Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/18/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California May 18, 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 Panning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner, Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 4, 1981 The minutes from the meeting of May 4, 1981 not being finished, approval will be made at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1007 - SMITH: Originally approved on January 7, 1980 to allow partial conversion of an existi ng residence into office at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Harwood Street, Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve a request for extension of time of one year for Condi tional Use Permit 100 7. Chairman Mickelson asked if this motion is out of order since no time limit was requested. The answer was no. Commissioner Coontz fel t that since time was not speci fi ed, should this not be an i n- definite time limit, since it was her understanding that the building permit has been allowed and only the parking is to be resol ved. Commissioner Ault felt that i f everyone should go under a definite time period, this request should be a definite time period also. Commissioner Coontz thought that two years would be a better time extension limit. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson pointed out that Staff has suggested that Item #5 on the Agenda, Amendment 1-81 - City of Orange, be acted upon before hearing Item #1, since the two are related. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to move Item #5 under New Heari ngs to the next item on the Agenda. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW H EARINGS: AMENDMENT 1-81 - CITY OF ORANGE: Amendment to the Orange Municipal Code relating to planned unit developments. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Three Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend acceptance of the Staff Report on proposed Amendment 1-81 to the Ci ty of Orange Municipal Code, raising permi tted density and permi tti ng condominium projects , and wi th the further recommenda- tion to the City Council that a study should be made on the required parking i n the P1 anned Unit Development Ordinance to bring them into 1 i ne with today's requirements . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson explai ned to the audi ence that the Planned Uni t Development Ordi Hance was adopted back i n 1970 which granted certai n density bonuses to encourage the development of planned residential developments as opposed to standard subdivisions. He pointed out that later on certain pressures came about through political in- fl uences and bui 1 di ng i ndus tri es to amend that ordi Hance and take the density bonus out. He explained that i t is now felt that the density bonus should be put back i n. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-752, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1090, VARIANCE 1631-DULEBOH N: Request to allow creation of a 3 uni t Planned Unit Development wi th greater density than permitted by code at the southeast corner of Collins Avenue and Lemon Street. (Note: Negati ve Declaration 676 has been prepared for this project.) (Continued from meeting of April 20, 1981.) Jere Murphy presented this application before the Commission, explaining that this was originally proposed as an apartment project and, as they went along, the applicants decided to propose condominium units. The proposal is to create three lots, each containing one of the common-wall uni is . The units are two-story, partially over garages. He explai ned that the approval of the density i n the planned uni t development zone thereby conforms with the density as proposed for this project, which is just slightly less than 21.8 units per acre. H e pointed out that the other area that needed deviation under the variance was that of parking, in that there are only five parking spaces where 7 are required, according to the Planned Unit Develop- ment Ordinance. The other question raised by the of the planned unit developments, an upcomi ng project at two uni is . units are located are substandard that the project does not provide homeowners association. proposal is wi th regard to the size this one proposed at three uni is and The size of the lots on which the under today's code. He explai ned for any recreati onal ameni ties or Mr. Murphy stated that if the Commission decides to approve this project, there are engineering conditions, as well as some 13 con- di tions stated i n the Staff Report. Staff recommends modifying Condition #10, changing it to read, "a uniform fence or wall to be constructed along the east property line, subject to approval of the Design Review Board." Chai rman Mickelson opened the public hearing. James Dul ebohn, 1901 E. Lemon Hei ghts Drive, Santa Ana, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he wished to clarify one comment in the Staff Report with regard to parki ng. He pointed out that they intend to ins tall automatic garage door openers on all three garages. They, therefore, expect tenants Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Four to park i n thei r garages . Wi th regard to recreati onal ameni ties not being provi ded, philosophically, they feel that the best amenity they can offer i s to provi de a pri vate yard to do whatever the tenant wishes to do there. Commissioner Hart wondered if the applicant saw the need fora home- owners association i n this case. Mr. Dulebohn saw no need for this and stated that recent state regulations state that a planned community of this size does not requi re a homeowners association. However, they plan i n thei r CC&Rs to give the opportunity to have one if the tenants wish this. Mr. Minshew was asked if he thought that a homeowners association would be required and he answered no. He thought this could be covered i n the CC&Rs. If there was no common ownership between these three parcels, it would not be necessary to have an association. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, Chairman Mickelson closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson stated his concern that if this is approved as submitted, the Commission is approving three substandard lots. Practi cal ly speaking, i n order to get the benefits of owning your own uni t, they must take on added responsibi 1 i ty of putti ng on the same kind of paint on their houses, etc. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that this meets the density requirements but does not meet the parking requi rements . Commissioner Ault felt that this is a standard situation of a person trying to improve a piece of property in accordance with ordinances passed 15 years ago which are not valid today. There was discussion among the Commissioners with regard to parking facilities. Proved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the fi ndi ngs of the Environmental Revi ew Board to fi 1 e Negative Declaration 676. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTICN CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 81-752, Conditional Use Permit 1090 and Variance 1631, subject to Conditions 1 through 13 with the change in Condition #10, suggested by Staff. Commissioner Coontz questioned with regard to the variance as to whether this was a hardship situation. She does not consider this to be a hardshi p si nce the applicant has chosen to use this design through his own free choice. She felt that we are still working on what the ordi nances i n the Ci ty of Orange are at this time . She felt that she could not vote for this for those reasons. Commissioner Master pointed out that the applicant has not exceeded coverage on the lot yet. Commissioner Hart felt there could be a minor design change which could remedy the situation. Chairman Mickelson asked the applicant how he felt about providing two more parking spaces. Mr. Dulebohn stated that it would be almost impossible to provide those two spaces. He explained that they had Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Five dedi Gated 10 feet to the ci ty when they designed this project. It was pointed out that this is standard procedure. Commissioner Hart explained how these parking spaces could be provided but Mr. Dulebohn felt that this is a good plan as is. He did not agree with the Commissioners on the parking situation. He stated that he coul d probably pick up two spaces but did not feel that this wouldn't be restrictive. It woul dn't help the plan ei ther. Commissioner Hart pointed out that it would help the Commission as far as the hardship situation is concerned. Chairman Mickelson suggested that by the configuration of the lots after dedication of 10 feet, this could make a hardship situation. Chairman Mickelson requested that the Tentative Parcel Map be voted upon separately. Mr. Murphy suggested separating the motion into three parts. Chairman Mickelson asked Commissioner Ault to change his motion to one item. The moti on then cal 1 ed for approval of Variance 1631 . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Ault NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION FAILED Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 81-752. [:' Commissioner Hart stated that the argument still is that these are three substandard lots. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding spl i tti ng this parcel and sel 1 i ng the 1 ots separately, making them substandard. AYES: Commissioner Ault NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION FAILED Mr. Murphy pointed out that these are final actions and the Planning Commission actions will require that an appeal be filed to the City Council if further action is desired. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1090 to allow the planned unit development, allowing a single lot with air space between the three uni ts. He felt that the idea is right, but the way i t is being done is wrong. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Aul t, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy felt that there should be additional motions of denial made on the other two applications . He explained that at this point there is a lack of action by the Commission on the Variance and Tentative Parcel Map. Chairman Mickelson told h1r. Dulebohn what they have done. They like what he wants to do on this parcel, but it needs to be done differently. He explained that Mr. Dulebohn could accept thei r vote, or appeal to the City Counci 1 . Another alternative would be to ask for a continuance and come back with a revised pl an ~ Mr. Dulebohn asked for the option of a Conti nuance i n order to submit a revised plan. However, he could not see what the problem is for parking. If he bui 1 t a tripl ex the parki ng would be acceptable, but i f he puts up three separate uni ts, the parking is inadequate. He asked for a continuance of four weeks. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Six Moved by Chairman Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to continue Tentative Parcel Map 81-752 and Variance 1631 for four weeks to June 15, 1981, to al 1 ow the applicant to revise his plans . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED 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. (Conti Hued from meeti ng of May 4, 1981 .) Chairman Mickelson explained that he would not open the public hearing unless there was someone in the audience who wished to speak to this issue. The public hearing was not opened because there was no one to speak to the issue. The following minutes are transcribed verbatim, as required by Federal and State regulations. Chairman We will not open the public hearing. We will just consider the Mickelson: action as recommended by Staff. Norvin, do you work for th e Federal government part time? Mr. Lanz: Most of the time. This is almost full. time. Chairman How could you come up with almost four pages in motions? Mickelson: P1r. Lanz: You asked for i t. Comm. Coontz: Well , most of it's EIR and they are known to be 1 ong, so what we've got, actually, is a clarification. Chairman I believe, Commissioners, that the concern that was expressed by our Mickelson: body last time has been incorporated into this recommendation and I suppose it would be well to read this into the record if someone is goi ng to make a motion. But, since there's no one i n the audience who has a concern wi th this , do you think we can just, --- Comm. Hart: Can't we just submit the document and do this by reference? Chairman Submit the document -unless you have any changes --- whoever wants Mi ckelson: to make the motion, i f you have any chances to the document, you can incl ude those. I think we're ready for the moti on. Comm. Master: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we recommend to the City Council that they make a recommendation to the Federal Administration that City Council will, whoops, I' m getting lost in the wording here. Essentially, I'm recommending that the recommendation as prepared by Staff be forwarded to the City Council for action and passing on to the Federal government. Chairman Is there a second to that? Mi ckelson: Comm. Coontz: We aren't saying that we are approving of the action. We're recommending --- Comm: Master: --- That the Ci ty Counci 1 --- Comm. Coontz: You're recommending approval of the action to the City Council. Comm: Master: Yes. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Seven Comm. Coontz: Yes, that wording is a 1 i ttl e better. Chairman This is a case where we recommend that they recommend. (Laughter) Nickelson: OK. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Let's vote . AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 947-HANNON: Request for Pre-zoni ng from County R-1 to Ci ty R-1-10 for property located on the wouthwest corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Meads Avenue (20242 and 20252 Santiago Canyon Road) . (Note: Negative Declaration 697 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this i s a reques t to al l ow a change of zone to R-1-10 (Si ngl e Family 10 ,000 Square Feet Minimum Lot Si ze) district prior to annexation to the City of Orange. The property contains .229 acre and is located on the southwest corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Meads Avenue. It contains two single family residences and is zoned County of Orange R-l. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant requests pre-zoning to the R-1-10 zone and ul timate annexation to the City of Orange i n accordance with an agreement entered into with the Ci ty to provide sewer service to the site. He pointed out that the applicant i s compl eti ng con- structi on of a second single family residence on two parcels . The building permit was secured from the County. It was pointed out that since physical improvement of the site is essentially completed, consi derati on should be restricted to zoni ng. Mr. Soo-Hoo s tated that nei ther parcel contai ns adequate 1 of area (5442 sq . ft. and 4586 sq. ft.) to conform to that required in the R-1-10 zone. However, i t should be noted that the zoni ng would not conform to the 1 eas t restrictive single family zone (R-1-fi) ei ther. Pre-zoning to R-1-10 was selected since i t reflects Ci ty zoning of the surrounding area as wel 1 as the size of 1 arger 1 ots wi thin this unincorporated area . The major concern indicated by Staff was voiced by the Traffic Engineer who felt that an on-site vehicular turn around was needed because of the site's frontage on a primary arterial. An inspection of the subject property i ndi Gated that such a turn around has been provided. It is recommended that the fi ndi ngs of the Environmental Revi ew Board to file Negative Declaration 697 be accepted. Staff recommends that Pre-zone Change 947 be approved for the reasons that the proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding zoning and land use; that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan; and that adoption of this pre-zoni ng woul d faci 1 i tate annexation of the site into the City. Chairman Nickelson opened the public hearing. Richard Hannon, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. There bei ng no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negati ve Declaration 697. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Eigh t AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Pre-zone Change 947, for the reasons as shown i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson wondered if there was away to pre-zone a larger parcel at one time. He thought this would save Staff a lot of costs for the City. Mr. Murphy replied that they have thought about pre- zoni ng the entire Orange Park Acres area . He explained that there are 6 or 7 different directions that annexations are proceeding in the Orange Park Acres area. The entire area should be pre-zoned because they have no idea where the pressure is going to be . Chairman Mickelson thought that perhaps a meeting should be set up with the chairman of the Orange Park Acres Committee i n order to discuss this. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-758, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1119-QUIST: Request to allow conversion of a retail center into condominiums on the west side of Tustin Street, south of Collins Avenue (830-850 North Tustin Street.) (Note: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review.) Mr. Soo-Hoo presented this application before the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow the conversion of approximately 8641.5 square feet of retail space into commercial condominiums. The property contains .62 acres of land located on the west side of Tustin Street approximately 380 feet south of the centerline of Col 1 i ns Avenue (830-850 North Tustin Street) . The property i s zoned C-1 and contains four retail units, totaling approximately 8641.5 square feet. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map and conditional use permit i n order to convert the building i nto commerci al condominiums . No improvements to the property are proposed other than those that would be required as conditions of approval. The property is one of a continuous strip of commercial buildings which take access to a joint parking lot from Tustin Street. Access to a smaller rear parking lot is also taken via Shattuck Street. This property was developed in 1963 and does not meet present code requirements for parking, setbacks or land- scaping. The signage for the stores was also erected prior to 1976 and, therefore, i n some cases , does not conform to the current sign ordinance. This is especially true of the swimming pool slide on top of one of the stores. A small storage building behind one of the stores was i ss ued a bui 1 di ng permit i n 1968. Staff feels that the proposed change from rental to ownership status for these buildings will not significantly change or impact the area. Some upgrading of the property is felt to be reasonable as a part of the conversion and condi ti ons relating to reciprocal access and parking easements, security requirements, and the provision of a trash enclosure and additional landscaping are recommended. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 81-758 and Conditional Use Permit 1119 for the reasons that the proposal is compatible with surrounding zoning and 1 and use; and that the proposal i s consistent with the City 's adopted General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Nine Approval is recommended with the seven conditions set forth in the Staff Report, together with the conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that there is one late development on this property. The Building Division has notified the Staff that the shed which exists at the back of one of the bui 1 di ngs may not be in conformance with the buildings requirements and has asked for an eighth condition to require that the north wall of that shed be protected by a fire wall. The applicant is aware of this concern and has agreed to this condition. Chairman Mickelson asked what would prevent this from being a land subdivision since there are no standards for commercial lots? Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant is proposing air space. Chairman Mickelson pointed out, however, that the applicant could conceivably subdivide those all the way out to the street and all the way back to Shattuck Place and not be i n violation of the code. Mr. Soo-Hoo agreed with this statement, but pointed out that the applicant is proposing air space which would keep the parking area in common. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Bud Quist, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, agreeing with the conditions recommended by Staff . 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 recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1119 and Tentative Parcel Map 81-758, subject to the seven conditions as 1 fisted i n the Staff Report, plus Condition #8, stating that the north wall of the shed behind the bui 1 di ng be protected by a fire wal 1 ; together with the revised Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES : Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners P1i ckelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master none none MOTION CARRIED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-81, ITEM "A", ZONE CHANGE 948, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-759, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1120-SCOTT: Request for change of land use designation from low density residential to office-professional, change of zoning from R-1-7 to 0-P, and consideratio n of an office condominium project at the northeast corner of Orange-Olive Road and Heim Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 698 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that thi s i s a request to amend the Land Use E1 ement of the General Plan changi ng the designation from Low Density (2-6 uni is/acre) Residential to Office-Professional District. To allow the construction of a one-story, 4240 square foot office condominium. The property contains .34 acres of land located on the north east corner of Orange-Olive Road and Heim Avenue (533 Heim Avenue) . The property is zoned R-1-7 ~ and contains asingle-family residence and a small orchard. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes to construct a one- story office condominium on the property. A general plan amendment and zone change are requested for Office-Professional use of the property. A tentative parcel map and conditional use permit are Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Ten required to allow an airspace subdivision for condominium purposes. The applicant proposes to construct aone-story office building taki ng access to Orange-Olive Road. 17 parki ng spaces are provided for the 4240 square feet of office space as required by Code, three of which would be compact spaces. All development standards of the 0-P zone have been complied with. The applicant proposes to construct a Spanish-style bui 1 di ng of residential character. S creeni ng of the parking lot with berms and landscaping is also proposed. Land Use El ement of the General Plan designates the area for 1 ow density (2-6 units per acre) residential development. The Interdepartmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and voiced a concern that an office use at this 1 ocation could change the residential character of the area. It was noted, however, that the low residential profile of the proposal mitigated this concern to a certain degree. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 698. Generally, the area is predominantly a residential one and approval of this request could begin a transition to non-residential uses (the tel ephone company faci 1 i ty i s zoned R-1 and exists as a publ is use). Thus, the impact of an office development as well as possible future offi ce proposals on the area must be considered. Such things as noise, traffic, street parking, etc. may be of concern. On the other hand, Mr. Murphy pointed out, the applicant has done much, on this specific project, to mitigate Staff's concerns. A single s tory structure which res embl es a res i dence i s proposed ; no traffic access is sought on Heim Avenue; and the size of the project would appear to harmoni ze wi th the residential area i n that traffic and parking related problems are not anticipated. In this case it appears that the applicant has found an acceptable solution to a probl em where the permitted use i s not economi cal ly feasible to develop, but where the predominant use is a highly sensitive one which must be protected. Staff therefore recommends approval of the applicant's request for the reason that the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. Staff further recommends that the intent to rezone procedure be i mposed with approval to insure that the development i s compati bl e with residential uses . The conditions of the Engi neer's Plan Check Sheet are recommended with this approval , as are the 20 condi tions listed i n the Staff Report. Chairman f~lickelson opened the public hearing. The applicant, Doug Scott, 23A S. Pasadena, Tustin, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he concurred with the suggesti ons of the Planning Department and agreed wi th the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public heari ng. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 698. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 19 81 Page Eleven Chairman Mickelson commented that the Staff had done a very fine job on this project and evaluated very succinctly. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2-81, Item "A" for the reason that it is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend approval of Zone Change 948, Tentative Parcel Map 81-759 and Condi tional Use Permit 11 20, with the Intent to Rezone condi tion, and subject to the 20 conditions as set forth i n the Staff Report; also to include the six requirements on the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. [] AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickel son declared a confl i ct of i merest on the next item on the Agenda and with drew from parti ci pati ng on the item. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-760, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1121, VARIANCE 1643-OBP CONY, INC. Request to allow conversion of an existing office/industrial develop- ment to condominiums i n the i ndustrial zone on a site containing less than 5 acres and with a greater percentage of compact parking spaces than is allowed by code for property on the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Poplar Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 699 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented thi that this is a request to industrial development to of an additional one-story is required for office us of air-space condominiums. use i n an i ndus tri al zone to allow a greater percen by code. s appl ication to the Commission, stati ng allow the conversion of an existing office/ office condominiums, including the addition office building. A conditional use permit e i n the industrial zone and for the creati on A variance is requested to allow office on a parcel of fewer than ffive acres and tage of compact car stalls than is permitted Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the property contains 4.1 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Poplar Street (1745 Orangewood Avenue). The property is zoned M-1 and contains an office-industrial development. He pointed out that the applicant proposes to convert the development to office condomi ni ums and to add an addi tional 3824 square foot office building. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story office building at the rear of the property and to convert the two existing industrial buildings to office use. The open drainage channel to the east of the property will be covered and paved to provide additional parking for the site. A total of 227 parking spaces is provided for the 56,637 square feet of office space as required by Code. It was further pointed out that on May 19, 1975, Conditional Use Permit 719 was approved by the Planning Commission to allow the construction of an integrated industrial-office complex upon the property. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1981 Page Twelve The Inter-Departmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it technically acceptable. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for industrial development. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Decl arati on 699 . io S taff feels that the proposal is acceptable and recommends approval of Tentati ve Parcel Map 81-760, Conditional Use Permit 11 21 and Variance 1643 for the reasons that al l applicable development standards have been complied with; that the proposal is compatible with surrounding zoni ng and land use; that the proposal is consistent with the Ci ty's adopted General Plan; that the site is irregular i n size and shape; and that the configuration and location of existing structures dictate the parking design and number of compact parking spaces . Approval is recommended, subject to the conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, together with the 15 conditions as set forth i n the Staff Report. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that a recommendation to the City Council will be needed for this application. Vice-Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Gerald Lewis, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he agreed with the Staff Report as given and agreed also to the 15 conditions which have been suggested. He asked for the Commission's approval of this project. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negati ve Decl arati on 699 . AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 81-760, Conditional Use Permit 1121 and Vari ance 1643, subject to the 15 condi ti ons as set forth in the Staff REport and the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. L AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be at 7:30 p.m, on Monday, June 1, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 18, 1981. 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 Moved by Chairman Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart that this meeti ng adjourn at 9:00 p.m. on Monday, May 18, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 2, 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 Planning Commission held on Monday, May 18, 1981. Dated this 19th day of May, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. ~e e N. Murphy, c;i t~Y N ~ anne ~ Secretary to the Planning Commission f the City of Orange v STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Punning Commission of the City of Orange was held on May 18, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on May 19, 1981 , at the hour of 2:00 p.m. I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of May 18, 1981 was held. Je e P. Murphy, Sec tary