Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/19/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION City of Orange May 19, 1980 Orange, California Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissione rs Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Lon Cahi 11 , Fire Prevention Bureau; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 5. 1980: Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes as transmitted. ,!'" AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson 'i~ NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 923 - ANAHEIM HILLS, INC.: Request to pre-zone property from County A-1 and Anaheim RSA-43000 to City R-0, R-1-6, RD-6, RM-7, and C-1 for property located generally east of proposed Meats Avenue and south of the Peralta Hills Ridgeline. (Note: Environmental Impact Report 401 was previously accepted and no further Environmental Review is required.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application for the Staff, pointing out that this is a request to pre-zone 223.689 acres of land, generally located east of proposed Meats Avenue and south of the Peralta Hills Ridgeline to R-0 (Recreation-Open Space), PI (Public Institution), R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size), RD-6 (Residential Duplex, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size), RM-7 (Residential Multiple Family, 7,000 square foot minimum lot size), and C-1 (Commercial) Districts. This property is presently in the City of Anaheim and in unincorporated area zoned RSA-43000 (S C) and County A-1, respectively. The site is largely vacant at the present time. The applicant is requesting pre-zoning of the property to R-0, R-1-6, RD-6, RM-7 and C-l. No development is proposed at this time, this application is being filed at this time in order to facilitate annex- ation. The portion which is now within the City of Anaheim is being included in this request with the concurrence of the Anaheim City Council. The proposed zones appear to be generally consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. A detailed analysis for compliance is not possible at this time since zoning boundaries will not be firmly established until development plans are formulated. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff has reviewed the general proposal and finds it acceptable. However, because of the lack of specificity relating to proposed zoning boundaries and since the proposal is intended solely to facilitate annexation at this time, Staff recommends that the site be pre-zoned A-1 with an intent to rezone to the various requested zones upon presentation of development proposals and firm zoning boundaries. Approval of A-1 zone is recommended for two reasons: ~ A { Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Two 1. That the proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the City's Adopted General Plan. 2. That the proposed pre-zoning will facilitate annexation of the site into the City of Orange. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Dan Salceda, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, spoke in favor of the application, as a representative of Anaheim Hills, Inc. He stated that they are in support of the Staff Report. (1) They were in compliance with the General Plan and (2) regarding the Staff's recommendation to pre-zone A-1, they agree that it is not appropriate to zone it anything but A-1 until more information will be provided. This is generally what will be considered for the 200+ acres. There being no one else to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Coontz stated that she had requested that the Staff prepare a cost revenue analysis to cover that entire area and she read a statement that had been prepared to be included in the motion to be sent to the City Council. She pointed out that there has been concern on the part of the Council regarding cost/benefits of future annex- ations. This had been part of the statement of the new Mayor. Commissioner Mickelson agreed that the Commission should be reminding the Council of action taken previously. He wondered if they should allow Mr. Salceda to see a copy of the statement and respond to it before the vote was taken. Mr. Salceda again spoke to the Commission, stating that at the time more specific tentative tract maps are provided, they will also pro- vide to the Council a fiscal impact report which would be related to the developments or projects. He saw no problem with this. Moved by Chairman Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend to City Council pre-zoning to A-1 for the property in question with intent to rezone to various requested zones for the reasons as stated by Staff. And further, that the following statement be included: On January 17, 1979 the Council instructed the Staff, as part of approval of the General Plan of Southridge, to develop an estimate of capital facilities require d as well as determining the cost thereof in relation to the benefits derived, prior to the approval and implementation of development. We understand that the Staff is in the process of developing a cost revenue model, monitoring taxation legislation, and evaluating budget impacts of new development for the City of Orange. Recognizing that the precise infra-structure and capital improve- ments can only be determined through more specific plans, the Commission recommends that the Staff apply the cost revenue model currently being prepared to the entire Southridge annexation proposal, including an investigation of methods of maintaining capital facilities through special assessment districts or other methods that would prevent a drain on the general fund through long time maintenance costs or deficits, and further, that the Council consider discussions with the property owner regarding the results ~ of the cost revenue analysis. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Th ree Commissioner Mickelson wondered if there was a time frame for the Staff to accomplish this. Chairman Coontz replied that she thought it was fairly soon. There was further discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, h1aster, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-757, ZONE CHANGE 927, VARIANCE 1577- CENTURY AMERICAN CORPORATION: Request to change zoning from R-1-6 to RD-6 and to create two parcels which would contain less than the required frontage for property located on the east side of Solana Drive, south of Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 582, was previously accepted and no further Environmental R-view is required.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application for the Staff, stating that the applicant is requesting only to subdivide the lot into two parcels which would include two units each. The applicant intends to accompany the proposed Zone Change and Variance with a lot split creating two duplex properties. The applicant proposes to refurbish and re-landscape the existing buildings in order to create a more attractive appearance to their condominium project to be developed immediately east and south of the subject property. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it acceptable since development standards of the R-D-6 Zone can be met with the sole exception of lot frontage. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 927 because the applicant's proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning and is consistent with the City of Orange General Plan as amended on November 20, 1979. Staff also recommends approval of Variance 1577 for the reasons as stated in the the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing, Tom Hribar, representing Century American Corporation, 1440 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, spoke in favor of the application. He explained to the Commission that the primary motivation in tieing up the property some months ago was that they own acreage which adjoins it. They plan to start a general home development, with Solana Drive being the main access to the development. They want to tie the landscaping of the existing two units to what they are proposing to do on the adjoining property. They wish to widen the street leading into the proposed development. There being no one else to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Zone Change 927 and Variance 1577, for reasons stated by Staff in the Staff Report; and for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 80-757, subject to Engineer's Plan Check List. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Four ZONE CHANGE 928 - SWENSON: Request to change zoning from R-1-6 to RD-6 for property located on the west side of Orange Street, north of Walnut Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 631 has been prepared in lieu of an Environ- mental Impact Report.) Mr. Soo-Hoo presented this application for the Staff. He explaine d that the subject property consists of a rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately .14 acre of land located on the west side of Orange Street approximately 130 feet north of the centerline of Walnut Avenue (520 North Orange Street). The property is zoned R-1-6 and contains a single family residence. The area is generally devel oped with various residential uses and i s zoned R-1-6 , RD-6 , and RM-7. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a zone change from R-1-6 to R-D-6 in order to build an additional dwelling unit apartment at the rear of the property. He pointed out that the Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan designates this area as suitable for low density (2-6 units/acre) residential development. The applicant is proposing to build an apartment on the rear of the property with the required garages located under that dwelling unit. The garages will have access via the 14 foot wide alley located at the re ar property line. The applicant's plans show a 24 foot turning radius into the garage. However, he has agreed to decrease the depth of his proposed apart- ment by 1 foot, complying with the City of Orange ordinance requiring a 25 foot turning radius entering the garages. Staff re commendsthat the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 631. Staff also recommends that Zone Change 928 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The applicant proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning and is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan; (2) The applicant's proposal meets all the development standards for the R-D-6 Zone as stated in the City of Orange Zoning Ordinance. Since there is such a hodgepodge of zoning in this area, containing both single family dwellings and duplexes, Staff feels there is justifi- cation for zoning to R-D-6. Staff also feels that because the area is so diversely zoned, the Planning Commission may wish to direct the Staff to study this area for possible comprehensive zoning. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Lynden G. Swenson, 520 N. Orange, Orange, the applicant in this matter, addressed the Planning Commission in favor of this application. He explained that he will be building another dwelling on his property, plus a four-car garage and space for parallel parking. Chloe Jones King, 594 N. Orange, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She stated that she was worried about someone coming and taking away her home and converting the entire area to duplexes and multiple dwellings. She has lived in her home for 60 years and she is afraid that with all of the duplexes being built in the area that perhaps they will take away her home. Chairman Coontz explained that zoning the entire block was merely a suggestion by the Staff. It is not a fact yet. Commissioner Ault explained that noone can do anything with her property unless she wishes it. Noone can take it away from her. There being noone else to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Five n ~J Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend acceptance of the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration No. 631. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION .CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 928, for reasons as outlined by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart that Staff make a study of the block in question. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson suggested that a letter be sent to Mrs. King, explaining the action taken in this matter. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1038, VARIANCE 1578 - MURRIL: Request to allow a second story unit in the RCD overlay district and to allow modification of the parking requirement for property located on the north side of Almond Avenue, west of Harwood Street. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review . ) Mr. Murphy presented this application for the Staff, explaining that this property is a rectangular shaped parcel containing approximately .15 acre of land located on the north side of Almond Avenue ap- proximately 233 feet west of the centerline of Harwood Street. It is located behind St. John's Lutheran School. Subject property is zoned R-D-6 (RCD) - Residential duplex with a 6,000 square foot lot size minimum in the Residential Combining District Overlay Zone and contains a single family residence. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit in order to construct a two-story dwelling in the (.RCD) Overlay Zone and a variance to allow a reduction in required covered parking in the R-D-6 Zone from 3 enclosed parking spaces to 2 enclosed spaces, This variance would not result in a reduction in overall space since four spaces are proposed per code requirements. The applicant is requesting permission to waive enclosure of one space. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the applicant proposes to construct a second unit on the subject property by constructing a single bedroom dwelling unit over two single car garages at the rear of the property. The existing garage will be removed. Access to the rear of the property will be via an existing driveway located at the western side of the property. The two garages will be located at a 90 degree angle to one another, one opening to the west and one to the south, both sharing a common driveway. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1038 because it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning and is compatible with the Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan. Also, other properties in the immediate vicinity have been developed in a manner similar to that requested by the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Si x Staff recommends approval of Variance 1578 for the reasons stated in the Staff Report. Mr. Murphy stated that he thought the builder had done a good job orienting the windows so that they would not look out on adjoining homes. Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether this plan fits into the Old Towne architecture in that area. Mr. Soo-Hoo and Mr. Murphy explained that this would be in the rear of the property and would not be seen from the street. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Betty Murril, 10741 Crawford Canyon Road, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, as the applicant in this matter. She stated that she is building this dwelling for herself, as she lives alone and wishes to build a smaller home for herself. She is well aware of the Old Towne concept, but felt that her home would be almost invisible from the street. She felt that it would not be offensive to the eye. She also felt that it will blend in well with the existing homes. Only the garage entry would show from the front. She said she knew that the ideal thing would be to build something very Victorian, but it would be too expensive to build. There being no one else to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing, afte r acknowledging receipt of a letter of opposition sent to the Commission by Helen Thayer. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve Conditional Use Permit 1038 and Variance 1578, for reasons specified by Staff and subject to the conditions recommended by the Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart asked for clarification of the overlay zone. He wondered if this was part of the Old Towne. It was explained that it wasn't part of that, because it has been on the books for a long time. RCD was created many years ago as an effort to review two story structures, primarily within the southeast quadrant of the city. Chairman Coontz explained that there have been about th ree of these before the Commission . Commissioner Mickelson complimented the owner on the excellent design of this building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1039, VARIANCE 1579 - GARDEN TOWER WEST: Request to allow an 11-story residential development in the C-1 zone and to allow fewer off-street parking spaces than required, as well as allow units which do not contain required floor area on the north side of Garden Grove Boulevard, east of Lewis Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 632 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application for the Staff. He stated that this property contains approximately 1.8 acres of land and is located east of Lewis Street and north of Garden Grove Boulevard. It is zoned C-1 and is presently vacant. The existing Garden Tower is east of this parcel, being a 14 story, 210 unit building; there are apartments in the RM-7 zone to the north; residences in the city of Garden Grove to the south; a convenience market in the C-1 zone to the southwest; and a school in the city of Garden Grove to the west. ~~ Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Seven The applicant proposes to develop an 7]-story, 123 unit senior citizen housing facility to be sponsored by the same organization that sponsored the Community Garden Tower (to the east). A Conditional Use Permit is requested in order to allow residential development in the C-1 zone as well as to allow a high rise project. In addition, a variance is requested to allow dwelling units which contain 612 square feet rather than the minimum 650 square feet required by code. This parking proposal translates into 62 spaces for the facility (1 space per 2 units) and 19 spaces in an attempt to compensate for the prior deficiency of the original Community Towers project. The applicant proposes to provide parking in an approximate ratio of one space per 1.5 units. As has been widely realized, the existing Community Towers has experienced severe parking shortages from its inception - approximately 40-45 spaces. The developer attributes this problem to the fact that only 40% of the development is occupied by persons who receive rent subsidies with the balance occupied by persons paying market rents . Obvi ously, persons i n th i s l atter category are not expected to reduce driving significantly. A General Plan Amendment 3-79 (Item "0") was adopted which changed the land use designation of this site to major commercial-high rise residential. The Staff recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 636 be accepted. They further recommended that applicant's request to permit a residential use in the C-1 Zone and their request to allow a high rise development is acceptable for two reasons: (1) The proposal will compliment an existing similar facility, the high rise residential nature of which has proven to be compatible with surrounding land use and zoning; and (2) the proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. With regard to the Staff's recommendation on Variance 1579: because of the specialized nature of these units, Staff feels that the variation from minimum unit size is justified. Of much greater concern, however, is the parking request. The applicant has stated to Staff that all pros- pective tenants will receive rental subsidies, thereby reducing the liklihood of automobile ownership. Also, the parking ratio has been increased from approximately one space per four units for the original development to one space per two units for the current proposal . It is hoped that this will be adequate to both serve the needs of the proposal under consideration and compensate for deficiencies of the forme r development. In addition, the management company for the existing facility will attempt to gain approval from HUD to develop an additional 13 spaces on its site. Staff also noted that the .proposed parking solution assumes implementa- tion of a number of actions which. are beyond the direct control of the City of Orange. Obviously the automobile ownership status of future tenants is a variable which cannot be limited by the City, only the administrators of the project Staff therefore recommended approval of the variance because the special nature of the units renders reduced unit sizes acceptable; and limitation of tenancy of the proposed development to seniors who qualify for federal rental subsidies will increase the liklihood of non-automobile ownership by future residents. Mr. Murphy stated that the following conditions are recommended with approval of the variance: Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Eight 1. That all future tenants of the subject facility shall be eligible for federal rental subsidy for seniors per HUD Guidelines. 2. That thirteen (13) additional parking spaces shall be developed on the site abutting the subject property to the east. 3. That this application shall be reviewed in two years in order to insure that the proposed parking plan is adequate, at which time modifications may be imposed by the City should a parking deficiency occur. In addition, 21 conditions were recommended with approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the first 5 being special conditions and the other 16 being standard conditions. The five special conditions are as follows: That ten parking spaces in proximity to the building shall be restricted for visitor parking only. 2. A perimeter wall, a minimum of 5 feet in height, constructed of materials which can be "seen through". Materials and design must have the approval of the Design Review Board and Police Department. 3. A minimum 5 foot fence constructed of "see through" material placed around the patios of the four ground floor units. Materials and design must have the approval of the Design Review Board and Police Department. 4. The ground floor west exit door next to the dwelling units must have panic hardware with a local alarm that sounds when persons exit the door. This door is not to be used informally. 5. Closed circuit television system must be installed to monitor the parking lot with the monitor and screen located in the reception area. The general surroundings have produced a certain amount of burglaries based on the past year's records in this area. Commissioner Mickelson questioned the three conditions for the variance. He asked if Condition #1 regarding future tenants being eligible for federal rent subsidy was i n conf7 i ct with the policy of only 20 %. He wasn't sure if this applied to senior citizens - only to Section 8. Mr. Murphy replied that the 20% relates only to family housing. He also wondered if the applicant had agreed to the 13 additional spaces on the existing project. Mr. Murphy replied that they had agreed to this. He explained that there are about 40 cars still parking on the street. Commissioner Mickelson wondered in Condition #3 what the Commission will do if there is not enough parking in two years. Mr. Murphy explained where the places are that they could use for parking, if needed. It was explained that the shortage is in the original building. The problem is not so much with the applicant, but with the URban Housing & Development people. Commissioner Master questioned the many cars parked in that area now. CommissionerHart agreed with this comment. Commissioner Coontz wondered why there is a reason to wait to convert the unused grass area. Why not take care of this problem right now? Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. L' Planning Commission Minutes May 19 , 1980 Page Nine Conrad Burton, 10666 Ohio Avenue, Los Angeles, applicant in this matter, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that the members of Garden Grove Community Church have made money available to hold the adjacent land for a second facility. They see it as the only way to have the additional parking they need. They cannot hold this land much longer and it should be developed. They are very sensitive to the parking problem that is involved. The present Tower was built under guidelines that had always worked for the builder before. But now the formula has been blown. He explained that they have never had a parking problem before in a building of this nature, of which they have built several. H e went on to point out that their applications both for the existing and the new towers will include requests as to whether the future tenant will need parking facilities. They feel strongly that the problem can be handled. The present facility is making parking requirements one of the criteria for getting in. The project can be rented to people of very low to moderate income without placing the project in financial jeopardy. They have made every effort to describe in the application the nature of the facility and are prepared to answer any questions. He pointed out that it is difficult to get units for the elderly - there is such a large need. The need is very intense and these 123 units are desperately needed in this community. Re- garding the existing parking, they have already rearranged and have added two spaces and are working with HUD to develop additional spaces in the green area. He explained that they got a refund about a year ago from the Water Department and there is about $4,000 in the kitty to use to develop additional parking spaces. They hope to add several in the green area and a few in front, for a total of about 13 additional spaces. Land next door has been made available without cost to the tenants. He explained to the Commission that as the project and the residents get older, there is a thin-out of automobiles. They plan to do their best to control who is coming in. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if they are in agreement with the Staff conditions. Mr. Burton replied that they are in agreement with most of them, except for a couple. Their big concern is cost. They want to do everything they can to bring as much security as they can in for the tenants. They have hired a guard service in the past two months and thievery has been greatly reduced. Chairman Coontz asked if this has been included in the subsidy. Applicant answered that this can be built into the rent formula and paid for by the facility. Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether applicants coming in are scrutinized for their parking needs, The answer was yes. The question was raised as to what percentage of residents in the tower were former Orange residents and what is the plan for applications in the future regarding Orange residents. Mr. Burton replied that they have talked at great length about the need to be sensitive to the needs of the seniors of Orange and the immediate area and they wish to cooperate as much as possible with the city. They cannot be exclusionary, but they do have the opporutnity to work with the local residents. He explained the difference between what the first tower was able to do when it was built and now. This was one of the first senior units with one bedroom instead of efficiency units. The complete renting of the first one was instantaneous. They intend to give weighted concern to the Orange residents. Leroy Doty, 4315 Cerritos Avenue, Long Beach, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He is also working with this develop- ment and thinks this is an excellent project and a perfect compliment to the existing facility. It will allow approximately 180 senior citizens to live with dignity in their later years. This project will be approximately $6,000,000. It has all of the amenities expected in Planning Commission Minutes May 19 , 1980 Page Ten this kind of a project and he wanted to add his support to Mr. Burton's statement that they will make every effort to make it possible for residents of the city of Orange to live there. They would solicit the help of the municipal agencies to make names and lists available of people who would qualify to live in this project. They feel that they can live with the conditions recommended by the Staff and appreciate their help. Commissioner Mickelson questioned parking condition #3, asking if they are still short of parking spaces in two years must they go back through HUD to reduce the green space and make it up into parking space, and would they approve it. Mr. Doty replied that HUD is reasonable in most occasions. If they have a problem, they would work in a team approach to take care of the problem. He did not anticipate any problem though. They think they can handle this administratively in the original screening of prospective applications. If they had anticipated this problem in the first unit, they would have been more careful in the screening of the applications. They are now working with residents and their families to encourage those who are not using their automobiles to get rid of them and relieve the problem. It is easier to control this in the beginning as a condition than it is to get them to get rid of their automobile after they are in. They are working on this problem, however, and feel they can handle it. Richard Klunk, 2672 Oak Knoll, Los Alamitos, Vice-President of Plum Tree Gardens Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he has counted 40 cars outside of the complex. There is definitely a parking problem. He thought that perhaps if these people had compact cars it would make a difference. They have no problem with the people parking outside now, but there could be a problem down the road. He wondered about a fence in the alley between the apartments of this project. It was explained to him that there will be a "see through" block wall. Mr. Klunk felt that if there is a closed gate the youngsters would not vandalize the property. He explained that the children come out into the alley and someday a child wi 11 be hurt or ki 11 ed. Mr. Murphy explained that another condition could be added regarding a gate being added. A 22nd condition could make it very clear that the entrance in question will be gated. Joey Brown, 13011 Lewis, Garden Grove, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he lived at the intersection of Garden Grove and Lewis across from Hoagy's Corner. He is not in opposition to housing for the elderly, but he was con- cerned about the increased traffic, which is very heavy now in the mornings and evenings. He was also worried that the city of Garden Grove may be forced at a later date, because of the parking problem, to mark abroad area as a no parking tow-away zone. If this happens, no one will be able to park next to his house when he has guests. Even if the seniors get rid of their cars, there will be more people visiting them and parking in the area. He felt that the parking problem is a large one. He said that he has talked to the city of Garden Grove recently because there have been rumors of a change in zoning, but he was assured that there will be no change. He felt that the parcel of land for this 11-story unit is not large enough for what they propose to do. Chairman Coontz asked him if there is a spill- over now and he replied that there is none now, but there will be when the next unit is built. He explained that the elderly will not be a problem, but their visitors will create a problem. lJ f r Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1980 Page Eleven Commissioner Mickelson asked if there was a frontage road in front of his house. He answered yes. Mr. Doty stated that they would have no objection to the 22nd condition being added for a full gated closure on the alley. Chairman Coontz asked about the statement that if it was predeter- mined that at a future date if there was a parking problem, they would do something with the green area. Why not do this the first time instead of going through HUD? Mr. Burton explained that all of these subsidized units are very carefully monitored by HUD and they must work very closely with them. They would rather have green area than blacktop, but it would be available if needed for parking. Chairman Coontz wondered if they could go ahead automatically when the parking spaces were needed and Mr. Burton replied that they could not - they must indicate that they have the money to do this, etc. He assured the Commission that they want the parking problem solved and they will solve it by simply monitoring who they rent to. They are sure they can make this work at this time. The Chairman closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. Commissioner Mickelson felt they should make it a finding that they have changed their administrative procedure for screening the tenants and it will be administrated more effectively in this building than in the original building. Commissioner Master moved, seconded by Commissioner Ault to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 636. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve Conditional Use Permit 1039 and Variance 1579 with the findings made by Staff and the additional finding that applicant has stipulated that they have a new administrative program for screening tenants, specifically aimed at reducing the need for off-street parking in both the old facility and the proposed facility. Condition 22 is to be added that a gate be .added to close the entrance to the alley. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Coontz adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. to reconvene at 7:30 p;m, on Monday, June 2, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers , 300 East Chapman, Orange , California. ,. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) AFFIDAVID OF POSTING ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange, that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange held on ~-1ay 19, 1980, said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on May 20, 1980 at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of May 19, 1980 was held. ~J u EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 19, 1980. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, P1ickelson ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Ault that this meeting adjourn at 9:05 p.m. on Monday, Ma,y 19, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 2, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, May 19, 1980. Dated this 20th day of May, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Jere Murphy, City Manner ~ Secretary the Tanning Commission of the City of Qra e.