Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/7/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION City of Orange Orange, California April 7, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning (:ommission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7 : 30 p , m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney, Bert Yamasaki , Director of Planning & Development Services; Lon Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 17, 1980 Commissioner Master asked for corrections to the minutes to read as follows: Page 12, Paragraph 3, second sentence: Add the word "signal" after ...the tower will receive - and after ...the earth dish receives -. Page 14, Paragraph 3, first sentence: Add the word, "monument" after the word, "Spires". Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to approve the minutes as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING (;OMMISSION Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Jere Murphy presented a letter from Rancho Santiago Community College District, requesting that the Planning Commission investigate, as required by State law, the District's proposed acquisition of 30 acres in east Orange for a new college instructional facility. Mr. Murphy stated that Dr. Armstrong was in the audience to answer any questions that the Commission might wish to ask. He pointed out that the Staff is preparing a resolution accepting the decision to acquire the pro- posed 30 acres in east Orange fora new college instructional facility. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Ault to receive this item on the Consent Calendar and approve the resolution as prepared by the Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: Item #3 under "Continued Hearings" - ZONE CHANGE 921, TENTATIVE TRACT 10949, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1017 - SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT - Applicant met last Wednesday night with the people in that local area and has made modifications to this plan. Staff has not had the opportunity to review the revised plan and, therefore, has asked the applicant to request a continuance for two weeks to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on April 21, 1980. It was pointed out that there is no tract map available at this time. Chairman Coontz explained to the audience why there is a continuance being requested. Ray Longbotham, 4433 E. Justice Circle, Orange, addressed the Commission regardi ng thi s i tem, que>,~ti oni ng why there i sn' t an Environmental Impact Report on this property. The homeowners in this area think that traffic is going to create quite a problem and would like to see an outside study made on it. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Two Chairman Coontz explained that the Staff indicates that there is a Negative Declaration on this item. She stated that she was not sure whether this is the time to address this question when they are con- si deri ng an extensi on. Mr. Murphy reminded the Commission that they had requested a traffic review and this will be provided prior to the next meeting. They didn't have a tract map to review and couldn't provide the information at this time. Mr. Longbotham wanted to know what kind of report this is and how it is compared to an Environmental Impact Report. Chairman Coontz explained that the Traffic Engineer will send a memo to Staff regarding what his findings are. She also explained further that the Staff had indicated that there isn't any need for an Environmental Impact Report. But that doesn't mean that the Commission can't receive a memo that covers one aspect of the EIR. Mike Cook, 358 S. Liberty, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he lives in the tract adjacent to Hewes and was concerned with regard to an Environmental Impact Report, with the fact that there are other apartment buildings in the area and he thought an Environ- mental Impact Report might be needed to cover the school situation in the area, and also the fire and police protection. Chairman Coontz explaine d that this can be added to the question of the school availability plan - can be added to the application. Usually this is covered in the application. However, this doesn't mean there must be a full blown Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Murphy explained that in terms of the items spoken to by Mr. Cook, the School District has prepared a response regarding students. There will be no specific response with regard to the police and fire services unless the Planning Commission asks for that information. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to continue this item to April 21st. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson commented that it was his unde rstanding of the Environmental Impact situation that this is submitted to Staff to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report is required. In this case, their determination was that it was not. Apparently they decided that all of these items had been covered in their report or that they were not significant enough to be covered in an Environmental Impact Report. However, the staff committee and the Commission have the right to disagree on this, IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: AMENDMENT 13-79 - CITY OF ORANGE: An amendment to Article IX of the Orange Municipal Code to adopt modifications incorporating own-your-own lots, encourage new parks, adopt subdivision conversion regulations, rezone existing parks to interim preservation zoning until permanent designation is made, and adopt policies to promote mobile home subdivisions. (Continued from meeting of March 3, 1980.) It was explained that Staff had prepared a study consisting of three revisions to the Municipal Code in the area of own-your-own lot regulations, mobile home park subdivision regulations and amendments to the mobile home park district to facilitate new mobile home parks, as well as preparing a study with regard to the question of rezoning of existing mobile home parks in the City of Orange to provide a public hearing process for the residents of those parks when conversion to other uses is proposed. The state law is definitely being proposed for amendment and has been amended recently to include modification of Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Three conversions of mobile home parks to other uses and public hearings are required by the local agencies. He pointed out that the Commission has the alternative of requiring a public hearing as a matter of the conversion process and thereby the state law would go into effect that would require notification of residents within mobile home parks. That section of state law is still being looked at at this time. He explained that the Planning Commission held a study session on March 24 and that they should thereby make recommendation to the City Council with regard to these ordinance changes, as well as a recommendation for a requirement for a public hearing prior to the conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses or any other laternative that the Commission feels is appropriate in that area. Since there was no one in the audience wishing to speak to this matter, Commissioner Mickelson suggested that the agenda be taken out of orde r so that the people who were there for other items on the agenda would not have to wait too long for their item to come up. By consent of the Commission members, Items 1 and 2, Amendment 13-79 and Amendment 1-80, were moved to the end of the agenda. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 924 - MANGANO RUMNEY, INC. A request for rezoning from RM-7 to 0-P for property located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of Crawford Canyon Road. (Note: Negative Declaration 578 has been previously approved and no further Envi ronmental Rei vew i s required. ) Stan Soo-Hoo made the presentation for the staff on this application, explaining that the subject property is a rectangular shaped parcel of land containing .41 acre of land located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, approximately 250 feet west of the center line of Crawford Canyon Road, which contains two parcels. The parcel to the east of the subject prope rty was rezoned to 0-P in January, 1980. At that time, Staff suggested that the present parcel be rezoned. However, the owner of the subject property did not own it at that time and there was objection by the previous owner to the rezoning so it was dropped. The applicant has purchased both the subject parcel, as well as the parcel to the east, and proposes to construct two similar two-story office-professional buildings. The buildings would contain approximately 7,000 square feet of gross floor area and share a common driveway with a 30 foot width. The applicant proposes 29 parking spaces for the building on the subject property and 28 spaces for the adjacent building. (The Code requires a minimum of 28 spaces for each building.) The parking spaces would be located in the rear of each building and exit northward to Chapman via the common driveway. Since the proposal conforms to Staff's original recommendation to include the subject parcel in a previous zone change, Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 924. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. The applicant, Tim Forhan, 174 S. Orange Street, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He stated that he had nothing to add to the presentation, but was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Since there was no one else to speak to this issue, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Four Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Zone Change 924 for reasons outlined by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 925, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1024, TENTATIVE TRACT 9608 - BROOKS: Request for rezoning from A-1 to R-1-6, R-1-10, R-1-20, RD-6, and R-0 and to allow creation of 134 single family lots and five lots for future Planned Unit Developments and to allow lots without frontage on a public street for property located north of the northerly terminus of Crawford Canyon Road and south of the southerly terminus of Cannon Street. (Note: Environmental Impact Report 496 has been amended for this project.) Stan Soo-Hoo made the presentation for the staff on this application. He explained that this is a request to allow development of the balance of the Jones Ranch by rezoning for residential purposes, and also for approval of a conditional use permit for 134 lots for single family development, as well as five lots for future townhouse development. He pointed out that in January of this year, the City Council reviewed this application and found it to be in agreement with the General Plan. In addition to the single family homes and the five lots for future development of townhouses, a great majority of the open space areas proposed would be conveyed to a private non-profit organization which would maintain it in its existing state for public open space recreational purposes. Lots designated C and J on the tentative tract map would be conveyed for this purpose. The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map 9608 for creation of the lots; Conditional Use Permit 1024 to allow some of the proposed lots without frontage to a public street; and Zone Change 925 to rezone various lots to appropriate zoning designations for future development. In addition, lot frontage modifications are being made via the conditional use permit for lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17. The proposal also calls for extension of Crawford Canyon Road from Chapman Avenue to meet with Cannon Street. 20 single family residential lots are proposed at the northern portion of the site, the lot sizes varying from 11,000 sq. ft. to approximately 5.5 acres. Lots 1-5 and 18-20 are proposed to be zoned R-1-10 and Lots 6-17 are proposed for R-1-20 zoning. The final cluster of single family lots would be arranged around cul-de-sacs which take access from a loop private street from Crawford Canyon Road. A total of 59 lots are proposed at this location and they generally contain approximately 6,000 square feet. These lots are proposed for R-1-6 zoning and are ultimately planned for development with a zero lot line concept. Finally, five lots are proposed for future development with townhomes. Schematic site plans have been presented for these areas. However, not enough detail is presently available for specific conditional use permit approvals of these proposals. Unit breakdown of these lots are proposed as: Lot 22 - 24 units on 3.24 acres; Lot 29 - 1'2 units on 1.36 acres; Lot 44 - 26 units on 2.85 acres; Lot 45 - 12 units on 1.73 acres and Lot 124 - 29 units on 3.28 acres. These lots are proposed to be rezoned to RD-6 where the density limitation for planned unit developments is 10.89 dwelling units per acre. As indicated on the site plan, all development will occur on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road and the west portion of the site is to remain vacant and to be maintained in its natural condition. Of the 290 acres which the site contains, 208 will be maintained in open space. All open space is to be zoned R-0. A portion of this open space will be maintained in perpetuity by a non-profit private open- space corporation to which it will have been deeded over. The balance Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1980 Page Five of the open space will be maintained by a homeowne rs association. Crawford Canyon and the hillside street will be dedicated as public streets. All other streets will be private streets. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that because of the magnitude of this project, many of the details are not available and, rather than hold up processing of this project, Staff and the applicant felt that this increment should be processed, followed by whatever applications were necessary for specific approval. The Intent to Rezone process should be used in this case. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant's request be approved and that the zone change be made subject to the Intent to Rezone procedure. It is also recommended that the supplemental Environmental Impact Report be accepted and that the Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1024 and the tentative tract, subject to the conditions included in the Engineers Plan Check Sheet. There are 15 conditions and an additional condition #16 is to be added that in addition to the prepared reservoi r site , Lot E, the City shal 1 require a future site capable of accommodating a 5 million gallon reservoir with abase elevation of 465' and an overflow elevation of 495' located on the westerly slopes of the open space area west of Crawford Canyon Road. Commissioner Ault questioned again which lots are to be conveyed to a non-profit private organization and was told they would be Lots A, C and J. Chairman Coontz asked for clarification on what the Conditional Use Permit covered. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained this was to allow some of the proposed lots without frontage to a public street. He also explained that there is no longer a modification required be- cause the wishbone street will now be a dedicated street, rather than a private one. Commissioner Mickelson asked for clarification on which streets will be private and which ones public. He also wanted to know on the cut slopes that are being proposed primarily behind the hillside street and also along Crawford Canyon Road - he noticed that they had 40-60 and over 100 feet of vertical cut of 1-l, where they are located in solid rock areas. We don't really know for sure whether those will be 1-1 and if we can assume that they are in the stable rock area - will they be required to have terrace drains and down drains? Mr. Johnson answered that Staff will allow soils engineers and geologists to give them recommendations on that. It has been their experience that when they reach solid rock condition, terrace drains really don't do too much. You are cutting more rock and not making it more stable. Staff would probably allow them to delete that if the geologist indicated that the rock was of stable enough material that it would stand on a 1-1. They would allow them to go to 2-1 or possibly 12-1 if it is stable. Commissioner Mickelson asked if there were preliminary reports that they did not see. Mr. Johnson replied that there is a preliminary report but he didn't think it affected anything here. He thought that there are indications that they will reach solid rock. The final report and recommendations would have to be reviewed carefully. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant Richard Brooks, 17500 Red Hill Avenue, Irvine, addressed the Commission in favor of this project. He pointed out that the project, as viewed in the rendered plan in terms of open space area and developed area, came about through examination of the East Orange Plan. They tried to align a plan as close to the East Orange Plan as they could. Basically it pointed out that mixed densities could be used as they are trying to do. ~ There are four different types of housing in this project. With regard to grading, he stated that they have had geologists on the site and the rock conditions on top would appear to be borne out. He explained the different types of housing and how some will be clustered. There will be 237 units with quite a bit of open space. He stated that he sees open space as an asset. Not everyone sees this as an asset, how- ever. This type of a project -somewhat isolated yet in town - will have an attraction because of this feeling. This isolation gives much Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Si x opportunity for pleasing looks. He referred to the special conditions on the Engineers Plan Check Sheet. He pointed out Item #2, referring to the dedication and construction of Crawford Canyon Road. In their plan, Crawford Canyon as it comes from the south passes a subdivision going on up past their project on up the hill. Beyond that it goes through the open space and then there is a niche which they do not own. Then it goes on and they have a little piece and then Crawford Canyon is presently being improved now. This project really doesn't require the tie between. It is shown as a connection as far as the city is concerned. There is no problem in dedicating this piece of road because basically most of the road is shown on their property. However, they would request that the requirement for improvement be waived and they request that grading on a small piece be waived. Traffic to support that piece of road is not there yet. There is a lot of grading in that particular piece. He requested that #2 be modified and they provide full grade to Overhill Road. They would provide two lanes of the required four, up to the Overhill Road, which is basically a 40 foot right-of-way. They would provide the full grading and the half-street improvement. Item #3, where it states dedicate and construct D Street to city standards. He explained that the Overhill Road condition is such that there are houses only on one side. There are 56 lots there and all the planning on those houses is done now. However, it couldn't be put together with this package now. Of the 56 lots, about 60% of those are full depth lots and about 15 lots are only 30 foot pads. They see no reason for more street width than what is already planned. What they have proposed will allow for two-way traffic plus parking on the uphill side of the street. They are also requesting that where you come across the Overhill Street towards the summit where they show five lots on the uphill side, that that section be widened. He does not see the degree of traffic on the street and, therefore, he is asking that it remain as they have proposed it all the way through. Item #5 - drainage assessment. They have a property of 292 acres and they are proposing to develop about 80 acres. The rest is open space. They feel they should only be required to pay drainage assessment for the 80 acres they are developing. They have drafted a grant deed for the open space and he was willing to explain the grant deed to the Commission, if necessary. #7 is the landscape requirements. He explained that what they are proposing to do on the west side of Crawford Canyon and up to the loop is to grade and actually trench on that side. On Overhill Road they will also trench on the uphill side. The reason for this is to enforce the element of privacy. This will create a planting - putting in the heavy acacia and the trees, which will make a continuous buffer around the project . Commissioner Coontz asked what is different about what they are proposing than what they understand the requirements to be. Mr. Brooks explained that it is a matter of practical application. On the uphill side or the Crawford Canyon side, the only way to plant into the rock is to drill. And then it will wash away and not grow. They want to trench on the uphill side and put in tree material and heavy shrub material to soften the cuts. Thus this requirement cannot be met. They do have a plan and want to see the banks softened with the proper plantings. #10 - to dedicate and improve the private streets as planned. The little street on the interior loop - he took it to mean that. Mr. Johnson stated that there is some confusion as to whether the double cul-de-sac is meant to be dedicated or private street. If it is to be a dedicated street, then the same terms and the same concerns would apply to A Street as applied to B Street, such as the width. Staff wanted to make this item clear as there was some question about what kind of street it would be. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Seven Chairman Coontz pointed out that this is an extensive list and it's too bad that it wasn't drawn up ahead of time. Mr. Brooks replied that they had to fully design and draft all of this. A tremendous amount of engineering and time goes into this from their standpoint. Commissioner Ault questioned whether he was familiar with the conveyance to a non-profit organization. He wondered if they are including in this conveyance that this reverts back to applicant if it is not kept as open space and is developed. Applicant answered that this is in- cluded in the agreement. This is all protected. There are very restrictive provisions in this conveyance. Commissioner Ault pointed out that this corporation must be supported apparently by money solicited from the public and if they start falling behind on revenue, there could be a problem. Commissioner Mickelson asked what applicant described as a full pad. Mr. Brooks explained to him what he meant. He was then asked what kind of home would be put on the 30 ft. pad. Mr. Brooks showed a picture of the type of home they are planning to build - having a set back garage, simple deck area, with a very simple house. ~` Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Murphy if the East Orange Implementation Committee reviewed this plan and Mr. Murphy replied that they had re- viewed the plan in its general concept. Their comments were basically to support the plan without any recommendations because they feel it fits the concept of the East Orange Plan. Mr. Johnson went on to explain that this development is the third phase of a three-phase project. The other two tracts are completed. All of the costs of development of the entire property have been deferred until this last phase. Therefore, Mr. Johnson felt that he saw the validity of the applicant's requests. The cost of these improvements should have been spread over the entire 400 acres rather than this last 290 acres. The burden has fallen on this last development instead of being spread out among the three. They don't think that the reduction of drainage systems would be fair to the city, as they still have to pay costs to serve the area. As far as roads are concerned, the city would have to accept the burden of building this road if the developer is not required to do so, and they are always faced with diminishing revenues. Engineering feels that perhaps the original owner of this property created the predicament that Mr. Brooks is in and should share the burden now. As far as landscaping is concerned, there could possibly be some changes here as requested. City wants something visible in the form of trees and shrubs. That could be changed to fit conditions. Regarding the width of the streets, the only thing that the Staff is asking is that they have a set of city standards for right-of-way widths. Mr. Brooks is correct in stating that he is providing the standard width curbs, but he is not providing standard right-of-way widths. There is a statute that they go with the standard street width, eather than go to something that was not standard. Chairman Coontz questioned if Mr. Brooks would have a problem with the #16 condition regarding the water reservoir request. He answered that he could see no problem with this. Larry Sturgeon, 615 N. Hamlin, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He spoke on behalf of the East Orange Open Space Management Corporation, being Vice President of this organization. He pointed out that approval of this tentative tract would culminate many years of effort to comply with the intent of East Orange General Plan. He stated that since 1975 there has been a lot of bickering and arguing regarding what was to be done with this property and this is one of the better plans they have seen. They are not judging on the tract itself - only its concept. One of the biggest questions when this plan was formulated, was how was it going to be maintained and who would do it. When the plan was adopted, Proposition 13 was not a question. Since that time, funds have been reduced, so this private non-profit public corporation was Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Eight formed and they have approval by the state and the Internal Revenue Service for tax exempt status. All they have to do is to receive the property. He went on to answer Commissioner Ault's question regarding the possibility of selling a piece of the property off. Under the laws of a private-public corporation, this cannot be done. He stated that one area of concern is that one condition is to sub-grade Crawford Canyon. The question of erosion had not occurred to him and it may or may not be a problem, based on the geology. However, it would allow access from off-road vehicles. As a private corporation, it is their attempt to close this area to motorized vehicles. 8 or 10 small fenced areas would have to be constructed at corporate expense to limit the access of these vehicles. By grading an area that long, once access to that street is gained, access to the open space is readily achievable. This is of primary concern to them. He stated that Condition #16 was not really new to him. However, being placed on the west slope is something they would like to be involved in for esthetic reasons. Commissioner Ault said that he recollected somewhere that their corporation rules state that they could sell some of the property off. Mr. Sturgeon explained that they could sell only to another like corporation. C Nero Roy, 10939 Meats Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he lives in Orange Park Acres and has lived there for 20 years. His property butts up against this project. He is President of the Orange Park Acres Association and his group voted to tell the Commission that they agree with this project and it is a fine development. They had one exception, which was the extension of Crawford Canyon Road between Overhill where it meets up with Cannon. That is nearly 2000 feet of roadway and they feel that it will become a speedway. He is personally concerned because of the fact that just recently his niece was killed in a traffic accident on a smaller stretch of roadway, because of speeding. The Association has never approved an extension. They have also disapproved the concept of connecting the two. They would like to suggest that for long range planning, they feel a major north-south access is needed. Something like the Weir Canyon Road or freeway will become absolutely essential in the very near future. The roads now in use will not be adequate to handle the traffic in upcoming years. They request that the aforementioned section be deleted at this time. Tom Galvin, President of the Hillcrest Association, 683 N. Birchwood, Orange, spoke to the Commission in favor of this application. He said that he personally was gratified by Mr. Brooks' cooperative effort in being receptive to suggestions of local homeowners in the area. They want to lend support of the plan, after reviewing it. They are concerned about the water tower on the hill, and before any definitive locations or designs are made, they would like to have input. They are concerned with the esthetic and sight visibility of this. Regarding the construction of Crawford Canyon Road through the center of the parcel, if the road is left in unimproved, but graded, form it is felt that they will be burdened with off-road vehicles trespassing. By con- structing this roadway it will be an invitation to these drivers. He does not feel that this developer should even have to bear the burden of developing that road through that area. If the city of Orange requires it, it would appear to take on a look of an arterial type of highway. If that is the case, it is an undue hardship on this developer and would result in additional cost to the homes being built. He said that he believed that a case law exists that states that unless a developer is placing undue hardship on the community, it is up to the city to take on this expense. To merely grade the road and leave it until the city gets around to improving it is not needed. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Nine Elizabeth Loyd, 345 N. Batavia, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She stated that four generations of her family have lived in the Orange area. These hills are home to her and her family and she does not want to see this destroyed. She felt that it should be left as is. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Mr. Johnson stated that there has been some concern about the grading of the road with no improvement to that road. He pointed out that Staff is not recommending that. They are recommending that the road be built as any other road which would be required. This has existed on the Master Plan for a number of years and the city does not want grading without improvements. Their intent is to carry out the Master Plan of arterial highways. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that Mr. Brooks had proposed that they dedicate up to that in terse ction of Overhill Road and improve half of it. The recommendation is to dedicate the entire roadway and improve it. He pointed out on the tract map the blue border of the tract as being everything in the green. Staff is talking of improvement of the road within the blue border. What was originally included was that that property was already dedicated. That triangular piece was to be split off and incorporated into this development, according to Mr. Johnson. Because it is now shown as open space, it is different than what was originally intended. Chairman Coontz pointed out that the problem of off road vehicles will always be a problem to contend with. Commissioner Hart agreed with the City Engineer that the problems were on the property when Mr. Brooks got involved with the property. He should live with the conditions as outlined by the Staff. Commissioner Mickelson questioned the Staff with regard to if the Commission uses the Intent to Rezone as suggested in the Staff Report, what would be gained. He wondered if this generally was used with the approval of the building plans. Will this include approval of grading plans also? The answer was that the Commission would have to review an application for conditional use permit for each of the townhouse areas. Mr. Murphy pointed out that there is another mechanical problem and that is that the applicant doesn't want to have to prepare a legal description of those zones at the present time, because he doesn't know until he gets into the final grading plans just exactly where those zones should be. Even if the Commission were to approve the zoning without the intent, it would probably be the same effect. It would be very difficult to prepare ordinances for that many different zones. The mere size of the project would require this. Commissioner Ault moved, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend acceptance of the supplement to Environmental Impact Report 496 as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Zone Change 925, subject to the Intent to Rezone Procedure. Approval is being recommended for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. 2. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Ten AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1024, which calls for lots without frontage on public streets. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of Tentative Tract 9608, subject to Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, including the addition of #16 that in addition to the prepared reservoir site, Lot E, the City shall require a future site capable of accommodating a 5 million gallon reservoir with abase elevation of 465' and an overflow elevation of 495' located on the westerly slopes of the open space are a west of Crawford Canyon Road. Commissioner Mickelson felt that Condition #7 should be clarified. If these are going to be 1-1 rock slopes they do not need to be land- scaped at all. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding this point. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if Staff would agree that the landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Parks Department. Mr. Johnson thought that would be in order. Motion was restated to include this change. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson commented that he was disappointed in the final plan on this property. He did not want Mr. Brooks to feel that this was a criticism, but he felt badly that the community has forced on them a row of lots that cannot be landscaped. It is probably the best compromise under the circumstances that they could come up with. AMENDMENT 5-80 - CITY OF ORANGE Amendment to Section 17.030.060(D) of the Orange Municipal Code relating to coverage i n the RM-7 zone . Stan Soo-Hoo made the presentation of this amendment for the Staff. He pointed out that basically this is a result of a direction from the City Council for the Staff to study coverage requirements, both the require- ment within the city of Orange, as well as to compare this requirement with that of other cities in the Southern California area. What we have come up with is an amendment which would accomplish three things - it would increase lot coverage criteria by 5% in RM-7 zone from 40 to 45% for two-story buildings and 50-55% for one-story buildings. It would also i nclude as coverage, covered patios , but would exclude driveways and unenclosed parking areas, being much more flexible for developers. The third thing would include as coverage cantilevered areas which project out more than two feet. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of this code amendment to City Council, which would increase the allowable lot coverage by five percent in the Rh1-7,000-A and RM-7,000 Districts and redefine coverage and its method of computation. Commissioner Hart questioned how cantilevers were handled previously. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that basically they were all included as coverage before. Now cantilevers extending beyond 2 feet from the building face will be included as coverage. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Eleven Mr. Murphy further explained that with this change in definition, actually we are gaining 10% or more in maximum lot coverage. This is, in essence, bringing us into an average situation with other cities and this is, in essence, what the City Council was asking for. What is being done tonight is having the actual public hearing which is required for this, Chairman Coontz pointed out that Mr. Soo-Hoo's verbal explanation of the cantilevered extensions was better than what was written in the Staff Report, i.e. "exclude the first two feet of the cantilever." This is much easier to understand than what is written. Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether RM-7000-A was a single-story zone. He was told that this was correct and he went on to say that he didn't think that two-story coverage factor would be put in that zone. He didn't agree with including covered patios under this amendment. Commissioner Hart asked for a definition of a covered patio. Commissioner Mickelson looks at a covered patio as an outdoor space for private recreation, where one can go outdoors and enjoy it, so he doesn't consider it coverage. Discussion among Commissioners on this point. Commissioner Mickelson felt that covered patios should be excluded. Chairman Coontz stated that amendment could say that the remaining lot areas shall be devoted to and include the covered patio and felt it should be stipulated in the remaining lot area. Cut it off from the main building area and list it in the remaining lot area. It was de- cided to leave covered patios out. Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether a swimming pool dressing room or cabana would be counted in coverage. He was told no - that right now there would be no change in that area. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against this amendment, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissione r Master to recommend approval of Code Amendment 5-80, as stated in the Staff Report, with the recommended change, which would increase the allowable lot coverage by five percent in the RM-7000-A and RM-7000 Districts and redefine coverage and its method of computation. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault,. Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED AMENDMENT 6-80 - CITY OF ORANGE Amendment. to Section 17.26.010(C) of the Orange Municipal Code relating to wholesale nurseries in the R-1-6 zone. Mr. Murphy presented this code amendment for the Staff, stating that this amendment was initiated because of a controversy arising over a proposed wholesale nursery at Fairhaven and La Veta on the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The City Council adopted an emergency ordinance on February 12, 1980, after being confronted by residents of that area that stipulated: "...the growing of trees and shrubs for purpose of propagational culture only, provided however that no buildings or structures and no sales of any type whatsoever would be permitted other than seasonal sales associated with national holidays and incidental buildings or structures required for such seasonal sales. Further, that no seasonal sale period would exceed one consecutive 30-day period during any calendar year, at the conclusion of which seasonal sales, all buildings or structures shall be removed except that one chemical toilet facility be available on the premises at all times." This emergency code was adopted on February 12 by the City Council in reaction to the proposal for the wholesale nursery along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Staff was instructed to prepare permanent proposed changes to that section of the Code. Staff looked at two ways of addressing the question of Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Twelve commercial or wholesale nurseries. One was to attempt to provide or adopt standards or regulations on nurseries within the R-1-6 district that would hopefully take care of the possible conflict between that use and the surrounding single farr~ily homes. In looking at the different types of land that exist in terms of Edison right-of-ways, the Southern Pacific right-of-way and others, Staff found that because of the different size and shape of the properties that they felt it would be better to require a conditional use permit application and address each application as a separate issue. Staff recommends that code be amended to indicate that any commercial nursery located in R-1-6 district require a conditional use permit that would cover any retail sales of a seasonal nature or any structures such as greenhouses and shade structures of any significance, even though those are considered to be non-permanent structures, that basically for either use, outside of strictly a growing grounds for growing nursery products, to require a conditional use permit in the R-1 zone. That then would be stipulated in the permitted use section of the R-1 that the growing of trees and shrubs only for the purpose of propagation and culture is allowed and that no building or structure and no sales of any type whatsoever shall be permitted. The conditional use permit portion of the R-1-6 district would then state that commercial nurseries requiring the use of structures or permitting seasonal sales associated with national holidays and incidental buildings and structures for such seasonal sales and, provided further that no seasonal sale period shall exceed one consecutive thirty-day period during a calendar year, and provided that at least one portable chemical toilet facility shall be available on the premises at all times. This would be the Staff's proposal to regulate structures and regulate seasonal sales which seem to be the most annoying things about wholesale nurseries. It is the Staff's opinion that most nurseries sell wholesale from their growing grounds. You cannot totally stop sales from these growing grounds but they can be regulated. The only exception might be Christmas tree lots. That is sti 11 somewhat a grey area of wholesale sales and would require interpretation on the part of the Staff. Mr. Murphy pointed out a memo from Southern California Edison which had been given to the Commission. Ch airman Coontz expressed concern about the urgency ordinance from the City Council, which is something that they had not heard before. It was pointed out that the people involved in that controversy are here to speak tonight. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Rudy Dew, 1760 Maplewood, Orange, Manager of Southern California Edison, addressed the Commission on behalf of the Edison Company. He pointed out that Edison has had transmission right-of-ways for a long time and has had very little problems at all. He could not remember any problems which they have not been able to handle on their right-of-ways. This provides a natural green belt to the taxpayers. If they are not developed into some sort of nursery area, there is a tremendous trash problem. Another concern of Edison is that they question whether the magnitude of this ordinance would restrict all right-of-ways. He would like to see Southern California Edison easements not included in this. Southern California Edison would recommend an exclusion for them because of the fact that all of their right-of-ways are landscaped in some form. Chairman Coontz agreed that this use is a good substitute for trees which have been taken out in those areas. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Thirteen Mr. Murphy pointed out that this ordinance will only refer to new areas. All existing areas will not have to go through that process. Mr. Dew stated that he has negotiated a lease for a certain site which was given back from the city, in the northeast corner of Orange, which Orange had used as a wilderness park for about a year. They have negotiated a lease for maintenance of that site and the rest will be kept as a wilderness area. However, they haven't started planning or doing anything with the area. It is his understanding that when nurseries plant their trees, they are planted by the year. He is concerned for the people with whom they have negotiated the leases. He said that Southern California Edison has been pretty strict with these people relative to maintaining adequate security and policing the area. Chairman Coontz wanted more information with regard to Marilynn's Nursery, which is the property in question. Mr. Murphy replied that the property has remained unuse d. The railroad tracks were pulled out and it is now a dumping ground for trash. Appropriate zoning for the area should be R-1. The nursery application went through the Staff and they approved for ground uses and the growing of nursery stock, primarily in portable containers. The applicant went around the neighborhood 3 or 4 days before actually beginning to do work on the nursery and the neighbors then reacted to the proposal with many concerns , and i t was then directed to the City Council. The property still lies in its original state with only the addition of two water meters. Commissioner Mickelson asked to correct Mr. Murphy's statement that the property has been abandoned. He would have him state that the use of it as a railroad has been discontinued. He brought this up because it is a very touchy technical term - the idea that a piece of property is abandoned and therefore it shouldn't be used for anything. Therefore, the railroad has abandoned the property for use as a railroad through the Federal ICC regulations. They have taken the formal steps to abandon the use of the property as a railroad. It therefore lies as unused land. Richard Pieron, 619 Woodland, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this change. He is in favor of a change, but not this one. He is one of the instigators of action that the Council took re- garding the emergency ordinance. He spoke to the Council on behalf of his neighbors and also spoke to the Staff. They feel that the use of a commercial nursery in an R-1 zone generally is not compatible toady with the way that Orange has grown. When Orange was originally developed, it was OK, but we are not an agricultural community, which we were then. To allow commercial use within the boundaries of a residential area is contrary to most zoning practices. He felt that this would be downgrading an area. He thought that they have looked at a lot of the problems in this particular area, but he was particularly concerned about the entire right-of-way. The entire band of land that has been abandoned all the way through the city fronts commercial property, schools, residential streets; some is only 40 ft. wide. In other places it is wider. This particular piece that he i s concerned about i s about 4 2 acres . It was very attractive for this use because it was a wide space in the road. If this ordinance were in effect, they would be allowed to put in temporary structures. He pointed out that the County will not allow temporary structures in R-1 zones - why should the city allow this? This use is not compatible and it should not be allowed. He expressed the hope that the Planning Commission would look at this very carefully. Mr. Pieron stated that the ordinance should be looked at. The conditional use permit probably could be used. He realized that existing nurseries are already there and he thought that there are areas where they do work. But he pointed out that there is no way to police this use once it is there. If we use the conditional use permit approach, we could put enough acceptable restrictions in there to make it compatible with what i s already there. Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1980 Page Fourteen Chairman Coontz asked how he thought this might be developed. She also commented that there has been a problem all along. She wanted to know what would be compatible. Mr. Pieron replied that they wanted to come in with a strip of asphalt for bike trails that would not be landscaped and they hoped that they would be used for both bikes and horses. This would not have been compatible for both uses. There would have been no way to control it. He feels it is easier to control since the tracks were taken out. He thought that the railroad should have been forced to put barricades at any street that is crossed. They should have barricaded each end of these areas. He felt that bearing in mind that this is private property, if it is developed it should be partly in control of the Planning Commission. There are segments of that strip that cannot be developed. They should be dedicated to homeowners adjacent to the area. He pointed out that particularly the 40 ft, wide areas where nothing could be developed could be sold or deeded to homeowners or whatever is legally done. The problem is that there is a high pressure fuel line running through this area. He felt that even a couple of homes could be built or some of it could be purchased by the city for park purposes or a green belt. They really don't need another park in the area, so a neighborhood pocket park would not be a solution. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he lives at 3823 E. Casselle Avenue, which is three houses away from the right-of-way which is being discussed. It is his neighborhood which is causing all the furor. He thought that the question the Commission is being asked to consider is not just that strip of land, but all right-of-ways. Mr. Pieron stated that the thing that is upsetting the neighborhood is the fact that the nursery planned to put up temporary buildings, which would be an eyesore to the community. Richard Hendricksen, 642 S. Chipwood, Orange, addressed the Commission on the point of the area becoming trashed out. He stated that, while there has been some problem with dumping trash, it seems coincidental that it is only since this nursery was proposed that it has become very trashy. He pointed out that not only has the railroad abandoned the right-of-way, they have also abandoned upkeep on it. The City Council directed that the legal background be looked into in that area. There is some question about the railroad's rights after it gives up right of use. There seems to be some question about whether the land would revert to the Department of the Interior. Mr. Minshew, Assistant City Attorney, responded that this was not an instruction from the City Council. Someone in the area requested that. The railroad abandoned the prope rty and got an abandonment from the Interstate Commerce Commission two or three years ago. The City tried to purchase some of the land at Katella and Wanda. It was tied up in litigation for about two years because of the abandonment of the use and did not go through . Once it did, then we were able to make a financial arrangement with them. They own the land in fee. On public streets, the city of Orange normally has easements. When they abandon a street, they have a statutory procedure they must go through. At that time, easement goes off and property goes back to underlying fee owner. This is not the case when someone owns land in fee. What the ICC said to Southern Pacific was that they did not have to have rail- road service from Orange to Tustin anymore. The railroad owns this land outright. Regardless of how they got the land, they now own it in fee. He felt that perhaps there was a misconception because of how a city owns a street. Mr. Pieron mentioned that he had addressed a letter to the city and wondered i f i t had been directed to the Commission. Ch airman Coontz explained that this had nothing to do with their decision. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Fifteen Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Murphy if proposed Section 172601-OC would be a permitted use by right under the Staff's proposal. This would allow the growing of trees, etc. for propagation. No buildings, no structures, no sales of any type. Any R-1 zone which might include any railroad right-of-ways, might include Edison right-of-ways and might also include a 20-acre perfectly square parcel somewhere else. The second section, the Staff is saying could only be done by use permit and that would allow commercial nurseries - it would permit use of structures or permit seasonal sales. Theoretically you can apply for a use permi t under 1726020 , i n cl udi ng greenhouses and other bui 1 di ngs as part of it and limited to wholesale only, except for seasonal sales. Would that mean retail sales also? The only sales that would be of a retail nature would be seasonal sales or wholesale sales, which would include visitation of buyers to the site on a periodic basis. Any sales, in essence, where you can say that someone is visiting the site for the purposes of purchasing materials, or substantial structures in terms of greenhouses or shade structures, beyond the incidental storage buildings, gardening equipment necessary to maintain a growing ground, a portable washroom facility, those would be items that would trigger the requirement for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Mickelson then asked what about Christmas tree lots. Mr. Murphy answered that ~ these are seasonal and would go in on a use permit. Commissioner Mickelson thought that under Section 17.26.010 it seemed that there ought to be at least the allowance of a building to put equipment such as shovels, picks and hoes. It says no building or structure and no sales. It was felt that this was too restrictive. Commission agreed with Staff's basic philosophy that trees could be grown all over as long as it is not a commercial business, but they cannot sell off the site. Discussion among the commission members as to whether sales should be allowed on the site. They discussed whether someone could drive up and make a purchase on the site. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that the activity in home businesses far exceeds the sales that would go on in this type of business. He felt they could be creating an ordinance that would be a real problem for what Southern California Edison has on their right-of-ways right now. He proposed that, in the first section, wording be amended to read, "... that no building or structure other than storage building for equipment, maximum 200 sq, ft., 10 ft. in height and incidental wholesale sales shall be permitted." ~ Mr. Dew pointed out that Southern California Edison cannot build permanent structures on their right-of-ways because of high tension lines. His concern was that he wished he knew more about the nursery business. Most of the people on their properties have very low profiles. He wondered if the shades constituted a structure. Mr. Murphy explained that most of the greenhouses and permanent structures would require a conditional use permit. If the structure is under 6 ft., it would not require a permit. Mr. Dew stated that Southern California Edison has been policing their areas very tightly because they are concerned about being good neighbors. Motion by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of the following code amendments: Section 17.26.010 (c) - Growing of trees and shrubs for purposes of propagation and culture only, provided, however, that no building or structure of any type whatsoever shall be permitted, other than storage building for equipment, maximum of 200 square feet, height of 10 feet, and incidental wholesale sales shall be permitted. Secti on 17.26.020 (e) - Commercial nurseries requi ri ng the use of structures or permuting seasonal sales associated with national holidays and incidental buildings and structures for such seasonal sales and, provided further that no seasonal sale period shall exceed one consecutive thirty-day period during a calendar year and provided that at least one portable chemical toilet facility shall be available on the premises at all times. Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1980 Page Sixteen ,AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS OUT OF AGENDA ORDER: AMENDMENT 13-79 - CITY OF ORANGE: An amendment to Article IX of the Orange Municipal Code to adopt modifications incorporating own-your-own lots, encourage new parks, adopt subdivision conversion regulations, rezone existing parks to interim preservation zoning until permanent designation is made, and adopt policies to promote mobile home subdivisions. (.Continued from meeting of March 3, 1980.) AMENDMENT 1-80 - CITY OF ORANGE: Amendment to Article IX of the Orange Municipal Code relating to Condominium Conversions. (Continued from meeting of March 3, 1980.) Commissioner Mickelson asked the Staff how much time the Commission has on mobile home and condominium conversions. Mr. Murphy replied that decisions need to be made on the mobile home conversions by the next meeting on April 21. The condominium conversion moratorium runs out in June. However, the City Council must have time to make their decision in the matter. Commission has another meeting to take care of this matter also. Commissioner Mickelson apologized to the Commission for handing his written comments on these matters in so late. He felt that a continuance was needed in order to go over the comments he had written, applying both to mobile home and condominium conversions. He thought that it is rather awkward to take mobile homes out of context with condominium conversions. Chairman Coontz suggested that the Commission start with the question of zone changes for existing mobile home parks as a means of protection. (Commissioner Master found it necessary to leave the meeting at this time.) Mr. Murphy presented Exhibit B of the Mobile Home Conversions to the Commission, stating that this was a result of Chairman Coontz's letter to the City Council of July 9, 1979, which was contained as an appendix to Exhibit B, which is a series of questions primarily from asocial standpoint, that of the age of the occupants, the tenure, the zoning of those parks, the turnover rates, the percentage of handicapped, as well as senior citizens in those parks. It then asks the question of whether the rezoning of the parks can help to again assure the residents that they would have the opportunity to speak out on the conversions of those parks. The question of do those mobile home parks come close or do they meet the existing mobile home park ordinance and is the mobile home park ordinance too strict? He pointed out that significant answers to these questions are that all mobile home parks are either in industrial, commercial or multiple family zone areas of the city. There is a table that outlines the parks and gives a breakdown of vacancy rates, turnover rates, the age of the occupants, the percentage of residents on fixed incomes and these are estimates from the park managers. Staff had not interviewed each of the residents of the parks. Also counted was the number of handicapped persons in wheelchairs in the parks, and per- centage of renters. Staff then attempted to guess at the opportunity for conversion, whether it was high, low or medium. Looking at the location of the property, the surroundings, the age of the park, in terms of whether they would convert soon or sometime later. They also looked at the conformance or lack of conformance with the existing standards. There was considerable lack of conformance with existing standards. The parks differ substantially, one from another, again be- cause of their multiplicity of zoning. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the turnover rate is very low in all of the parks, because of lack of spaces to move to. The rate of senior citizens on fixed incomes in all of the parks is very high. He stated that Staff thought the most appropriate way to rezone the parks would be to place them in an A-1 agricultural zone. The other alternative which was discussed was to require in the code a public hearing for the conversion for any mobile home park, Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1980 Page Seventeen rather than requiring the rezoning back to either the M-H or A-1 zone. This could be done. There are mechanical problems in terms of notifying everyone who is interested that the requirement is there to hold a public hearing. If the property is zoned A-1 agricultural, that is evidence that a zone change is required to accommodate any other use other than growing tomatoes on the property. Mr. Murphy told the Commission that the state is getting more involved in protecting all resident rights in the way of mobile home park and condominium conversions. The state may take care of that question for the local agencies. Mr. Murphy stated that most of the mobile home parks do not meet the existing ordinance, not in major ways, but in minor ways, like recreation areas, cable TV, etc. Commissioner Mickelson asked if Commission went A-1 with resolution of intent, unless the procedure were to be changed somehow, it could be rezoned to A-l, five years from now they could come in to have that resolution followed up on and there would be no public hearing. What would be done with this? There was discussion among the Commissioners on this point. They decided if the purpose for holding a public hearing is to determine whether a relocation plan is needed and if this is not wanted, then it would have to be submitted, reviewed and approved and then there would be a purpose for the hearing. The major purpose is to take a look at relocation for the residents of the parks. Commissioner Ault pointed out that a man who comes in and makes an investment has a right to depend on his investment in that zone, without the Planning Commission making a change. He felt that A-1 is going to cause more confusion. Commissioner Mickelson asked another question, wondering if an identifier couldn't be put on the zoning map somehow that would say that a mobile home park must have a public hearing - an asterisk which would explain the change of zoning. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissione r Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend to the City Council that they adopt an ordinance requiring a public hearing, with notification to the residents of the mobile home park and the purpose of that hearing be to determine the need for and the review of a relocation plan for the tenants. This notification is in the event of any proposed change in the use of the park, as in the case of an existing park, and the owner wants to conve rt to another use. Commissioner Mickelson gave an example, pointing out a mobile home park near the drive-in theater, which is zoned M-1. Theoretically, the owner could give residents 30 days to move and change to industrial. If things were normal in our country, he should have the right to do this, but things are not normal in our country. Commission then took up Mobile Home subdivision conversion regulations and tenant rights. Chairman Coontz suggested that this be divided, suggesting that this subject be discussed now and revisions to existing mobile home zone development standards could be discussed later. Commissioner Mickelson suggested that this discussion be delayed until after condominium conversions was discussed, since he felt that they are related by virtue of the fact that the staff wrote them in a very parallel manner. By consent, Commission deleted from the agenda mobile home subdivision conversion regulations and tenant rights until a later time. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Eighteen i t o ons Mr. Murphy made the presentation for Staff on Exhibit A, revis existing mobile home zone development standards, pointing out that this is a proposal to reduce the minimum sites area required from 10 to 5 acres. Maximum density of a mobile home park would be increased from 8 to 10 spaces per acre, where a minimum of 20% of the spaces in the park were set aside for single wide mobile homes and where it is demonstrated that a direct attempt is being made to provide housing for the low and moderate income segment of the community. In this proposal, mobile home park subdivisions should be specifically identified as a permitted use in the Mobile Home Zone. Development standards for mobile home subdivision lots would be established as follows: minimum lot size for single wide would be 1200 sq, ft. and double wide - 2000 sq, ft.; minimum lot width, 20 ft. for single wide and 30 ft, for double wide; minimum lot depth would be 55 ft. for single wide, 60 ft, for double wide. All other development standards would be the same as those described in the existing Mobile Home Zone regulations. He pointed out that at the present time they do not talk about mobile home subdivisions anywhere in the Code. Chairman Coontz stated that Mr. Jacobs, who came to their study session, indicated that this is not sufficient, according to the way things were going now. She talked to Mr. Murphy on this and he mentioned Title 25, which might pre-empt this and require deeper lots and more square footage. Commissioner Hart mentioned that they were talking about 60 ft, maximum lots, but it was pointed out that the figures they are talking about here are minimum. There was more discussion regarding size of lots. It was pointed out that Mr. Jacobs had told the Commission that no one can do this economically - that it is really an exercise in lip service. They can go along with it, but what will it accomplish? Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve the suggestions made in Mr. Baker's memorandum (Exhibit A), and as stated in Mr. Murphy's presentation of the matter. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED With regard to code and policy changes that could provide incentive for increased mobile home park and mobile home subdivision development, Mr. Murphy stated that the Staff had talked about this but did not come up with anything of value in this area. Therefore, he suggested that no action be taken at this time. Exhibit C - Mobile Home Subdivisions and Zoning Code Analysis. Mr, h1urphy pointed out that this is a result of Commissioner Mickelson's request to investigate mobile home subdivisions and zoning codes. The report basically says that in Staff's opinion, there is very little cost savings in providing a standard size lot and placing a mobile home on it of the appropriate size. The costs are very similar. The only savings would be a certain amount of construction loan cost. He stated that the construction period might be pared down from 6 months to 3 months. This may be an alternative form of housing, but it does not answer the question of providing low cost housing for senior citizens. Commissioner Mickelson stated that this wasn't the question he meant to ask. What he wanted to know was - why not take that 3000 ft. or whatever size - lot and allow that to be subdivided in the manner that subdivisions are done, with no common recreation space and those other amenities that add to the cost of the maintenance, etc., but is there a feasible answer to that question? He felt that the people who are really hurting today are the people who didn't have any of those extras and really didn't care to have them. So is it feasible to develop a very small lot subdivision and put a mobile home on it - not 6000 ft. but maybe 4000 or even 3000 ft. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 7, 1980 Page Nineteen AYES NOES ABSENT: ~IN RE: Commissioner Ault suggested that the problem could be solved by authorizing mobile homes on R-1 lots. Commissioner Hart pointed out that mobile home costs are as large as a house now. So we are not solving anything. Commissioner Mickelson proposed that the Commission recommend that no action be taken on this report and also on the previous one, that they had said to just ignore. Chairman Coontz said that Commission is not really ignoring these items, just indicating that they are not feasible. By consent, the Commission agreed that neither one of the staff presentations are feasible at this time. At this point, Commissioner Mickelson reviewed his proposed changes to the condominium conversion project. He then moved, seconded by Chairman Coontz to continue considerations on condominium and mobile home con versions until the next meeting on April 21. Commissioners Commissioners Commissioner Coontz, Ault, Hart, Mickelson none Master MOTION CARRIED Chairman Coontz adjourned 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 300 East Chapman, Orange, ADJOURNMENT: the meeting at 11:50 p.m, to reconvene at 21 at the Ci vi c Center Counci 1 Chambers , California. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. `~ COUNTY OF ORANGE ) AFFIDAVIT 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 Monday, April 7, 1980, said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on April 8, 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 April 7, 1930 was held. 1 EXCERPT FROM THE I~IIPJUTES OF A P,EGULAR PIE ETI~dG OF THE ORAfdGE CITY PLP,~dNING COhii1ISSI0N HELD ON April 7, 19°0. 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,t~1aster, ~fickelson ABSEPdT: Pone Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart that this meeting adjourn at 11:45 p.m. on ^ionday, April 7, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, April 21, 1930 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 forec~oin4 is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, April 7, 1980. Dated this 8th day of April, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. Jer ~~urphy, Ci ty Planner ~ Secretary to he Planning Commission of the Cit of Orange. .d