8% from present levels, hydrocarbons increase 2.7% and nitrous oxide 2.1 %. Notice that is considerably less than the 46% traffic increase. Particu- late matter increases 28%, again less. Sulphur oxides increase exactly as the traffic, 4G%. However, the automobi 1 e i s the 1 east contributor to the sulphur oxides. The major contributor to the basin in actual pounds are major industrial operations, electrical plants and that sort of thing. Thus, it is not deemed to be a major impact of concern. Revi ewi ng the noise, noise levels i ncreased 2 dba at the motel --- 74 to 76 dba at the top (of the slide). This is no project that would increase that much. I'm sorry -the project wi 11 increase i t that much . The ambient on the 1 eft i s 74 decibels . Measurements were at the nearest point. • At the residence, this would and it (slide) didn't move. (Projector fails to change slide.) It did move. What's going on? We have a residence in there somewhere. There we come. Again dba moves one decibel from 73 to 74 decibels from the no project to the finished project, even though the automobile ins much closer. A three decibel (increase) is barely discernible to the human ear, so at that point this was deemed to be an imperceivable noise increase. Periodic noise increases of 80 to 88 decibels at construction sites through the day for short periods of time were not deemed to be significant because of the short duration. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page El even Mitigating measures suggested, then, were that relocation costs are to be reimbursed for the one tenant that is to be relocated and disrupted portions of three structures will be remodeled. Staff has made three recommended actions to the Planning Commission, listed on the last page. Those are subject to the results you might hear at this hearing. As you have noted, findings cannot be com- pl eted this evening. Anyone is i nvi ted to wri to i n for the next ten days. These letters will be incorporated in the record, in- cl udi ng transcript of this hearing, which wi 11 then be heard at the Council level. So if you have anything which hasn't been covered this eveni ng, be sure to wri to i t i n to the City - to me at the City address . OK? Chairman Thank you Mr. Lanz. Any questions for Mr. Lanz from the Mickelson: Commission? Comm. Coontz: I have a question. You're proposing Alternative Number One, is that correct? Mr. Lanz: That's the alternative that is recommended. We've had the impacts stated here this evening on the four buildings. Yes, that's the one we think should be recommended. Comm. Coontz: Are there al ternati ves wi thin Al ternati ve #1 ? Mr. Lanz: Within Al ternati ve #1 , toni ght i t was noted, there are three bus bays potentially. One on the southeast corner of Batavia. There are two locations being considered for a bus bay at the service station and the taco stand. Ei ther one of them, dependi ng on the way events flow or the way events turn. Mr. Beardsley might have addi ti onal data on that i f you have further needs . Mr. Beardsley: As far as the question of bus bays, we would want to defer until we fi nd out what the feelings are as far as where they should be 1 ocated before we make that determination on the engineering judgement on those issues. I would say a recommendation be made, if you want to take one, --- or i f there's some action you want to take, --- one would be to make some specific notation on the bus bays, --- or exempting them, --- or whatever. Comm. Coontz: It wasn't my idea in questioning you for me to be making the decision, but I di d want to cl ari fy that, i f there were al ternati ves for the bus bay 1 ocations within Al ternati ve #1 . Mr. Beardsley: Yes, there are. Chairman Before you sit down, I have a card here from Mr. Hanily, who asks Mickelson: the question on the card, perhaps you can answer it. "How much property does the City want at 1302 W. Chapman and what are they going to do about the Crocker Bank building at the corner of Main and West Chapman?" Take the second one first. Mr. Beardsley: Yes, the answer to the second one is we're not going to take any part of the structure of the bank at the southeast corner. Is that the southeast corner? Chairman South east corner, yes . Mickelson: Mr. Beardsl ey : We're not goi ng to take that bui 1 di ng. The sidewalk at that 1 ocati on, i nteresti ngly enough, is on pri vate property. What we want to do is to obtain the right-of-way so that the sidewalk is in the public right-of-way where i t bel ongs . Other than that, we're not going to be touching the structure at that location. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twelve Chairman Where is 1302? Can someone --- where is that? Mickelson: Mr. Beardsley: It is the Orange Travelodge. Chairman Okay, thank you. Mickelson: Mr. Beardsley: I can 1 ook at i t right here on the map. Chairman Did you hear that? That's the Orange Travelodge Motel right Mickelson: next door. Mr. Beardsley: ( Unrol 1 i ng a map) We're at the wrong end of thi s map. I is only 10 feet long. Yes, at that location there would be a bus bay anticipated. (Measuring) We would be widening out to 50 feet from the center line. Right now the existing right-of-way is 33 feet, so there is a 17 foot widening at that point. Chairman It would not take any of the building? Mickel son: Mr. Beardsley: No. Chairman Would it take any of the parking, or do you know? Mickelson: Mr. Beardsley: It wouldn't impact the parking. It appears that all parking for that 1 ocation is behind the bui 1 di ngs . I recal l that there's an underpass drive into the motel and the parking is all southerly of that. Chairman OK. Thank you. Are there any other questions? I'll open the hearing Mickelson: in a couple of minutes and let you come forward. I just wanted him to answer that written question. Any questions to the Staff by any of the Commissioners at thi s point? OK. Before we open the hearing then and ask the public to come forward and make thei r comments and ask questions that we wi 11 attempt to answer, 1 et me be gin by saying that this is a hearing to complete the environmental documentation required by the Federal regulations. The Staff has recommended that we recommend to the City Counci 1 that they, i n turn, recommend to the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transportation that the City concurs in the filing of a Finding of No Significant Impact with this project. Keep in mind that this is considering the entire project and its relationship to the city as a whole and you may, as an individual property owner, feel that there is an impact on your property. You are free and encouraged to state that. We are recommending, or the Staff is recommending, that there be a Finding of No Significant Impact on the City from the project. In addition to that, they are recommending two mitigation measures, namely, that the tenants relocated as a result of this project, are to be reimbursed for relocation costs in accordance with the applicable Federal laws and they stated that they believe at this time there was only one probable relocation. Is that correct? (Answer was that this is correct.) And the second mitigation measure is that private business structures that are destructed by the project are to be re- constructed i n accordance with the Ci ty Design Review Board's recommendations. Essentially, what that means is that there are four buildings singled out as being potentially impacted and they would probably be relocated in the one case or reduced in size by taking a portion of the building, remodeling it to the new setback line and that being done at the project's expense, not at the owner's expense. So, in addition then, the third recommendation is that the Federal Highway Administration adopt Alternate Number 1 which was the one primari ly described to you . Now with that, again, i f you're going to speak, please fill out one of these green cards because we need i t for the record and we' 11 open the hearing to the public and ask you to come forward and state your concerns. Ask your questions and Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Thirteen introduce yourself as you come forward. Mr. Hanily is it? Please give your name and address for the record. Mr. Hanily: James Hanily, 1302 W. Chapman, Orange. My wife and I own a business at 1302 W. Chapman. My business is the Orange Travelodge Motel. I want to go on record that we're not opposed to the widening of West Chapman Avenue, as a business owner and property owner. But, I am concerned. I am in doubt about this area on West Chapman. You mentioned about not going to move the Crocker Bank building, but how are we going to get by that narrow part right there where West Chapman and Main intersect? Are they going to go to the car wash (across the street) or are they going to take some of the car wash or what? Chairman We'll ask the Staff to answer your question by perhaps pointing to Mickelson: the strip map on the wall there. If I understand your question, you believe that the Crocker Bank is into the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Hanily: If they are not going to touch Crocker, what are they going to do? Chairman We'll ask the Staff to answer that, but my understandi ng i s that the Mi ckel son: ri gh t-of-way wi 11 come up ri gh t to the bui 1 di ng of the Crocker Bank . Mr. Beardsley: Yes, that's correct. And any wi deni ng that would occur would be on the north side. It is a bit wider. I don't see the dimension on here, but that location is a bi t wider than the rest of the project width. But, yes, we'll transition to the, --- we'll have to meet the west side of Chapman Avenue i n the intersection, but we woul d do all the widening on the north side at that point. Mr. Hanily: Another question I want to ask is, they are going to make a bus depot or bus stop i n front of my place of business . How much property are they going to take i n front of my business there, --- from the sidewalk into my 1 awn or my bui 1 di ng site? Chairman OK. I think you can see that on the same map. I think i t' 11 be an Mickelson: additional 10 feet. (Pause) Mr. Beardsley: (Measuring on the map) The sidewalks will be moved back 17 feet from i is present location. The curb will be... Mr. Hanily: How 17 feet? Mr. Beardsley: Your bui 1 di ng now sits 26 feet back from the curb . Mr. Hanily: Is the setback, --- do your bui 1 di ng codes call for a setback from the sidewalk or the curb? I know there is a setback from a building site to a sidewalk. Mr. Beardsley: There i s 5 feet avai 1 abl e i f the bus bay i s put i n. Chairman There's a normal confusion i n these type of things . I bel ieve that Mi ckelson: is that the property 1 i ne is at the back of the sidewalk now --- that's i n front of your business . And they're talking about a di mensi on from the face of the curb as opposed to the property line that would show on your ti tl e. Mr. Hanily: Then the curb wi 11 be 17 feet from my property? Chairman According to the drawings, the back of the sidewalk would be perhaps Mickelson: five feet away from the building. Mr. Beardsley: To make i t simpler, the curb would be moved back 14 feet from its present location. r Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Fourteen Chairman Accordi ng to your survey information, Mr, Beardsley, you could do Mickelson: that without encroaching into the property? Mr. Beardsley: That's right. This would allow for an eight foot wide sidewalk and then five feet 1 eft over from the back of the sidewalk to the face of the building. Mr. Hanily: Then the only thing I woul d 1 ose would be a pi ece about 10 feet i n wi dth . Chairman Yes, and that would be at the project's expense. Mi ckelson: Mr. Hanily: One more question. On this widening process, is the City going to make sure that they leave access to my property while they are tearing up and widening the street? Mr. Beardsley: Yes, obviously the street is going to be in a state of construction which would not be the best aspect during that time. We will provide continuous access to traffic, except duri ng the times that we have to construct new curbs and sidewalks. You can't drive over those for several days. So, there will be a period of time when you will not be able to enter your property. But there wi 11 be continuous access along the street for vehicles, Mr. Hanily: If I cannot enter my property, I'm out of business. I have to use that parki ng 1 of for my cus tourers every day , Do you mean to tel 1 me that you just need a coupl e of days or a coupl e of weeks for all I know. But my customers coul dn't park i n the parking lot? Chairman Is there a method by which .. . Mi ckelson: Mr. Johnson: Fi rst of all , you have more than one access i n to your property, don't you? Mr. Hanily: The larger vehicles have to use the larger entrance. Mr. Johnson: I thi nk what we have done (i n the past) and it's a 1 i ttl e messy, but i is possible that the dri veway could be constructed by halves . We could construct half the driveway and then make that operable and construct the other half. That would mean a coordination problem, and I certainly understand your problem. Mr. Hanily: Can you guarantee that I can use my driveway into my property at all times during the construction? Mr, Johnson: I think that we can guarantee you that you will have access. I think that, --- I don't know exactly what the schedule of the contractor will be, but we'll meet with him prior to the start of the job and make sure that he understands that you are to have access at all times. Mr. Hanily: How do I know that? Will that be put in wri ti ng; that I am to have access? Mr. Johnson: I thi nk that can be put i n wri ti ng. I don't know all of the rami fi - cations right now. In fact, I don't have a feel for what the considerations are ri ght now. Mr. Hanily: It could be two weeks, I've seen some that are unbelievable. How can I confirm that I am going to have access to my building? Mr. Johnson: I think that when we acquire aright-of-way from you, that would be one of the things that you would insist on as a part of your '~41r ri gh t-of-way negotiations . Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Fifteen Mr. Hanily: When will all this begin? Mr. Johnson: Well, that'a hard to say. We've got to get a release in funding and be authori zed to proceed. We've got to get authori zation to proceed with the right-of-way, which wi 11 be the next step. The next step would actually be to get appraisals. The next step after that would be to start negotiating for the right-of-way. Mr. Beardsley, would you know what those dates would be? Comm. Coontz: Mr. Johnson, would there be no ti fi cation to him wi thi n a certai n number of days? Mr. Johnson: Prior to construction? Oh yes. In fact, we would give lead time to all the residents around that area as to when the project would begin, when we propose to be in their area and when the project would be completed. And a project of this nature probably would be a formal contract and we would contact at least a month in advance of the begi nni ng of construction. Comm. Coontz: But there's some leeway there, it wouldn't exactly be within a week. Mr. Johnson: No. One thing we have is that the contractor, --- we can dictate certain things that he does in his operation. But we can't dictate everything or else we either drive the price out of sigh t, --- or we, --- or we prohibit him from doing the job. But the specific thing that we're talking about here, we could include in our speci fi cations . Chairman Mr. Johnson, isn't it rather common practice that when you have a Mi cke]son: business that relies upon access to an arterial highway, that when you have a project you have to give them continued access as you described, and that would be true of all the businesses along the road? Mr. Johnson: Correct. Chairman That was an appropriate question and I hope that the others were Mickelson: listening because I'm sure that many of you had that same question. Mr. Hanily: I realize now that when I negotiate for right-of-way that I will require that I have access at all times. ~,. Mr. Johnson: The chances are that the State wi 11 be our ri ght-of-way negotiator on the project and, of course, they're bound by the State and Federal guidelines; the same guidelines that are required of all projects of this nature. Mr. Hanily: I just want to be sure that there will be access at all times. Mr. Johnson; We would make sure that that would be worked out. Mr. Hanily: Thank you. Chairman OK. Thank you, Mr. Hanily. I hope that that answered some of the Mickelson: questions that some of the other people have, so we don't have to repeat it all . But i t was certainly worth goi ng through that in general terms then, specifically far this property. Mr. Beardsley: The points that Mr. Hanily brought up were very valid. In the fact, with regard to the bui 1 di ngs that we are going to have to relocate, we will pay for relocation. Obviously, those businesses will be put out of commission for a period of time and that is a subject of negotiation which would be i n wri ti ng at the time that we acquired the property. Chairman OK. Thank you. Mickelson: t Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Sixteen Mr. Johnson: I think one thing we should mention, Bob, is that there is going to be some hardship and problems, but we are going to try to see that concerns such as Mr. Hanily's concern, --- that we keep these problems down to a minimum. When construction commences on the street, there's goi ng to be some hardships . Chairman OK. Anyone else now that wishes to speak? We have a gentleman Mickelson: coming up and then you're next. It might help if those who wish to speak would move forward and alternate at the microphones. Charles Mi 1 es : Charley Miles . My residence i s 1330 Dana Place, Orange and my business address is 722A West Chapman, Orange. First off, I want to assure you that I am not against the widening of Chapman Avenue. I am just curious as to how much ground will be taken between Lester Drive and Jewell Place, frontage wise. Question asked, which side of the street? Mr. Murphy: The north side of the street, this can be pointed out on the site map. Mr. Beardsley: ~ (Looking at map) Existing is 33 feet -we'll be widening to 40, so that would be a 7 foot acquisition. Mr. Miles: Thank you very much. Chairman Did you fill out one of our little green cards? Mickelson: Mr. Mi 1 es : Yes sir. Chairman Thank you. All right, next. This gentleman was next. Mickelson: Thomas Harms: Residence is 1931 E. Meats, Sp. 20, Orange, 92665. My name is Thomas Harms and I am concerned about the taco stand on the north- eas t corner of Ci trus and Chapman . The Ci ty wi 11 evidently have to demolish the building or move the building, one way or the other. The patio area and so forth will have to be moved too, I guess. I am wonderi ng what the Ci ty has i n mi nd of doing wi th that particular property . Mr. Johnson: First of all we will have appraisals prepared and those appraisals will talk about things like loss of business during the relocation,--- whether i t i s cheaper to demolish the bui 1 di ng and bui 1 d a new one, or buy i t outri gh t, or move i t, you see. And you wi 11 be involved i n some of those decisions, because the guidelines connected wi th appraising property and determi ni ng what is best from the standpoint of both the Ci ty and yours elf, i nvol ves a contact between the property owner and yourself. There would be a certain number of alternatives considered in the appraisal. We could probably say now we think it's best to take the building and physically move it back on the property and rearrange the parking, --- taking the right-of-way we need. Maybe that is the best way to do it, but the appraiser may say no. There's some severance damage here that precludes that from happening. It may be better to just demolish the property and take the property we need. So, there still are some alternatives that would be considered by the appraiser when he gets into the physical job of looking at the property. Mr. Harms: Say the building has to be moved. Who would draw up the plans for the new bui 1 di ng, --- say i f a new bui 1 di ng has to be bui 1 t? Planni ng Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Seventeen Mr. Johnson: Part of our relocation assistance program or severance damage or acquisition. They are separate functions. Within that, it's all called "right-of-way acquisition". They would be paid for as a part of the final arrival of payment or final appraisal. If plans were needed to bui 1 d a new buil di ng, that would be part of the appraisal. i~ Mr. Harms: OK, thank you. Mr. Beardsley: To clari fy that, i n any settl ement on any relocation of a bui 1 di ng or any architectural changes, we would prefer to negotiate that and let the owner provide his own reconstruction. Bill Kibbe: Bill Kibbe, 1631 Cris Avenue, Anaheim. I own the property at 1100 West Chapman. It is my understandi ng that the Ci ty is to provide a 10 foot landscaping setback. What percentage of the land, --- what percentage of the street will have this 10 foot landscape setback? Mr. Johnson: Frankly, you are talking about development of land on private property. The City wi 11 provi de, within the street right-of-way, the street trees that would be normal for a widening project or improvement project, --- wi thin street right-of-ways . We don't have a s tandard requirement, --- an area to be landscaped within dedicated right-of-way. The 10 foot strip that you are talking about is a requirement for development but its back on your property, not i n a street ri ght-of- way. Mr. Kibbe: OK. When these buildings are moved, like at 1010 W. Chapman, when that building has to be set back, will that be set back far enough so i t wi 11 have the 10 foot 1 andscapi ng area also? Mr. Johnson: Well, it depends on whether the building is already there or it is a proposal to bui 1 d a new bui 1 di ng. I woul d say we're going to go through on right-of-ways and take. If the take cuts into the establ ished 10 foot area that's al ready been establ ished, we are not going to replace that because chances are there isn't any way we can replace i t. Mr. Kibbe: OK. In other words, there won't be any landscaping along the bank or the Travelodge. Mr. Johnson: That's ri gh t. We would have to work within, we certainly are not going to remove the bui 1 di ng so as to acquire five feet between our sidewalk and the building for landscaping. Chairman Thank you Mr. Kibbe. Mickel son: Fred Barrera: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I am Fred Barrera, 905 W. Chapman, Orange. I am the owner of the property at Chapman and Batavia. I have a couple of concerns. I'd like to know what their plan is for my particular corner. My outside lighting, my canopy and my frontage. The other part of my question is I understood they were going to wi den from Clark to Mai n, which 1 eaves us from Clark to Lemon. I think that with al 1 the di sturbance and pl anni ng, we ought to complete it all the way or we're gonna be right back where we are now some years later. The one thing we would like to have is the crossing of the Santa Fe squared away, which we haven't been able to do. I th~;nk that i n time it's going to come back to haunt us. It's just a couple more blocks and I don't know the reason why i t was overlooked. Maybe because i t was downtown, the O1 d Towne plan, but I think you should have found the answer to that. I don't think it's too 1 ate to plug that into our planning here. I think if you go from east to west and from west to east on Chapman, you are goi ng to come to that narrowing of those two blocks i n there. Planni ng Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Eighteen I don't think there's any thing along there that's too expensive that we couldn't address ourselves to i t i n planni ng and pl ug i t into this Federal aid package. Now if the downtown plan or the O1 d Towne plan 1 eaves that out, then we can go over that. We can supersede that and go over that and plan i t and get i t done. i~ Chairman Thank you Mr. Barrera. Let's ask the Staff to answer your Mi ckelson: second question first. As I understand i t, the Ci ty Council voted to reduce the scope of the project. Is it feasible to add that back in at this time? Mr. Beardsley: I suppose i t is feasible. We have made formal request to 1 imi t the project to Clark and were subsequently approved. We can go back to square 1 again, which is possible. As far as the Staff is concerned, we thought the matter was closed and as far as Lemon Street is concerned, it was dead. Chairman Thank you. Mi ckelson: Mr. Barrera: I guess you and the other property owners will have an opportunity to express that at the Council heari ng as well . Mr. Johnson: Could I elaborate on that? We have, for the last year and half, been laboring, I think that's the word, with the Old Towne committee; trying to come up with viable concepts and al ternati ves , --- not jus t with traffic problems, but to the whole image of the downtown area. One of the things that we have talked about is the reduced street wi deni ng concept i n the, we call i t, "spoke streets" that surround the downtown, Old Towne area. That would mean a concept of widening for the development i n those areas that would maybe preclude sati sfyi ng the concepts of the FAU (Federal Aid to Urban Systems) program. We can only reduce the lane widths so small before they become virtually unacceptable from the standpoint of moving traffic. Not only that, but if the downtown core study, which has just been completed by a consul tant i n coordi nation wi th Bernie Dennis, i ndicates that maybe the widening of the "spoke streets " i s not quite as critical as we had once thought it was. So I think there's still a lot of answers that we have to come up with; (some) decisions that have to be made i n the Old Towne area. I think to reverse ours elves at this poi nt, --- I think we're 1 eadi ng back to square 1 . The funding on these FAU projects is running out. By the time we start reinventing the wheel a second time, the money may all be spent. We are just spinning our wheels. I would certainly, as a staff member, recommend that we stay with the limits that were envisioned by the Council a year and a half ago and proceed on that basis, rather than going back again. Chairman Thank you, Mr. Johnson. The first question that Mr. Barrera asked, Mickelson: what effect will the proposal have on his particular piece of property? Comm. Coontz: Maybe he would like to come back up to look at the map? We're not making him do that, but it might be easier to come up and look at the map whi 1 e he's talking about i t. Here's one ri ght here. It has more details. Mr. Beardsley: What I have here i n front of me i s a dupl i cate of what i s on the wall , except it's not colored up so you can see the 1 i nework a 1 i ttl e better. Basi cal ly, the two al ternati ves at the 1 ocation of Mr. Barrera's station -one alternative which i ncl udes the bus bay, which woul d be the worst case, would widen the street by 17 feet from th e existing property. That would be the most severe impact. It would take the southerly pump island and, (very quickly here-measuring) 15 feet of canopy over the building, 15 or 16 feet approximately. Then, if we do not put the bus bay in at that location, we will only require 7 feet of property. That will take approximately 7 feet of canopy, but wi 11 1 eave the pump island intact. One of the reasons that we're still vacillating on the location of the bus bay in this Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Nineteen block is that we prefer to get it as close to the intersection of Batavia as is possible, because if there is any route transfer of passengers, Batavia would be a logical point. The only probl em that we see is the abi 1 i ty of a bus coming north on Batavia to make a left turn and get into that bus bay. If that is not possible, then the most logical point would be probably (further) west and that would be i n front of the taco stand. Chairman All ri ght. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? All ri ght, Mickelson: Mr. Hanily. Would you pl ease come up so that we can get i t on tape? Mr. Hanily: I have one more questi on. I was wonderi ng when they are going to implement this improvement on West Chapman? Is there some definite time? I'd like to know just when they are going to start working on this project. Mr. Johnson: I think that Mr. Beardsley could perhaps answer this question. Mr. Beardsley: I would give a projected time schedule, which I think is optimistic, of February, 1983, as a projected date for beginning of construction. That is contingent on us getting Federal funding. We've got a partial appropriation at this point, but we do not have full funding yet. That is after we acquire the right-of-way, which will take at least a year; appraisals are involved and Federal approval of our appraisal reports. So, it's very time consuming. So, we're looking at virtually two more years at 1 eas t. Mr. Hanily: Thank you. Chairman Thank you. Last call. Anyone else to speak on this particular item? Mickelson: All right. We' 11 close the public input portion of this item and again remind us that we are asked to do three things : recommend a Fi ndi ng of No Significant Impact and fi 1 e a Negati ve Declaration with the State Secretary of Resources, and recommend Al ternate Number One which the Staff has outlined as a recommendation. Now, do the Commissioners have any comments at this time that they wish to make? Comm. Master Mr. Chairman... Chairman Excuse me just a minute. I want to say one more thing before I Mickel son: forget i t. We are requi red by the Federal regulations to wi thhol d our action for 10 days after this public meeting. I am anticipating that we will continue the item for action to our next regular meeti ng, which i s two weeks from tonight, i n accordance with those regulations ; perhaps take additional written information in during that 10 day period. If anybody wants to add to that, it would be proper now. Now, Commissioner Master. Comm. Master: Since Mr. Hanily has brought the subject up, I wish to address the potential problem of those assurances on these businesses. I move we should add to paragraph 2.c in the recommendations regarding the vehicle access to all of the on-going businesses affected. They should be addressed to assure no major disruption of thei r acti vi ti es . I think the point was wel 1 made and we should not address i t to Mr. Hanily's only. I am glad that he came forward. It applies to all the ongoing businesses that depend on arterial access for the success and Conti nuati on of thei r businesses . Chairman Staff, do you wish to respond to that recommendation? Mickelson: Mr. Beardsley: Hearing what Mr. Master said, I am concerned in that if we do have businesses such as the taco stand which we will have to move, they will indeed be disrupted. However, we can fi nancially reimburse them. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty u Comrr~. Master: I was thinking of the word "ongoing". Perhaps I s houl d have stated - excl udi ng those addressed i n A & B above. You've got some of these that will be extensively remodeled. You don't know what the extent of the remodeling will be. Mr. Beardsley: I thi nk that woul d be the answer, yes . Mr. Johnson: Mr. Master, we will be negotiating with almost every property owner. And I'm sure that one of the prime concerns that those property owners will have at the time that we negotiate is their access during construction. We can come to some agreement with them at that time; pertaining to, you know, those business activities duri ng the construction period. Comm. Master: My main concern and goal, however, is that they do have influence to the point that they are not about to be shut down and, consequently, perhaps, forced out of business because of income. Mr. Johnson: Right. As Mr. Beardsl ey said, i f we completely acquire the Mucho Taco, then tha is a moot point, but --- Comm. Master : We're referri ng to ongoing businesses . Mr. Johnson: We certainly understand that and we will do everything we can to satisfy those owners at the time of the negotiations as to what those problems will be and what we can or cannot do. Until we will look at each and every situation, I can't say defi ni tely, there's not goi ng to be a probl em. But, you know, for instance when we have two drives, I don't see a problem. We can close one and leave the other one open and vice versa when we get done with it. Comm. Master: I would leave it to you to deliver an arrangement that is satisfactory to each operation. Chairman Any other comments or questions., Commissioners? There are no Mickelson: questions. All right, now I would entertain a motion to continue this item to our next regular meeting. Comm. Coontz: May 28th? Chairman May 28th, is that correct? Mi ckelson: Comm. Coontz: I will move so, in order to give the public further opportunity to make written comments to the Commission and also to ask any questions they may have of the Staff. Comm. Ault: Second. Comm. Master: What was that date again? Mr. Murphy: May 18th. Chairman There is a motion and a second that we continue this item to May 18th Mickelson: for specific action and recommendation to the City Council. Under discussion of that motion, is it acceptable to the maker of that motion and the second, and also Commissioner Master that Staff prepare wordi ng along the 1 i nes of the third mi ti gati on measure that you suggested for our review and consideration at that time? Comm. Master: Thank you. I appreciate your suggestion. Comm. Coontz: It's acceptable. Commissioners Yes. Ault & Master: Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-One Chairman No further discussion on the motion? Call for the question. Mickel son: AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none POTION CARRIED TENTATIVE TRACT 11401, PRE-ZONE CHANGE 945, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1113-DONNELLEY: Request to pre-zone property from County R-1-10,000 to Ci ty R-1-8 and consideration of a 25 unit P1 anned Unit Development on the wes t side of Crawford Canyon Road, south of Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 694 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 consider a change of zone to the R-1-8 (Single-Family Residenti al , 8,000 square foot minimum 1 of size) District and the creation of a 25 unit equestrian-oriented planned unit development. The property contains 6.34 acres of land 1 ocated on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road, approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue (10161 Crawford Canyon Road). It is zoned County of Orange R-1-10,000 and contains a single-family residence, several farm out-buildings and a small orchard. The remainder of the property is in natural vegetation. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that Crawford Canyon Road is a secondary arterial with an ultimate width of 80 feet. Emergency access would be taken vi a a 40 foot wide i ngress-egress easement to the south of the property. The applicant proposes to develop a 25-unit equestrian oriented planned unit development on the site and requests a conditional use permit and tentati ve tract map approval to accomplish this . Pre-zoning to R-1-8,000 is also requested prior to annexation to the City of Orange. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained the details of the proposal as being twelve 2-bedroom and thirteen 3-bedroom units, fora total of 25, with a proposed density of 3.94 du/ac. 56 enclosed parking spaces and 43 open spaces are proposed, for-a total of 99, or 3.96 per unit, maki ng a coverage of 40%. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that access to the property is taken via Crawford Canyon Road to a perimeter drive. The units are clustered in five groups of 4-6 dwellings around the inside of this perimeter drive. Each unit has either a two or three car garage. Recreation faci 1 i ti es i ncl ude a clubhouse, a swimming pool and tenni s court, as wel 1 as stable faci 1 i ti es and a riding ring . The Interdepartmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: a. A turnaround space needs to be provided in front of the emergency gate in order for cars who enter the driveway by mistake to return to Crawford Canyon Road. b. The entry drive and front block wall should be designed so as to provide adequate site distance on Crawford Canyon Road. c. A sidewalk should be provided along Crawford Canyon Road. d. In that parking along pri vate drives such as this one is a continuing problem for emergency vehicles, measures should be implemented to provide for parking without blocking the roadway, such as: Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-Two 1. Parallel parking bays to be provided along the outside of the drive. 2. A marked centerline on the roadway. 3. Provision of automatic garage door openers to encourage use of the garages . 4. A provision in the CC&Rs prohibiting tandem parking i n front of the garages . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Revi ew Board to fi 1 e Negative Decl aration 694. The clustering of residences in this low density development allows for the provision of equestrian and other recreational amenities as well as the retention of a semi-rural atmosphere. Staff feels that the development i s a fi tti ng transition between the duplex development in the City of Orange to the north and the large lot county development to the south. One aspect of the provision of equestrian facilities should be noted. Because of the condominium nature of this subdivision the code requirement that equestrian . face 1 i t~ es are not al 1 owed within 50 feet of a rest Bence other than that of the property owner does not apply here. Both the ri di ng ring and stables are 1 ocated within 50 feet of residences but are considered to all be located upon jointly-owned property under the control of the homeowners association. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract 11401, Pre-Zone Change 945 and Conditional Use Permit 1113 for the reasons that: 1 . All applicable developments s tandards have been complied wi th . 2. The proposal is compatible with surrounding zoning and land use. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. 24 condi tions are suggested i n addi ti on to the conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Mr. Soo-Hoo also pointed out that the East Orange Committee has reviewed this proposal and finds it acceptable. Commissioner Ault questioned the 6 foot masonry wall which is mentioned in the Staff Report. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that most of the property already has an existing wall . There would not be much more wall to be built. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Mr. William Stampfl, 215 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission, stati ng that he had no addi tional comments to make but was available for questions . Commissioner Ault asked if he agreed that the masonry wall was not necessary and the appl icant explained their si tuati on wi th regard to the hi 11 i n the background and the 1 andscapi ng which they are pl anni ng. They propose a block wall on the front of the project, on Crawford Canyon Road and also on the south, but because of the hill behind the property, they do not feel a wall is necessary there. Commissioner Master asked the Staff if there was an ordinance requiring a block wall. Mr. Murphy replied that the Commission could vary that requirement on this particular project, explaining that particularly at the southwest edge of the property, except for security purposes, the wall would not screen the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-Three V Commissioner Master asked what type of fencing would go along Crawford Canyon Road and Mr. Stampfl replied that they are planning a picket or wrought iron type of fence. Mike Pomar, residing on Irvine Blvd., Tustin, addressed the Commission on behalf of the property owners on top of the south- west portion of the hill . He spoke with regard to the proposed block wall fence wondering if there would be some kind of retaining wal 1 to protect the slope. 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 694. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Tentative Tract 11401, Pre-Zone Change 945 and Conditional Use Permit 1113, subject to the 24 conditions as set forth i n the Staff Report, but el i mi nati ng Condition #21, which reads: 21 . That a 6-foot view obscuring masonry wal l as measured from the high grade side of the property line, be constructed along the perimeter property 1 i nes , said wal 1 to be reduced to 42 inches within any required setback areas. and also subject to the conditions as s tated i n the Engi neer's Plan Check Sheet. Commissioner Ault explained that he was concerned about the cost of brick walls being constructed and contributing to the high cost of housing. Commissioner Master asked for clarification from Staff with regard to the Police Department concern for security i f a wal 1 i s not called for. Mr. Murphy replied that he could not answer this question for ~ the Police Department, but he would think that the owner would want to provide security i n hi s proposed development. The Commissioners asked Commissioner Ault if he would want to substitute another condi ti on for #21 with regard to a wall . Upon ques ti oni ng Mr. Stampfl , he stated that h e would be wanting to put up some kind of wal l for security purposes . Commissioner Ault fel t that this should be a voluntary thing, not required, therefore he did not wish to substi tute another condition. Chairman Mickelson spoke with regard to Condition #4 on the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, asking for an amendment to read: "...the gate of the entrance designed for the review and approval of the traffic engineers prior to submittal of the tentative tract to the City Council." Commissioner Ault accepted this amendment to be incorporated in his motion. Chairman Mickelson then explained the amendment to Mr. Stampfl. C± Planning Commission Minutes May 4 , 19 81 Page Twenty-Four AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1114, VARIANCE 1639 - A & C PROPERTIES: Request to develop an office bui 1 di ng i n the industrial zone with deviation from code standards for site size, bui 1 di ng height, building setbacks, number of compact parking spaces and landscaping requirements for property located on the south side of LaVeta Avenue at Lemon Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 695 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Chairman Mickelson handed the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Coontz explaining that this is his client and there would be a conflict of interest if he were to conduct this portion of the meeting. Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stati ng that this is a request to allow the construction of a 2-story office bui 1 di ng . A condi ti onal use permit i s requi red to allow office use in an industrial zone. A varia nce is requested to allow: 1. office use in an industrial zone on a parcel of less than 5 acres; 2. a building height of over 20 feet within 50 feet of a residential zone; 3, reduction of required front and side yard setback areas; 4. a greater percentage of compact car stalls than are permitted by Code; 5. reduction of parking 1 of 1 andscapi ng requi red by Code. He poi nted out that the property contai ns .07 acre of land located on the south side of LaVeta Avenue at the termi nus of Lemon Street (302 W. LaVeta Avenue) . The property is zoned M-1 and is presently vacant. A fertilizer warehousing facility was located on the site until destroyed by fire in 1980. The site has been cleared of all buildings but is completely paved. Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit and variance to allow construction of a 2-story building i n an industrial zone on a parcel of fewer than 5 acres . A vari ance is requested from the development standard of the M-1 zone, which includes bui 1 di ng hei ght, front and sideyard setbacks . A reduction in parking lot landscaping and a grea ter percentage of compact car parking stalls than is allowed by Code is also requested. The applicant proposes to construct a 32 foot tall building at the front of the property . A ten foot setback i s provi ded along LaVeta Avenue and along the easterly property line. Building height in the M-1 zone is 1 imi ted to 20 feet wi thin 50 feet of any resi dential zone. A building setback of twenty feet is required on parcels fronting on an arterial street. Aside yard setback of twenty feet is re- quired adjacent to a residential zone. Access to the property is taken from LaVeta Avenue at the west of the bui 1 di ng. Parking is provided along the westerly property 1 i ne and at the rear of the building. 52 parking stalls are provided as required by Code for the 13,014 square feet of office space. 38 percent of the stalls are compact car size, whereas 20 percent compact stalls are permitted by Code. Four percent of the parking lot area is landscaped in lieu of the 10 percent required by Code. The Interdepartmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and comments that: Planning Commission Mi nutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-Five 1. The trash enclosure shown on the plans is not in conformance with City of Orange standards . 2. A Santa Ana Valley Irrigation District line should be shown on the olans. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the applicant has submitted a site plan today showi ng 1 andscapi ng which alleviates the Staff's concerns regarding landscaping. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 695. Rather than requesting a zone change to Office-Professional at this time, the applicant has chosen to file for a conditional use permit to allow office use in the existing industrial zone. The applicant has agreed to a condi tion requi ri ng that the zone change application be filed prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff feels that office use of the subject property is compatible wi th the nei ghbori ng institutional and mul ti pl e-family properti es, much more so than the industrial use for which the property is zoned . The proposal more than adequately meets the required setbacks of the Office-Professional zone and exceeds the height 1 imi tation of that zone by only 2 feet. In that a suggested condition of approval for this application would be a zone change to Office-Professional, this variance seems to be adequately justi fi ed. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1114 and Variance 1639 wi th the condi ti on that prior to the issuance of a bui 1 di ng permit the applicant fi 1 e wi th the Department of Planning and Development Services on application for rezoning the subject property from M-1 to 0-P (Office-Professional) District and that such application be accompanied by all requi red fi 1 i ng fees . Condi ti on #2 states that the landscaping setback be revised from 2 to 5 feet at the westerly side of the property to provide landscaping and a buffer between the parking lot and the multiple family residences along the westerly property 1 i ne. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public heari ng. Katherine Thompson, 134 S. Glassell, Orange, representing A & C Properties, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She explained that they concur wi th all condi tions set forth by the Staff. With regard to Item #2, they propose that they take the condition with the idea that the Design Review Board have the ultimate decision. Mr. Stachyra, 573 Fashion Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stati ng that he is the owner of the property next to the project. He stated that his main objection is to the huge trash enclosure next to his building. He felt that this could be moved from the southwest to the southeast corner of the property. He also pointed out that they would prefer a wrought iron see-through fence rather than a bl ock wall . He explai ned that there is a probl em wi th juvenil e delinquents in this area and asee-through fence would help prevent destruction of the property. He also would like to have an Environ- mental Impact Report rather than a Negative Declaration. ~, Vice-Chairman Coontz explai ned that Staff could give further detai 1 s in this regard. Mr. Murphy then explained that the Environmental Impact Report could be required at any time during the process of Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-Six the application. He stated that Staff was not aware of any environmental problem with this project that may be addressed through the environmental impact process. Vice-Chairman Coontz further explained that on al l appl i cati ons coming to the Ci ty of Orange, through the interdepartmental study, Staff is given the opportunity to look at the project in question and discover any problems there might be to deal with. In this case, Staff has already looked this project over and sees no problem. Mr. Stachyra also objected to this project because of the additional traffic problems which will be incurred in that area. He suggested that the property be condemned to public domain and made into a park. Vice-Chairman Coontz explained that the traffic problem was addressed by another departmental staff who found this project to be acceptable to the City . Mr. Stachyra expressed further objections with regard to esthetics, s tati ng that the bui 1 di ng i s too close to the street as opposed to the residential structures being set back from the street. Mr. Johnson explained that the street was widened on the south side a few years ago. The street to the north side will be widened in the future, which will make a difference in the setback. Mr. Stachyra then suggested that if the project is approved that a fire entrance should be provided to his community, where the trash enclosure is now shown on the map. Vice-Chairman Coontz asked for comments by Staff for relocation of the trash enclosure. Mr. Murphy replied that the southeast corner would be ideal if that drive were opened up to the church property to the east. If i t i s not opened up i t woul d be difficult for trash collectors to collect the trash. Commissioner Master explained that putting up a block wall would mitigate car 1 i ghts shining on other properties . Jack Selman, 144 Orange Street, Orange, the architect for this project, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained o the Commission the reason why the trash enclosure is placed where it is on the site map. If it were to be moved to the southeast corner, they would 1 ose some of their parki ng space and also i t woul d be difficult for trash to be collected in that corner. Speaking to the setback, he explained that the setback of 10 feet is only to the central portion of the second floor. Most of the ground floor is set 16 feet back with an additional 8 foot right- of-way. It is not certain if there will be a sidewalk in that area. If not, there would be 24 feet of landscaping. He pointed out that the scale of the project is being kept in a residential fashion so that it is softened along the street and balances with the residential area. The parking lot must be left open for office users and also i t gives the police the opportunity to drive i n the parking area and shine their lights around, so as to deter vandalism. Commissioner Ault asked how they felt about the block wall vs. a link fence. It was explained that a block wal l was requested by the church . There being no one else to speak for or gainst this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-Seven Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 695. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz explained the street amending requirements for landscapi ng to be approved by the Design Review Board. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to approve Condi tional Use Permit 1114, and Variance 1639, subject to Staff's recommendati ons and i ncl udi ng the Design Review Board provision for Item #2. Commissioner Master asked that moving the trash enclosure be in= cluded in the motion. There was discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Moti on was amended to read: To consider movi ng the trash enclosure i f i t can be moved with out destroyi ng the plan. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 10653, VARIANCE 1642 - CHEATUM: Request to consider an eight lot residential subdivision with less than required lot depth on the east side of Shaffer Street, north of Collins Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 539 was previously accepted and no further Environmental Review is required.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented thi s application to the Commission, s tati ng that this is a request to consider an eight-lot subdivison. A variance is requested for lot depths of less than 100 feet. The property contains 1.61 acres of land and is located on the east side of Shaffer Street, approximately 446 feet north of the centerline of Collins Avenue. The site presently contains a single family residence and is zoned R-1-6. The property is surrounded by single family residences i n the R-1-6 District. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that Tentative Tract 10653 was originally approved to permit creation of six lots on the property on February 27, 1979. At that time, i n response to concern expressed by area residents, a condition was imposed with approval which required re-zoning of this subject property to R-1-6-A and final approval of development plans by the City Council. The applicant has neither. sought the mandatory re-zoning nor prepared development plans. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the petitioner of this application (who is the same as the original application) now requests approval of Revised Tentative Tract 10653 to allow creation of eight lots on the site. In addition, a variance is sought to allow lot depths of less than 100 feet. The proposal shows a public 50-foot wide cul-de-sac street to be developed to city standards. This street section was approved previously for the six lot proposal. Planning Commission Minutes May 4 , 19 81 Page Twenty-Eight Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for Low Densi ty Residential (2-6 units/acre) use. The density proposed is 4.97 units/acre. Staff has reviewed the proposal and generally felt that the site could not adequately accommodate eight lots, particularly in view of the concerns expressed previously by neighbors regarding the density proposed. Staff feels that both the previous recommendation of the Planning Commission as wel 1 as the action of the Counci 1 relating to thi s property i ndi Gated a concern to, as much as possible, 1 imi t the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area. The applicant's proposal would appear to b e inconsistent with the desires of the City i n that i t woul d increase the density as wel 1 as create additional pressures for two-story development by develop- ment of smaller lots. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant's request be denied and that he be re-advised to fulfill the conditions of the original approval , i ncl udi ng rezoni ng of the site to R-1-6-A. In response to this concern, the applicant has stated a willingness to 1 i mi t development of the 1 ots to two-stori es and 24 feet. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that there are four alternative actions avail- able to the Commission: 1. Deny the applicant's request which would verify the previous approval of six 1 ots with the one-story 1 imi tation. 2. Grant the request for eight lots but reimpose the one-story limi tation. 3 . Grant the request for ei gh t 1 ots and 1 i mi t development to a specific measured height (applicant desires 24 feet) , 4. Grant the request for ei ght lots and not 1 imi t height whatsoever. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposal merits approval (i n any form) , the condi ti ons of the Engineer's P1 an Check Sheet are recommended with approval of the Tentative Tract Map. ~* Chairman Mickel son opened the public hearing. Floyd Higgi ns, of Don Greek & Associ ates, representi ng the applicant, addressed the Commission i n favor of this application. He pointed out that going back to 1979, they were dealing wi th 9 and 10% money and now they are dealing with 19%. fle is aware that there are people who are concerned about what is built in their neighborhood. He felt that when R-1-6-A zoning was imposed it should have been imposed on the entire neighborhood instead of just this piece of property. He told the Commission that he would like to show why R-1-6 is the proper zoning. There are large lots in the area. There is a mix of building styles. The developer wishes to develop something compatible with what i s i n the nei ghborhood. Mr. Hi c~gi ns pointed out that the existing density is 2-6 du/ac and their proposed density is 4.9. It will take 8 lots to make this a viable project. He explained that all of the lots have proper square footage for the existing zoni ng. The facts of life in this matter are that this is an R-1-6 zone and the project is within the requirements. Mr. Higgins then asked that Mr. Fenmore, building and developer of the project, to explain his project to the Commission. He pointed out that land is getting dearer all the time and they must make the best use of what i s avai 1 abl e. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Twenty-Nine [. Barton Fenmore, 17652 Limetree, Tustin, addressed the Commission, explaining that the project wi 11 be compati b 1 e wi th the area . Buildings will have cedar shake roofs and natural wood stained siding. They are prepared to install at 5 foot intervals Italian cypress treet along the perimeter of the project to screen it from the nei gh bors . They would also provide maintenance access to the neighbors to the east so that homeowners would be assured perpetually the maintenance of these trees for their privacy. He explained that they will be able to provide more privacy by bui 1 di ng two-story residences rather than one-story residences on these lots. He pointed out that their architects will be instructed to conform the houses to the trees which are already i n the area and the houses wi 11 be 1 imi ted to 24 feet. Mr. Fenmore then show ed a rendering, pointing out clipped roof lines whi ch he explained directs the eyes down toward the ground. They propose building eight quality homes on this property in full esthetic conformance to the surrounding area. George Shipman, 6085 Falling Tree Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, California, addressed the Commission, explaining that he owns a business in the City of Orange. He spoke in favor of the application, stating that he wishes to move back into this area and likes: what he sees in this project. Tom Martin, 994 N. Cleveland, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He wished to analyze how he sees the bui 1 di ngs which are proposed to be bui 1 t. Smal 1 er 1 ots and two-story houses will make a very congested area. He pointed out that the house in the area are on fairly large lots. He stated that he would like to see the property developed but does not wish to see two-story homes. Warren Yeaw, 1056 N. Shaffer, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that his concern is density and traffic, together with on-street parking. He explained that most of the neighbors in this area avoid North Shaffer because of all of the on-street parking on both sides of the street. If this application s granted, there are three other parcels on the block that would probably ask for the same variance. '~ Chairman Mickelson clarified that this is a request for a tentative tract and variance. A zone change is not the technical request. It is merely a technicality. Alice Evans, 1025 N. Shaffer, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. Her concern was with density and two-story homes. She has lived in this area for some time and at the time they built their home they were required to build aone-story house. She felt that this is unfortunate to have to live with a change like this. She would be sorry to see smaller lots and two- story houses. Chairman Mickelson asked her about their requirement to build a one-story house. Commissioner Coontz asked if these were custom homes and the answer was in the affirmative. Jack Selman explained that there are three large lots that have existing homes on them. They are nice homes now but probably when they are sold it will be economically feasible to subdivide and develop more. The entire nature of this area needs to remain as it is. He stated that drainage was mentioned and he wanted further clarification on this question. Chairman Mickelson explained this in further detail. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Thirty r~ Mr. Higgins explained that the water sheets to the west. Mr. Selman also felt that the cypress trees will only accentuate the tallness of the structures. Jim Gil l eson, 495 E. Collins, Orange, addressed the Commission i n opposition to this application. He has lived in this area for 25 years and strongly opposes this 8 unit subdivision. There is enough traffic on this corner now and no more is needed. John Adams, 1027 Elizabeth Place, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He is concerned about the density and wondered about the square footage of the houses to be placed on these lots. He is also concerned about lot lines and setbacks. Mrs. Robert Campbell expressed opposition to this project. She is opposed to this application because i t wi 11 invade her privacy unl ess it remains single-story housing. Alfred Brandt, 976 N. Cleveland, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stati ng that he felt that i f thi s had been done two years ago interest woul d have been 1 ower and they could have built on six lots. Will they postpone this until they can build on 12 lots? He pointed out that a motion had been passed by this Commission not to build two-story homes. He wished to see that ruling remain i n effect. Gi nny El 1 i ott addressed the Commission i n o stati ng that she owns property coveri ng the the south side of the property i n question. property and she is concerned about pri vacy property. Parking will also be a concern. provide proper privacy. ~posi tion to this application, entire east-west border down Three lots will abut her and the quality of the A six-foot wall would not Mr. Fenmore spoke i n rebuttal , first addressing postage stamp lots . He explained that the zoning is no more than what is there for that property . Density and traffic i s negl i gi bl e wi th ei gh t homes . The parking problem wi 11 also be negligible wi th 20 foot setbacks on the property. He thought that prohibition of two-story dwellings does not apply to this property. With regard to the Italian cypress trees which were suggested, they would be willing to cooperate with the homeowners in that area on the landscaping. He explained that the houses will range from 2500 to 3000 square feet. Setbacks will conform to ordi nances of the City of Ornage. With regard to inflation and interest rates going up, he feels that he builds quality homes and his intention is to bui 1 d homes and not speculate on property. Judy Schroeder, 1041 Elizabeth, Orange., asked for the side and back setbacks. Mr. Murphy explained that they were 20 feet for the rear and 5 feet for the side, wi th 10 feet on exterior side yards . Encroach- ment on rear yards can go down as low as 10 feet. Mr. Hi ggi ns then spoke i n rebuttal , expl ai ni ng that he hoped that the neighbors understand that the proposed project will be built according to the law. Existing zoning is R-1-6 and they are building in accord- ance wi th the zoni ng 1 aws. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. It was explained that a motion had been made previously to put the "A" suffix on the property. Mr. Murphy explained that the Ci ty Council in their approval of the tract required that the property be rezoned to the "A" suffix prior to the approval of the tract map. Staff was wai ti ng to see i f the property would come to fruition before they made a study on the surrounding properties. Planni ng Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Thirty-One Commissioner Master discussed this "A" suffix motion with Mr. Murphy. He asked what the status is of R-1-6 zoning. Chairman Mickelson stated that there is a catch 22 situation here. The previous tract was approved wi th a recommendation that the "A" suffix be imposed. However, the applicant did not follow through on that application. Now this i s a new application. The "A" s uffi x of the previous tract could not be imposed unless the project went through . Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend denial of Revised Tentative Tract 10653, Variance 1642 for the reasons that: 1. Proposed tract is not compatible with surrounding single story, 1 arge 1 of residential dwel 1 i ngs . Six-lot, single story subdivision approved in February, 1979 was a compromise plan and, although not totally acceptable to residents of the area, was viewed as being a reasonable plan. u Chairman Mickelson stated that he could not support the motion be- cause he does not have sympathy with arguments which have been brought up. Basically, the proposal is in keeping with the zone and the requirements of the zone. He did not see the justification of restrictions being imposed that are not being imposed on the nei ghbori ng 1 ots . He would like to have seen the city push the zone change. Commissioner Coontz explained that this is one of the Orange where custom homes are backed up to tract lots. what was done on this before was right and proper and go back on our commitment. few places in She felt that ~e should not Commissioner Ault asked if one of the reasons for denial was because this is a request for two-story buildings. The answer was that it was because of increased number of lots and two-story buildings. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Ault, Master NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissi over Master felt that this catch 22 situation syould be remedied. An "A" suffix should be set up on this zoning now rather than waiting until a project is approved on this lot. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to the fact that this was imposed before. Commissioners Mickelson and h1aster suggested to the neighbors that they should mak e a reques t that the City Counci 1 initiate a zone change on the area. Their other option is to come in to the Staff and make a recommendation that this is the area where they want a zone change. Commissioner Coontz felt that the best course to take would be to make a recommendation to the Ci ty Counci 1 . Commissioner Hart stated that the neighbors could also suggest a higher caliber zoning of lots, perhaps 10,000 feet. He pointed out that this will take a lot of effort from a large amount of people, probably 50% of the people in the neighborhood. IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: CONSIDERATION OF MOTION RELATING TO MAINTENANCE OF HORSE TRAILS IN THE CITY. ~, A memo was given to the Commission suggesting that -they hold off making any final deci Sion on horse trails unti 1 the committee recom- mendation is prepared. The horse trail committee is planning to recommend to the City Counci 1 that a long .term agreement be formed between the Orange Park Acres Association and the City to do the day to day maintenance of the horse trails , wi th occasional rain damage bei ng repaired by the Ci ty . Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1981 Page Thirty-Two ~~J By unanimous consent, i t was decided to wait on this i tem unti 1 the committee report comes to them for review . DISCUSSION OF COMPACT CAR PARKING ORDINANCE. Jere Murphy explained that this was a study that was discussed by the Commission at their last study session, and the Commission expressed a wish to take formal action at a regular meeting rather than at a study session. He then repeated the recommendation as fol 1 ows : 1 . Expansion of compact car stalls to retail , commercial and industrial uses be i ncorporated by ordi Hance. 2. That amount of stalls be increased from 20 to 40 %. io 3. That the compact stalls be striped and the aisles should be shortened, as determined by the traffic engineers , The Commission agreed with all three of those proposals and now should make recommendation to the City Council in this regard, Chairman Mickelson expanded further on this that if they make a recommendation on this there would have to be a public hearing when i t goes to the City Counci 1 , There was further discussion in this regard among the Commissioners. Commissioner Coontz pointed out there is some problem with regard to the placement of compact car stalls in the parking lots. She pointed out that people get angry about where compact car stalls are located. Mr. Murphy then explained to the Commission just how the parking stalls are set up. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend to the City Council that we consider such an ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Mickelso n, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p,m, The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, May 18, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. ~J ' EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 4, 1981 . The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mi ckel son at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart that this meeting adjourn at 11:15 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m, Monday, May 18, 1981 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 P1 anni ng Commission held on Monday, May 4, 1981 . Dated this 5th day of May, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. J re P, Murphy, c, ty F'I ~~ner ~ ~e~retary to the Planning Commission of the` Ci t of Orange. 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 P1 anni ng Commission of the Ci ty of Orange; that the regular meeti ng of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on May 4, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified i n the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on May 5, 19 81, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspi cuous place on or near the door of the place at which sai d meeti ng of May 4, 1981 was held.