HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/6/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
April 16, 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
ABSENT: Commissioner Master
STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant
City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Kathy Braden, Planning
Department; Bert Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development
Services; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 16, 1981
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve the minutes of March 16, 1981, as transmitted.
~ AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
A resolution of commendation was presented by the Commission to
Commissioner Coontz for her three years of excellent service to the
Planning Commission as Ch airman.
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN
A request was made by Villa Ford fora further extension of time with
regard to Variance 1554.
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to place
the Villa Ford item on the agenda.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelso n, Coontz, Ault, Hart
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Mickelson read part of the letter of request wi h regard to
Conditional Use Permit 987, Variance 1554 , at 1850 E.~•FLi~t~, reques ti ng
six months' extension of time to comply with the conditions under those
two appl i cati ons .
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to
grant a six month extension i n thi s matter.
Commissioner Ault pointed out that they are in the process of re-
eval uati ng engi neeri ng plans so the Commission might as wel l give them
the extension of time.
Commissioner P~ickelson stated that there has been informal discussion
about the fact that Villa Ford asked for permission to use this site
as an office. To date there is only a large sign, visible to the
freeway, on the site. Perhaps the only purpose of this application
was to get the sign up there. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that he
was speaking for himself and Commissioner Master, who had telephoned
his concerns just before the meeti ng toni ght. They would 1 ike to see
good faith shown by Vil l a Ford within the next six months .
~r Commissioner Coontz pointed out that if we do not see to it that they
come through with their intentions, we will be setting a precedent.
Chairman Mickelson hoped that Villa Ford would take cognizance of the
remarks made at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Two
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS:
VARIANCE 1623 - KIBBE:
Request to allow less than the required off-street parking than re-
quired by code for a commercial building at the southwest corner
of Chapman Avenue and Lime Street. (1100 West Chapman Avenue.)
(Note: Negative Declaration 679 has been prepared in lieu of an
Environmental Impact Report.) (Continued from meeting of March 16,
1981. )
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application before the Commission, stating
that, as pointed out at the last Commission meeting, this is a request
to allow 17 parking spaces i n 1 i eu of the 37 required by code for a
proposed 7400 square foot commercial building. The property contains
.32 acre of land and is located at the southwest corner of Chapman
Avenue and Lime Street.
He explained that the original proposal was for a two-story 7400 square
foot building with 16 parking spaces provided, as opposed to the 37
required by code. The new proposal before the Commission is for a
single-story 5310 square foot structure. The Zoning Code requires one
space per 200 square feet of floor area for this category of land use,
which would compute to 27 spaces for this proposal. The applicant pro-
poses 18 automobile spaces and si x motorcycl e spaces and, with the
assumption that a limited number of motorcycle spaces are acceptable,
would s ti 11 be deficient by three spaces . According to the proposed
floor plan, approximately 3620 square feet of the total 5310 square
feet would be allocated to active retailing, while the balance (1690
square feet) would be used for offices, storage and wheel service.
Mr. Soo-Hoo went on to explain that the applicant has now provided a
ten foot setback and the corner cutoff, as required by code. However,
the Staff wished to point out:
1. The height of the proposal . The bui 1 di ng, though s i ngl e s tory,
will be 22 feet in height, which is rather tall for a single
story building.
2. The building is right on the property line on Lime. Since that
is a residential street, Staff feels it would be desirable to
have a nominal setback, perhaps five feet, on this line.
Mr. Soo-Hoo did point out, however, that the height and setback do
meet the minimum zone requirements.
Staff recommends that two additional condi tions be placed, i n addi tion
to the 17 conditions already listed in the original Staff Report.
18. That the overall building height shall be limited to 18 feet.
This would allow a ceil i ng height of between 14 and 15 feet,
which would be seemingly adequate to provide storage. It
would also shorten the building view from the south .
19. That the five foot setback be provided along Lime Street lot
line.
Chairman Mickelson asked about a door in the plans which looks like it
is proposed to be an overhead door. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that he
thought that this is what is proposed.
LJ
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Three
Chairman Mi ckel son opened the public hearing.
Bill Kibbe, 1631 Chris Avenue, Anaheim, the applicant, addressed the
Commission in favor of this application. He explained that at the
1 as t meeti ng they had propos ed a 7400 square foot bui 1 di ng wi th
parking for 17 vehi cl es . He pointed out the concerns of the Planni ng
Commission i n this matter wi th regard to height of the bui 1 di ng and
parking. He went on to explain that the second story has now been
eliminated and the ground floor has been reduced in square footage.
The original plan called for offices and storage on the second floor,
but the revised plan calls for the bookkeeping office to be retained
in their Anaheim home. Two small offices to be used for day to day
purchasing and management activities and a small parts storage room
have been relocated to the ground floor, reducing the sales area by
700 square feet. Storage for large items will be in overhead racks
reachable by 1 adders .
h1r. Kibbe pointed out that the new plan calls for parking for 24
vehicles and they have provided the 10 foot setback requested. He
explained that he has personally met with three of the local residents
during the past week. Two of these people have visited his store and
seen the operation there. There is still some apprehension wi th re-
gard to the height of the building. They fear that perhaps some day
they wi 11 bui 1 d a second story on the buil di ng.
Mr. Kibbe stated that they have addressed the objections of the Com-
mission and he felt that they have satisfied the concerns mentioned.
Commissioner Ault asked for Mr. Kibbe's reaction to 1 andscapi ng along
the Lime Street lot line. The applicant answered that right now there
is a sidewalk and a parkway. He would plan to continue the parkway
down so that i t woul d 1 ook just 1 i ke the homes on Lime Street.
Commissioner Ault explained that Staff had recommended a setback of
five feet and landscaping along that area. Mr. Kibbe believed that
they could do this, but he would need that area somewhere else in
this bui 1 di ng. If they could put 200 square feet elsewhere, he woul d
be quite happy to do this.
M. J. Staser, 146 S. Lime Street, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this application. He explained that upon reconsidering
the revised plan that has been presented tonight, he is in opposition
~ to this plan also, because of the height of the building. If the
property changes hads some day, all that air space might tempt someone
to put in a second floor. He did not like to think about such a tall
wall. The neighbors in that area expect a building to go in there,
but they want to make sure that they do not become a second Pepper
Street. It is too late to do anything about Pepper, but they wouldn't
like to see that happE~n on Lime. They want progress, but with. proper
supervision. He pointed out that some day there will be a building on
the east side of Lime Street, which means more traffic. He also
pointed out that anyone who patronizes this business must first get
on Lime to do so. Therefore, therefore, there will be more traffic.
Lime Street is a heavily shaded street, which they enjoy. They also
expect to have more parking on that street. They are also disappointed
at the use of the building, but know that they have nothing to say about
that. They hope that as progress advances in their area, that it will
be properly supervised.
Tom Wills, 1052 Arbor Way, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposi-
tion to this application, stating that he is very proud of the city of
Orange and the beautification and development of Old Towne. What he
seems to be hearing is that Orange is being asked to accommodate plans
that are under the standards of the city of Orange. He would like to
see the west end of town upgraded.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Four
Errol Shuffield, 122 S. Lime Street, Orange, addressed the Commission
i n opposition to the application. His property borders this property
on the south side. He alluded to the fact that the applicant stated
that he would be only three parking spaces under the code require-
ments and felt that this needed further explanation. Commissioner
Coontz asked that the parking requirements be reread.
Stan Soo-Hoo reported that the parking requirements previously were
for 37 parking spaces. The applicant has reduced his floor area so
that now the parking requirement is for 27 spaces. Applicant is
proposing to provi de 18 automobi 1 e parking spaces and 6 motorcycl e
spaces, making 24 parking spaces, which is 3 spaces short of the
required 27.
Mr. Shuffield mentioned that his. house is about 10 feet from the
property line. He has experienced some sinkage of his property
lately. Apparently seepage is due to trees which he has removed.
His garage is teetering and must be repaired. He is concerned about
how a propertyline property gets repaired. This garage is just south
of the property 1 i ne. He also wondered how the applicant would mai n-
tai n the property 1 i ne. H e does not want to be responsible for someone
else's property.
h1r. Shuffi el d stated that he thought that the city of Orange was going
to underground electrical , el imi nati ng overhead tel ephone pol es . There
is a telephone pole on the northwest corner of his property. How will
this be taken out when the time comes?
He pointed out that the car lot across the street tends to use th e
street as their parking area. He wondered why auto sales do :not have
mini mum parki ng for their empl oyees and why employees do not use i t
i f i t i s provi ded.
Chairman Mickelson stated that there is a recommended condition with
regard to the underground electrical being provided.
Mr. Shuffi el d stated that another point alluded to 1 ast meeting was
the RM-7 zone and he wondered how living conditions would be for
people in an RM-7 zone.
Mr. Kibbe rebutted by stating that there wi 11 be no motorcycles i n
this business, so there will be no motorcycle testing on Lime Street.
Should they go ahead with this building, he thought that Mr. Shuffield
would have time to correct his problem with his garage. He agreed
with regard to problems on Pepper Street, pointing out that the occupant
on the east corner is an auto sal es place and he uses all. of the parking
spaces that are available.
Mr. Kibbe stated that they do not want to create a problem in the
neighborhood. They want to provide adequate parking for this business
and any future business . He explained that h e has 1 i ved wi th a bus i Hess
for the past 10 years two and a hal f blocks from this site. He has
a 1 of of time and energy i Hues ted i n Orange and does not want to defeat
that. Ri ght now their plan i s to have the building hei ght be not as
tall in areas where they do not have overhead storage. They intend to
reduce some of the area when they get the plan further along.
Chairman Mickelson wondered if Mr. Kibbe could give a better idea as
to what areas will be lower. Mr. Kibbe explained that they had planned
to have all of their offices, bookkeeping and administrative, asmall
1 unchroom and storage upstairs . Now they have changed and wi 11 1 eave
the bookkeeping offices at his home in Anaheim. Purchasing and day to
day management activities will be on the ground floor. Small parts will
be i n a 16x20 ft. room downstai rs and then they intend to have overhead
racks, primarily over the office and wheel service area, where they
~ wi 11 use 1 adders to reach these 1 arger items .
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6, 1981
Page Five
~ Commissioner Coontz asked what height the building will be. Mr.
Kibbe replied that th ey would agree to 18 feet at the east portion
of the building -about 3700 square feet. This is being planned as
their sal es area . The end storage area mi gh t be 22 feet high .
Chairman Mickelson closed the public hearing, there being no one else
to speak for or against this application.
Chai rman Mi ckel son pointed out that three 1 etters have been received
from Mr. Gommel , pl us a peti ti on with 34 names on i t.
Commissioner Ault wondered i f th e Commission would agree to to ki ng
three feet off the front 10 feet and trading off for the setback
suggested by Staff. He thought 10 feet along Chapman is a pretty
wide strip of landscaping.
Chairman Mickelson did not see where this could be picked up. There
was further discussion between Commissioners Mickelson and Ault in
this regard.
Commissioner Coontz felt that for future development on west Chapman
ten feet setback is necessary. Commissioner Hart brought up that
motorcycles are not the issue. Parking is the issue. They must look
down the road as to what this area might be used for in the future.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept
the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Revi ew Board to fi 1 e Negative
Declaration 679.
AYES: Commissioners Mi ckel son, Coontz, Aul t, Hart
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve Variance 1623, subject to the 17 conditions set forth in the
original Staff Report, plus an additional 18th condi ti on that the
height of the buil di ng be 18 feet over the showroom and 22 feet over
the storage area; and Condition #19, that there be a three foot set-
back along the Lime Street property line.
Commissioner Coontz felt that, for the potential development of west
Chapman, the Commission must pay attention to parking. Therefore,
she was in opposition to this project.
AYES: Commissioner Ault
NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION FAILED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to deny
the request for Variance 1623 because of the lack of adequate parking
and on the basis that the applicant has not shown hardship.
AYES: Commissioners h1ickelson, Coontz, Hart
NOES: Commissioner Ault
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1096 -WILLIAMS:
Request to allow atwo-story second unit on the east side of Grand
Street, 135 feet north of the centerline of La Veta Avenue (475 South
Grand Street) . (Note: This project i s categorically exempt from
Environme ntal Review.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stati ng
that this is a request to allow the construction of a two-story second
unit at the rear of the property at 475 S. Grand Street. A condi tional
use permit i s required for two-s tory development i n the RCD overlay .
This property contains .14 acre of land and is located on the east
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6 , 1981
Page Six
~. side of Grand Street, 135 feet north of La Veta Avenue. It contains
a single family resi dence and is zoned RD-6 (RCD) . The property is
surrounded by single family residences i n the RD-6 (RCD) zone.
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant proposes to construct a
two-bedroom, two-bath residential unit over afour-car garage at the
rear of this property. Vehicular access would be via an alley at the
rear. All development standards for the RD-6 zone are complied with.
The Staff notes that the floor plan has been developed to permit
conversion of the proposed unit into two one-bedroom units . This has
been done to the degree that two entry doors have been proposed wi th-
i n 18 feet of one another on the west side of the building. Though
this does not pertain directly to the conditional use permit, Staff
wishes to point out that a condi ti on of bui 1 di ng permit issuance wil 1
be that the applicant record a deed restriction stati ng that the
proposed structure cannot be divided into two units .
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that this type of a floor plan presents two
problems, one that the RD zone permi is only two residences per lot;
and secondly, that the parki ng would be inadequate.
Staff Review Committee has reviewed the proposal and finds that,
with the exception of the suspicious floor plan, the proposal is
technically acceptable.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the Staff does not feel that the proposal
will detract from the existi ng architectural envi ronment of the
neighborhood surrounding the site, and therefore recommends that the
applicant's request be approved for the reason that the project will
not change the profile or character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hart had reservations about a deed restriction. He
wondered what would happen i f the property was rezoned to mul ti pl e
use. You would then be denying the applicant the abi 1 i ty to go to
multiple units on this property.
Chairman Mickelson explained that we are talking about a conditional
use permi t whereby the process is to approve plans as submitted. He
felt that this is such an obvious situation that a condition should be
added to modi fy the plan.
Question was asked as to whether the Design Review Board sees this plan.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that they do not see the inside of the building.
Commissioner Hart agreed that there should be an approval of final
plans by the Commission.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Danny Williams, 159 Shaffer, Orange, the applicant, addressed the
Commission in favor of this application. He asked if he could eliminate
one bathroom and make this athree-bedroom house. Chairman Mickelson
replied that i t is obvious that this could be changed to two one-bedroom
units and it is against zone restrictions.
Gene Holum, who lives one property south of the property in question,
addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He stated
that he has a pool and a single story garage which is between him and
the proposed building. He asked if the garage would be facing the
alley. There are four windows overlooking his back yard. He does
not know what the current zoning laws are as far as two-story structures .
He asked for further clarification for a conditional use permit in this
case.
~ ~
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6, 1981
Page Seven
~, Mr. Murphy replied that the purpose of the conditional use permit is
for review of plans to ensure proper relationship between second floor
units and the s urroundi ng area . The RD-6 zone allows two-story units
but requires a conditional use permit for a second story structure.
Mr. Holum felt that this is an invasion of his privacy. H e stated
that he did not know of any other two-story uni is i n that alley.
There are two-story houses, but all are on the front part of the lots.
The wi ndows of this structure wi 11 have a good vi ew of the three 1 ots
in back of him.
Paul Shephard, 480 S. Center, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this application. He lives directly across the alley
from this proposed structure. He stated that he was opposed to the
four windows in this structure which will overlook his property.
Danny Williams responded to the opposition, stating that he could
eliminate or remove the four windows from the back of the structure
and place them along the sides .
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public heari ng.
Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Commission could add to Condition
#3 that the design be changed and the windows moved.
Chairman Mickelson thought that there are two options. The matter
could be conti Hued or they could approve i t wi th recommended condi ti ons
and require that the plans be submitted to the Commission prior to
building.
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to
approve Condi tional Use Permit 1096, for the reasons stated by Staff
and subject to the six conditions as set forth in the Staff Report
wi th the addi ti on to Condi ti on #3 that final bui 1 di ng plans be
approved by the Pl anni ng Commission and then submi tted to the Design
Review Board; and th at a speci al condi ti on be placed on the 1 ocati on
of the windows and double entryway into the unit.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED
At this time, Robert J. Moore, 1433 W. Almond, Orange, requested that
he be allowed to address the Commission wi th regard to Item #8 on the
Agenda, Zone Change 941 - Ci ty of Orange. He stated that he could not
stay until the end of the evening to hear this item and wished to
state his opposition to the downzoni ng called for.
Chairman Mickelson expl ai ned that this item must be kept i n its place
on the agenda and asked Mr. Moore to write a letter addressing this
item and his opposition to it.
Paul Forbes also addressed this item, stating that he owns property on
Palmyra and wondered why there is downzoning in this area and who is
initiating it.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1097 -ORANGEWOOD ASSOCIATES:
Request to allow construction of two 35 foot high office buildings at
the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Eckhoff Street. (Note:
Negative Declaration 685 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental
Impact Report.)
0
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6 , 1981
Page Eight
~. Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, s tati ng
that this is a request to allow the construction of two 35-foot
high office bui 1 di ngs . A condi tional use permit i s required for the
construction of a building over 30 feet in height in the C-P zone.
He explained that the property contains 4.81 acres of land located
on the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Eckhoff Street. The
property is zoned C-P and contains a single family residence and a
citrus grove. He pointed out that on November 21, 1978 Pre-Zone
Change 886 was approved by the Ci ty Counci 1 changing the zoni ng on
this property from County h1-1 to C-P prior to annexation to the City.
Mr. Murphy also pointed out that on September 18, 1979, the City
Counci 1 approved Condi tional Use Permit 977 and Tentative Parcel
Map 79-769 to allow sub division of the property into ei ght parcels .
Proposed were six office buildings, a restaurant, and accompanying
off-street parking. The structures were to be 1-2 story in height
with at-grade parking. This condi tional use permit and tentati ve
parcel map will expire if not used and, therefore, have no bearing
on the present proposal,
Mr. Murphy explained that each bui 1 di ng i s to contain 2 stori es of
offices over a 10 foot semi-subterranean parking facility. The
applicant proposes to grade the site so that i t slopes downward toward
the rear. As can be seen in the sectional plan, the rear of the
property will be five feet below curb grade. The proposed buildings
will be 35 feet above finished grade at the front and 40 feet above
finished grade at the rear. One half of the parking level will be
above ground at the front of the building and the entire structure
will be above ground at the rear. Access to the parking facility will
be taken from the rear.
Mr. Murphy stated that the bui 1 di ngs are 1 ocated 55 feet from the
residentially zoned properties to the rear. A rear setback of 10 feet
is required by the C-P zone. The height limit in the C-P zone is
2 s tori es or 30 feet unl ess a Condi tional Use Permit for greater hei gh t
is approved. The 4:1 height ratio called out in other commercial zones
does not apply to the C-P zone.
The applicant proposes a total of 108,500 square feet of office space.
434 parking spaces are provi ded as requi red by code. 291 of these are
located at ground level and 143 are located underneath the buildings.
Chains will be provi ded at access points to the parki ng 1 of i n order
to discourage use of the property by patrons of nearby Anaheim Stadium.
The Staff recommends that the P1 a nni ng Commission accept the fi ndi ngs
of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 685.
Mr, Murphy pointed out that the purpose of the height restriction in
the Commercial-Professional zone is to preserve the character and
privacy of adjacent residential neighborhoods. The addition of five
feet i n overal 1 height to these bui 1 di ngs i n order to uti 1 i ze s ub-
terranean parki ng is not felt by Staff to si gni fi cantly impact ei ther
privacy or character at this location. However, because of the access
to the semi-subterranean parking is only from the south side of the
bui 1 di ngs , more traffic circulation than would otherwi se take place
wi 11 occur wi th this proposed design. A 55 foot setback has been
provided to partially buffer the building from the single family
residences to the rear. The site will be graded so as to place five
feet of the parking level below the grade of the residential properties.
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1097, subject to
the 17 condi ti ons as set forth i n the Staff Report.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6, 1981
Page Nine
~. Bill Langston, 1761 Reynolds, Irvine, representing Orangewood
Associates, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of
this appl ication, stati ng that they met wi th the property owners and
have had several meetings and five plans up to this point. Each have
made compromises and this plan they feel wi 11 be good for the nei ghbor-
hood and for themselves also. The people in the neighborhood have been
very courteous. They have expressed their concerns and the applicants
also expressed what they have proposed to do. They have tried to
address problems with the neighborhood, such as traffic, height of
buildings, landscaping, etc. They have tried to create some screening
from adjacent properties . They have revi ewed the condi tions and do
not understand Co~~ndi tion #11 . They would 1 i ke an expl anati on. However,
they understand and agree with all other condi ti ons .
Mr. Johnson explained that this is a standard condition relating to
improvement of property and the city standards which shall be adhered
to, which means drawing up plans and processing them for approval and
adheri ng to the city standards .
Mr. Langston explained that they have retained a landscape architect
to work wi th the nei ghbors i n the 1 ands capi ng .
~" bJith regard to the problem of Anaheim Stadium and the fact that some
of the Orangewood Associates employees work late at night, they plan
to chain off some 30 feet of parking space for their employees.
Chairman Mickelson asked for clarification on this situation regarding
chaining a piece of property for employees to park. The applicant
further explai ned this situation. He wished a condi tion to be imposed
that a small area be set aside for their employees only and not allow
sporti ng event patrons to park i n that area. Questi on was asked as
to how this could be policed.
At this point, Commissioner Master joined the meeting.
John Blecker, 2205 W. Beverly Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission
in favor of this application. He stated that he lives directly be-
hind the property. He pointed out that Mr. Langston has met with the
nei ghbors several times to discuss this project. Since thei r properti es
back up to this property, their concern was for the height of this
building. They have been assured that there will be large trees which
will give them a visual bumper into their properti es . Parking has been
a concern also, but they have been assured that this will be alleviated.
The nei ghbors are not opposed to this development and are happy wi th
the way Mr. Langston has cooperated with them and worked things out.
Lois Bart, 2222 Spruce, Orange, asked a question regarding chaining
part of the parking area. Industrial developers have these chained
areas or are getting them. She pointed out that sports patrons are
not kind to the properties and she thinks that the ci ty of Orange shoul d
look at this situation. Since Mr. Langston has indicated a willingness
to put this into the CC&R's, she would like to see this be put in as a
condition to the conditional use permit. She would also like to ex-
press her appreciation to the developers for their interest and good
faith i n worki ng with the nei ghbors .
Commissioner Coontz asked Staff about the possible use of this parking
structure for public fee parking. Wouldn't this be against an ordinance
i n the ci ty of Orange?
Mr. Murphy replied that there are no regulations in this regard, All.
parking structures are getting into charging a fee for parking. This
could be set up as a condi ti on or a deed restri ction to this effect,
so that a purchaser of the property would be aware of this restriction.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Ten
~, Sue Bowers, 1430 Annapolis, Anaheim, addressed the Commission,
stating that she is an employee of Anaheim Stadium. She pointed
out that there must be some place for employees of the stadium to
park, The employees must park on this property, since the s tadi um
has told them where they are to park.
Chairman Mi ckel son explained that there has been some fri cti on between
Orange and Anaheim since the s tadi um was first bui 1 t. Their atti tude
must be that the stadium must provi de its own parking, not only for
patrons, but for employees.
Ms . Bowers stated that they do not deface property and she did not
understand why they could not use this property to park. It was
explained to her that she should go to the city of Anaheim with her
concerns.
Mr. Langston explained on the site plan how he would chain off the
entrance i n one area and where the spaces would be reserved for 1 ate
working employees . They recognize that there woul d be a smal l un-
protected area where outside people could park .
Commissioner Hart wondered if they had considered stickers for people
using the building and have a tow away situation for unauthorized cars.
Mr. Langston replied that the new 1 aws are very tricky . Regardi ng
making this a condi tion, he thought that something 1 ike the parki ng
being for tenants and empl oyees only and not for any outside activities
could be stated. He does not want a stipulation that would hurt them
if they have to go to charging for parking.
There being no one else to speak for or against this appl ication, the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file
Negative Delcaration 685.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1097, subject to the 17
conditions as set forth i n the Staff Report, plus an 18th condi tion
to read:
18. Parking that is provided for this facility shall be only for
this faci 1 i ty and for people vi si ti ng the facility or trans-
acti ng business, and not for any off-site activities .
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1049 -SMITH:
Request for reconsideration of conditions of approval of Condi ti onal
Use Permit 1049 to allow conversion of a single family residence to
office at the northeast corner of Washington Avenue and Glassell
Street. Since this matter has been before the Commission previously,
no presentation was given. Mr. Murphy did point out that the condi-
tions bei ng appeal ed are #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12 and 14 of the
original approved conditions. Mr. Murphy then read these conditions
from the original Staff Report, expl ai ni ng that they can be broken
into two compartments : Condi ti ons #8, 9 and 12 dealing wi th water,
sewer and fire fi ghti ng, could be deleted because they are standard
condi tions that do not have speci fi cation to them. However, the
other 5; condi tions basically are items that involve other improvements
of public righ t of way or requirements of the Design Review Board
with regard to landscaping or the project itself. He pointed out that
the City Council should take final action on these conditions.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Eleven
Staff's recommendation is that the six conditions alluded to be
adhered to as standard practices rather than setti ng a poor precedent
by modi fyi ng them. They are standard and have been complied wi th by
other applicants i n recent years . Any action taken by the Pl anni ng
Commission to modify these conditions should go to the City Council
for final action.
Chairman Mickelson wondered if Conde tions #5, 6 and 12 are only
instituted if some changes are made. Mr. Murphy replied that this
i s correct. The Design Revi ew Board has asked, especi al ly wi th regard
to Old Towne, with conversions of old residences, that they have an
opportune ty to review the conversion, both any modi fi cations to the
bui 1 di ng, as well as any 1 andscapi ng modi fi cati ons . They would 1 i ke
to see professional lands ca pi ng i n these areas .
Chairman Mickelson wondered i f the City Counci 1 has taken any action
on this project and he was told that the Planning Commission took
final action on this. It was not appealed by the applicant to
City Council. Chairman Mickelson then asked if the Commission does
have the option to ask the City Counci 1 to take fi Hal acti on on the
amended conditional use permit and was told that this would be so only
i f there was a recommendation to el imi Hate those items relating to
the public ri ght of way or relate ng to the Design Revi ew Board's
review. It would be the Council's prerogative only to modify the
six condi tions .
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Wilber A. Smith, representing Steven Smith, the applicant, addressed
the Commission, pointing out that he was not in attendance at the
initial hearing on this project. However, he was asked by Mr. Smith
to represent him i n this matter. He expl ai ned that he has met with
Mr. Mi nshew and there has been substanti al correspondence concerni ng
the compliance of Mr. Smith with the conditions set forth in the Staff
Report. He has questioned Mr. Minshew with regard to what kind of
appeal they might make with regard to the conditions they feel they
will have difficulty abiding by. He wished to emphasize that this was
a residential structure for approximately 20 years . Mr. Smi th
acquired the property i n 1979, being told by the seller that i t was
OK for business use. He found out later that there had been no prior
conditional use permit to convert for business use.
Mr. Smith explained that his client has resurfaced the parking area
and repaired the curbing fronting on Glassell. The only conversion
other than that has been inside. The only use he is making of this
buil di ng is stri ctly for office and cl ere cal use. His business is
auto sports publications. With this use in mind, some of the condi-
tions seem to be inapplicable. The condi ti on that a six foot view
obscuring masonry wall be built is both unnecessary and totally non-
feasible. The back property line now has a six foot wood fence. The
rear of a detach ed uti 1 i ty bui 1 di ng si is ri ght on the property 1 i ne.
If he must tear down the wood fence and build a masonry wall, he would
be forced to trespass on the nee ghbor's property to put this wall up.
Another problem is that the adjoining property owner's garage sits
right next to the fence and there is not enough room for men and
equipment to come in and build a masonry wall. This wood fence is
view obscure ng and they see no need for a masonry wall .
As to the widening of Glassell Street, this is a bone of contention for
the applicant. Sunwes t Bank is poste ng a bond, but they are doing new
construction and the applicant feels that this does not apply in his
case. Subsequent to the last Planning Commission heari ng, Mr. Smith
obtained a letter from Mr. Boling, the previous owner, which he sub-
mi tted to Mr. Soo-Hoo. Basically, Mr. Boling states that he used
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6, 1981
Page Twelve
this residence not only for a home, but he used it for a real estate
office and his wife used part of it as a commercial art studio,
having customers coming in regularly. They should have taken out a
business license but they did not and now Mr. Smith is paying the
price. He feel s that thi s i s a case of very 1 i ttl e modi ficati on to
the bui 1 di ng and some of these condi tions are simply not applicable.
Mr. Smith went on to state that they do not know what kind of cash
bond will be required by the city. Their position in this matter is
that they do not wish to tie up this money for an indeterminate
period of time unti 1 the ci ty makes a decision as to whether th e
money will be needed.
Commissioner Hart pointed out that methods were discussed in this
regard and he had suggested that Mr. Smith could make a pass book
deposit and put up the pass book with the city as surety. He would
then continue to earn interest on his money. Mr. Smith's attorney
stated that they were told that this would not be a feasible alternative.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ch airman Mickelson pointed out that he had asked the Commission to
give Mr. Smith time to do the things that did not require cash outlay
and that they be given one year to take care of some of the other
items. Mr. Minshew pointed out that the dedication has been made.
Commissioner Hart offered the suggestion that every time they have
done this they have gotten burned. To use the argument that Mr.
Smith should be released from his obligation because of the statements
made by the seller is not a feasible argument.
Commissioner Coontz stated that the only problem she has is with the
requirement for the six foot masonry wall. There is only a small section
of about 30 feet where this wall needs to be built.
Commissioner Ault did not see a reason for a masonry wall here. It was
pointed out that the wood fence is in good condition. Commissioner
Ault also wondered about going to the Design Review Board with 1 and-
scaping for conversions. He thought that this was rather rigid. Mr.
Murphy explained that in most cases this is standard and they must go
through this process.
Commissioner Ault wondered i f they could go to the Design Review Board
and ask for preliminary figures rather than a final plan. Commissioner
Hart explained that they can submit a plot plan with no landscaping
and i t wi 11 come back with complete 1 andscapi ng.
Chairman Mickelson felt that they should work with the Design Review
Board on Conditions #5 and 6. Condition #7 is standard and should be
adhered to. Conditions #8 and 9 are as required and could be eliminated
with no problem. #10 again i s a condition which s houl d be complied with .
He explained that if they have trash pickup, they do not have to have
a trash enclosure. Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr. Johnson about the
bond. Mr. Johnson replied that he did not see any problem with coming
up with a figure on the es ti mate and pos ti ng a pass book account as
surety.
Chairman Mickelson th en reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Smith again addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant,
stating that he felt that a corporate surety bond might be easier to
take. At the last hearing a cash bond was requested. He spoke to
Commissioner Hart's comment regarding the Commission being burned
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Thirteen
~,,,, when they are generous with
was true in this case. He
reputation i n the city of 0
an applicant. He did not feel that this
pointed out that Mr. Smith has a good
~ange.
Regarding statements in reg rd to a commercial parking lot, this is
not a commerci al parki ng 10 Mr. Smith merely paved what was already
there.
Chairman Mickelson then cloyed the public hearing.
Commissioner Master comment d that almost every time they have had a
variation, it has come back to haunt them. With regard to the wood
fence, there could be a pro lem. He was for stating that .the condi-
tions stay uniform.
It was brought out that just as the nei ghbors were noti fi ed at the
first public hearing, so they were also notified of this hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1049A,
for reasons that applicant is not making any structural changes or
changes i n 1 andscapi ng and that he be relieved of Condi ti ons #5, 6,
11 and 14.
Motioned died for lack of al second.
Commissioner Ault then expressed his views regarding ordinances which
are made i n the city. We eed to use common sense sometimes and always
stay strictly within the regulations.
Chairman Mickel son expl ai n~ that this should be recommended to the
City Council and syould be rought to a motion.
Moved by Commissioner Mast r, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to
remove Conditions #8, 9 an 12, but still retain Conditions #5, 6, 7,
10, 11 and 14.
Chairman Mickelson explai
fi nal decision unl ess the
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, H
NOES: Commissioners Ault, Coontz
ABSENT: Commissioners none
C
Commissioner Coontz then e>
for denial i s based on the
conditions. If this is an
with other situations simil
each Commissioner would hay
and which to deny. Commis
ment of pot shoti ng. The ~
gives their recommendation
that if this motion carries, it will be a
licant wishes to appeal.
Master
MOTION CARRIED
plained that the reason for her decision
fact that we are "pot shoting" standard
example, we can expect people to come in
ar to this and expect a variance, and
e his personal vi ews as to which to accept
Toner Master took exception to this state-
taff has reviewed the requirements and
to the Commission.
CONDITIONAL USE PERTIIT 109, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-756 -
VICTOR CONSTRUCTION:
Request to allow developme t of an office condominium on the north side
of Katel l a Avenue, east of the Santa Ana River (1855 West Katel l a
Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 596 was previously accepted
and no further environment 1 review is required.)
Kathy Braden bri efly preser
stating that this is a regi
dominium development and a
office-professional uses ii
airspace subdi vision for cc
ted this application to the Commission,
est to allow an office-professional con-
conditional use permit is required to allow
an industrial district and to allow an
ndominium pruposes.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Fourteen
~,_ She pointed out that the property is an irregular shaped parcel con-
taining 2.66 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Katella
Avenue and the Santa Ana River.
Conditional Use Permit 993 was granted on November 5, 1979 to allow
development of a three-story, 59,000 square foot office building on
this site. However, the applicant proposes to amend the previous
proposal by expanding the floor area to 61,000 square feet and
developing i t as an office condominium. 256 parking spaces are pro-
posed while 244 are required by code.
The Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that i t i s technically
acceptab 1 e with two routi ne corrections , including supplementing of
the trash facilities, as well as widening of the primary driveway to
35 feet.
Ms. Braden pointed out that Negative Declaration 596 was previously
accepted and no further environmental review i s requi red.
Staff feels the physical proposal is essentially similar to that
originally approved. The major modification is the division of the
offices into condominiums which the Staff feels is acceptable.
Approval of this application is therefore recommended for the reasons
that:
1. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning.
2. The proposal has direct access to a primary arterial highway.
The project is recommended with six standard condi tions and the
Engineer's Plan Check Sheet.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Vic Palenquin, Victor Construction, 3445 E. La Palma, Anaheim, the
applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application.
He stated that they are basically proposing the same kind of building
as they proposed two years ago. The square footage has been increased
slightly, but the amount of parking spaces has been brought up also,
with no request for variance. He did not anticipate any opposition
basically, because they have the Santa Ana Ri ver, a pistol range and
a drive-i n theatre surrounding them. He pointed out that they wish
to put up a building that is an asset in the neighborhood.
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 for approval Con di ti onal Use Permit 1096 and Tentati ve
Parcel Map 81-756 for reasons as stated by Staff and with the six
conditions set forth i n the Staff Report and the Engineer's Plan
Check Sheet,
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERP~IIT 1099 - KEPFORD:
Request to allow a pre-school and extended day care center on the
north side of Palmyra Avenue, 160 feet west of the centerline of
Gardner Drive (1125. East Palmyra Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration
681 has been prepared i n 1 i eu of an Environmental Impact Report. )
Q
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6 , 1981
Page Fifteen
~.. Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this is a request to allow apre-school and day care center for
children 2-10 years of age. The property is located on the north
side of Palmyra Avenue, approximately 160 feet west of the centerline
of Gardner Drive. It is zoned R-1-6 and contains an existing church.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explai ned that the applicant requests a condi tional use
permit to allow weekday use of two classroom buildings on the site
for a Montessori pre-school and extended day care center. In addition,
a portion of the rear parking area would be used for a play area. The
applicant proposes to operate between the hours of 7 a.m, and 5:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday. 72 students are proposed (41 pre-school and
31 extended day care) though the school may ultimately be expanded to
100 students i n the future. Students would range in age from 2 years
old to 10 years old. In accordance with State regulations, 1 staff
member would be provi ded for every 12 students . Only exi s ti ng
bui 1 di ngs would be used, though a porti on of the existing parking 1 of
would be fenced to enclose the play yard.
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that because of the proximi ty to residential
uses, buffering of the play area is of concern. In response to this,
the applicant stated a wi 11 i ngness to increase the hei ght of the
existing 4 foot high block wall on the west property line abutting the
play yard to 6 feet; to restri ct active play to that portion of the
yard furthest from the residences and to limit use of the play area to
between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed a concern that the
play area should be adequately buffered from adjoining residences.
It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board
to file Negative Declaration 681 be accepted.
Mr. Soo-Hoo poi nted out that, as he had previously stated, the primary
Staff concern relates to the location of the proposed play area next
to residences; however, it is felt that the conditions of approval will
provide an acceptable buffer. In addition, the applicant states that
they have contacted the adjoi ni ng property owners south of the pl ay area
and have found that they favor the proposal. Therefore, approval of
Conditional Use Permit 1099 is recommended for the reasons that the
proposal , wi th i mpl ementati on of the condi ti ons of approval , would be
compatible with surrounding land use and zoning; and that the proposal
is consistent with the city's adopted General Plan.
+~ Staff suggested four conditions with the approval, as follows:
1. That the play area shall be utilized only between the hours of
10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
2. That a six foot high block wall shall be provided along the
westerly property line abutting the play area.
3. That securi ty 1 i ghti ng shall be installed per the speci fi cations
of the Police Department.
4. That drop-off and pick-up of students shall take place only in
the parking area and shall not be done in the street.
It was brought out that Mr. Ed Dunlop, 12422 S. Rosalie, Orange, had
left a card with the Commission, stating his approval of the application
since he could not stay for this portion of the Commission meeting.
Mr. Soo-Hoo then explained the reason for the fourth condition, which
is the fact that Palmyra is a heavily used street during working hours,
Therefore, Staff felt that i t was necessary to impose Condi ti on #4.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Elaine Kepford, 18122 Estes Way, Santa Ana, director of Kepford Learning
Center, and the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6, 1981
Page Sixteen
~`_ application. She s tated that the school has been i n the area since
°- 1974 and they now need expanded facilities since they have grown so
large. She handed out copies of their work schedule to the Commission,
which basically pointed out the outdoor play time. The children come
out from 10:30 to 11:00 a.m. Depending on the weather, they come out
for lunch and a half hour play period. There is an outdoor project
in the afternoon. This is structured time. From 3:45 to 4:15 p.m.
approximately 70% of the children have left for home. 30% of the
children remain until 5:30 to 5:45 p.m.
They do not have an extended el ementary day care program now, but
would like to offer this with enlarged facilities. School age
children would be gone most of the day. They would only be there in
the late afternoon with supervised play.
Commissioner Master asked if this is the schedule of the current play
times and Ms. Kepford answered in the affirmative. Her program is
a 1 earni ng concept. Outdoor play is very necessary, but i t is not the
main bulk of the program.
Rev. Charles W. Smith, 2325 E. Locust, Orange, pastor of the Orange
Church of the Nazarene, spoke in favor of this application. He spoke
of the positive contri buti on of the school for the church and the
community. He pointed out that in their function as a church, they
provide a Sunday school where learning takes place. The Kepford
Learning Center also has learning taking place on a daily basis. They
have had a lot of nr~k~lems with children coming home from school from
Palmyra. There has been vandalism occuring on the church property.
It would be a real benefit to the community where vandalism will not
be taking place. With regard to the noise which could be produced,
Rev. Smith explained that the city of Orange has property to one side
of their property which houses the Water Department. This produces
some noise and also the children in the neighborhood produce some
noise. This school would not produce any more noise.
Rev. Smith produced a letter from the manager of the apartments behind
their property, Daisy Cheng, which favors this school and expresses
her satisfaction with the behavior of the children when they are out-
doors, Other neighbors are in favor of this project also. They feel
that this will be a real plus for the neighborhood.
Vicky White, 19041 Miles Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in
favor of this application. She stated that she is the chairperson in
Orange for Preschool Placement. There are very few schools such as
this in Orange and there is a great need for this. There is a need
for good extended day care facilities. She pointed out that there are
block wall fences all around the property.
There being no one else to speak for or agains t this application, the
Ch airman cl osed the publ i c hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept
the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negati ve
Declaration 681 .
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to approve
Conditional Use Permit 1099, subject to the four conditions as set
forth in the Staff Report.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Seventeen
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
VARIANCE 16 26 - TABATABAEE:
Request to allow construction of an office bui 1 di ng with more compact
parking spaces than are allowed by code and fewer overall parking
spaces than allowed by code for property located on the north side of
Chapman Avenue, 262 feet west of the centerline of Hewes Street
(4341-4343 East Chapman Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 682
has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Kathy Braden presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this is a request to allow construction of an office building
with variances for fewer number of parking spaces than are required
by code; and a greater percentage of compact car stalls than are
required by code .
Ms. Braden explained that the property contains .24 acres of land
located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, approximately 262 feet
west of the centerline of Hewes Street. The applicant proposes to
_ construct one story (6,363 square feet) of office space over an at-
grade 1 evel of parking. 24 parki ng spaces are proposed i n 1 i eu of the
25 required by code. 28 percent of the spaces are compact car size.
Only 20 percent compact stalls are allowed by code.
Ms. Braden pointed out that a 10 foot setback has been provided along
Chapman Avenue as required by code. A 1z - 2~ foot setback is pro-
vi ded i n the rear and no setbacks on the sides . One-way access to
and from the parking level is taken via two driveways from Chapman
Avenue.
Ms. Braden stated that the inter-department staff has reviewed the
proposal and made the comments that the trash enclosure on the plans
does not meet city design s tandards relative to size and accessi bi 1 i ty
for pick-up. The applicant proposes to be responsible for trash dis-
posal rather than to contract for Ci ty services . Thi s arrangement is
satisfactory to the Sanitation Inspector provided an agreement is
recorded precluding service by the ci ty of Orange or any other
contractor.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of
the Environmental Review Board to file Negati ve Decl arati on 682.
Several variances have been granted recently for compact car stalls in
excess of 20 percent of the required parking. In that Staff hopes to
recommend an increase to 40 percent in the near future, no problems are
foreseen with the subject proposal for 28 percent.
The reduction of one parking space out of 25 is not large. However,
Staff feels that it is significant for two reasons:
1. There appears to be no hardship or other circumstance to justify
the reduction. Furthermore, on-street parking is expected to be
eliminated along East Chapman Avenue in the near future, which
will make any on-site parking shortage more critical.
2. The amount of square footage being proposed for this site presents
several concerns i n addi ti on to the i nabi 1 i ty to provide adequate
parking faci 1 i ti es .
The difficulty in providing trash pick-up has been discussed previously.
The design of the project and the 1 ack of setbacks 1 eaves very 1 i ttl e
space for landscaping and the front setback is reduced by the two
a
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Eighteen
driveways and the covered parking precludes the landscaping usually
found i n that area. The small rear setback wi 11 not support the row
of trees usually required by the Design Review Board to buffer
res i denti al properti es from commerci a 1 uses .
Ms. Braden pointed out that construction of the buildi ng on or near
the side and rear property 1 i nes wi 11 1 i mi t the architectural detai 1
which is permitted by the Uniform Building Code. This lack of
treatment, in addition to the lack of landscaping which usually serves
to soften and enhance a building, will result in significant impacts
to both the adjacent residential properties to the north and to the
character of the area as a whole. She also pointed out that this project
has been reviewed by the East Chapman Study Committee and they have also
expressed concerns about the bulk and starkness of the structure being
proposed for the site. Their report has been given to the Commission
for perusal.
Should the Planning Commission see this variance request as an oppor-
tunity to address the concerns which have been brought up, Staff would
recommend that the applicant reduce the size of the bui 1 di ng.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Hadi Tabatabaee, 11608 Park, Santa Fe Spri ngs, the applicant, addressed
the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that he did
not see the significance of one parking space, which is what the
variance is for. He pointed out that the practice for commercial
bui 1 di ngs is not to have wi ndows along the property 1 i ne. However,
they do have plans for landscapi ng.
Commissioner Ault asked if these are to be offices and the applicant
replied in the affirmative.
George Kaye, 11815 Santiago, Orange, addressed the Commission, stati ng
hat he owns property diagonally across the street from this property
and came to the meeting for an education, since he has never attended
this type of proceedi ngs before.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the
Chairman closed the public h Baring.
Chairman Mickelson asked if this variance wasn't needed for one parking
space, would it be an administrative decision. Mr. Murphy answered in
the affi rmati ve, but pointed out that the other function taki ng place
is an action being taken by the East Chapman Committee. Activities
i n the area to date have been extensively modi fi cati ons to four other
bui 1 di ngs through this committee. The applicant has met wi th repres enta-
ti ves of the study commi ttee and knows of their objections .
Chairman Mickelson wondered who decides whether a building is compatible
wi th the area . Mr. Murphy replied that probably the Design Review
Board would do this, with input from the committee.
Commissioner Coontz wondered i f this has caused major changes i n
designs and Mr. Murphy stated that this was the case. The committee
has substantial influence over the architectural features in th.e area.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept
the findings of the Envi ronmental Revi ew Board to fi 1 e Negati ve
Declaration 682.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 6, 1981
Page Nineteen
~" Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve Variance 1626, subject to the 15 conditions set forth in
the Staff Report.
Commissioner Coontz indicated that the only reason she had asked
questions was that she supposed that Staff had apprised the applicant
as to what he had ahead of him to face.
Chairman Mickel son was not sure whether the variance was needed when
he did not see hardship.
AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioner Mickelson
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERh1IT 1100, VARIANCE 1627 -GROSS:
Request to allow conversion of two industrial buildings to office
condomi ni ums on a si to containing 1 ess than 5 acres and with pro-
vi si on of 1 ess than the required off-street parking and greater than
the permi tted number of compact parki ng spaces on the southeast
corner of Main Street and Struck Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration
683 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Kathy Braden presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this property contains 2.2 acres of land located on the south-
east corner of Main Street and Struck Avenue. The property is zoned
M-2 and contai ns two industrial buildings .
Ms. Braden explained that the applicant requests approval to convert
the two i ndustrial bui 1 di ngs to office condominiums . A condi ti onal
use permit is required to allow an airspace subdivision for condominium
purposes . A condi ti onal use permit and vari ance are required to allow
an office professional use of 1 ess than 5 acres i n an industrial zone.
Variances are also bei ng requested for fewer than the required number
of parking spaces and for a greater percentage of compact car stalls
than are allowed by Code.
The applicant proposes to add open-air atriums to the existing buildings
and to remodel them in order to create 44,662 square feet of office
space. The drainage control channel abutting the south property line
i s proposed to be covered and paved for additional parking. The
entire parking lot will be landscaped and trash enclosures added as
part of the conversion. A total of 179 parking spaces is required by
code for an offi ce project of this size and allows twenty percent
compact car stalls. There has been a revised plan submitted and there
is now adequate parking on the site.
Ms. Braden stated that they have recei ved a 1 etter from Rodeway Express
Truck Terminal, expressing concern about losing industrial area to
office space.
Staff recommends that the Planni ng Commission accept the findings of
the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negative Decl arati on 683.
Staff recommends approval of this variance, subject to the 10 condi tions
as set forth i n the Staff Report.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Bud Quist, representing the applicant, and the engineer for the project,
addressed the Corrrnission in favor of this application, thanking the
Staff for their fine presentation and thei r work wi th the applicant
on the project. H e explained about the open ditch flood channel and
the fact that they are working with the flood channel control to cover
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Twenty
the channel and use i t for parki ng spaces. He explained that they
have no objection to any of the condi tions stated i n the Staff
Report.
John Fodo, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim Hills, representing
Rodeway Express Truck Terminal, addressed the Commission in opposition
to this application, stati ng that the main objection that they have i s
that they will be expanding their facility this year. They will con-
tinue to move 45 foot tractor trailers through that area. They cannot
control the noise and/or traffic and i f the area Conti Hues to develop
with office bui 1 di ngs , th ey wi 11 probably disrupt everyday activity .
They operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day and have tractors and
trailers moving in and out of their facility, plus dock operation which
creates noise also.
Commissioner Master asked Staff if Rodeway was exceeding the noise
standards at this point. He pointed out that if they were not, then
this should not be a probl em.
Mr. Murphy replied that present noise standards apply only to
residential uses, not industrial or office.
Earl Gross, 1532 Miramar Drive, Newport Beach, addressed the Commission,
commenting that he lives with airplane noise in his area and feels
that they were there first and he had the choice to move there or not.
He does not believe the truck noise is rel evant, si nce they are there
first. If this is a valid problem with the Commission, he would not
object to putting this into the CC&R's .
There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept
the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negati ve
Declaration 683.
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 Condi tional Use Permit 1100 and Variance 1627,
subject to the 11 condi tions as outlined i n the Staff Report, pl us an
,~ additional Condi tion #11 , that the project comply wi th the Bui 1 di ng
Security Ordinance.
Commissioner Master commented that he did not like imposing noise
ordinances on either the builder or the owner. Commissioner Coontz
stated that Rodeway has protected themselves by their appearance here
before the Commission and by their letter.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Mickel son commented that h e was not wi 11 i ng to act toni gh t
on the next item on the agenda -Zone Change 941. However, he was
willing to open the public hearing at this time. Commissioner
Coontz agreed with this thinking.
^!
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Twenty-One
~" ZONE CHANGE 941 -CITY Of ORANGE:
Request to rezone property from C-3 to C-2 generally along the east
and west sides of Main Street between Chapman Avenue and Town and
Country Road. (Note: Negative Declaration 675 has been prepared
in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Jere Murphy presented this application before the Commission,
stati ng that this property i s an area of 9 parcel s containing ap-
proximately 3.69 acres of land located on the west side of Main Street
between Chapman Avenue and Almond Avenue; an area of 29 parcels con-
taining approximately 8.38 acres of land located on the .east side of
Main Street beginning at a point 168 feet south of the centerline of
Chapman Avenue and extending to La Veta Avenue; an area of 7 parcels
containing approximately 9.29 acres of land located on the east side
of Main Street between the Garden Grove Freeway and Town and Country
Road.
The property is zoned C-3 and contains various commercial and office
uses including two non-conforming uses (C.S. I . Vinyl Roof and
Roseburrough Tools, Inc.)
Mr. Murphy poi nted out that the Land Use El ement of the General Plan
designates the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Main Street,
and all of Main Street area south of La Veta Avenue as major com-
mercial ; and all of the subject property along Main Street between
Chapman Avenue and La Veta Avenue as local commercial.
The Staff is attempting to make the zoning ordinance contemporary by
removi ng a zoni ng designation that i s no 1 onger relevant to today's
needs and is identical to another zone. Staff has prepared a list of
the existing uses on C-3 zoned land. The list shows the lowest legal
zone that the use would be all owed i n. All uses wi th the excepti on of
the two currently non-conformi ng uses wi 11 be permitted i n the C-2
zone. (Many of the uses will fit into even more restrictive zones.)
Staff feels that the C-3 zone is superfluous and should be eliminated
at this time to coincide with the overall zoning ordinanc e revision.
The zone was on gi nal l y established to alleviate the 1 egal prob 1 em of
having some quasi-industrial uses amid commercial retail businesses on
Main Street. It is Staff's opinion that the C-3 zone has served its
purpose and is no longer necessary. Therefore, Staff recommends
approval of Zone Change 941.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that Staff sees no downzoni ng of the properties
involved.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. He pointed out that this
area has been the subject of several studies by the Commission and this
is a decision made by all of the Commissioners.
Duncan Clark addressed the Commission, stating that in 1974 this area
came up for downzoning and the City Counci 1 was quite irate that thi s
change of zoning should be considered downzoning. C-3 zoning is
defi ni tely being changed to C-2. The Staff indicates that there is
no difference. However, historically that property along Main Street
was zoned C-3 for a specific purpose. Some of the businesses in that
area i nfri nge on C-2 zoni ng a 1 i ttl e bi t. He felt that no matter
what is said, C-2 zoning is downzoning. This was a major issue back
in 1974 and created a furor.
Mr. Clark stated that he di d wi sh to compliment the P1 anni ng Staff for
the beautiful fountai n whi ch is now i n place i n front of the Council
Chambers .
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Twenty-Two
Commissioner Hart asked i f Mr. Clark thought that i f Roseburrough
Tool were to go out of the space they occupy now, should another
industrial firm go in? Mr. Clark did not think so.
Commissioner Hart explained that the reason why this zoni ng i s being
changed is that it is another section in the code that must be
carried on the books. Mr. Clark thought that it should then be
carried on the books. Some of the people have owned property in
this area 30 to 40 years and C-3 zoning means something to them. It
also means something to a real tor. Pri de of ownership i n property
is important.
Geneva Fulton, 1801 N. Greenleaf, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission,
stating that she only wants clari fi cati on of what i s permitted i n
C-3 and C-2. She does not want their property to be zoned so that i f
someone wants to go high rise they may. She does not want i t to be
res tri cted.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that although the plea i s for peopl e
to come i n individually, th ey do not come. She thinks there should be
a list so that people understand what uses are allowed and what are not.
Charles Miles, 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission,
stating that he has seen a list of C-3 and C-2 zone uses and does not
think they are very similar. He pointed out that he has an operation
at 185-187 S. Main Street, which is a Porsche and Volkswagon repair
facility. They have machines that possibly could not come under the
C-2 zone. There are differences of opinion regarding C-3 and C-2.
He still goes back to the guarantee they were given when they had the
downzoning fiasco before and they were promised there would be no more
downzoning. If there isn't any difference, why should there be a
change?
Joe Dickerson, 347 N. Ash, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating
that if more explanation had been given in the letters sent to the
property owners there would have been less problems. If this is only
an administrative move, there is no objection.
Mr. Murphy suggested a continuance of this item to May 4, to be the
first Conti Hued item on the agenda .
Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
continue this item to May 4, 1981, as the first item on the agenda,
with all property owners to be given addi ti oval notification and
explanation of the public hearing.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
The Commissioner commended Commissioner Master on his appointment to
another commission, the Site Selection Study Committee for the new
General Aviation Sites for Orange County.
Commissioner Master recommended a study session to review conditions
that apply to converted residences to professional use. It was
decided that the study session would be held on April 27, 1981 at
5:15 p.m. Commissioner Mickelson throught that a requirement for
submittal of building elevations should also be studied at this time.
~J
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 1981
Page Twenty-Three
Moved by Commissioner Master to commend the Staff in their preparation
of the presentation of the code revisions that were recently com-
pleted, and particularly commending Ed Deacon for his efforts.
Commission voted a unanimous commendation.
Two other study items were mentioned by Chairman Mickelson for review
at the upcoming study session - the El Modena plan and compact car
parki ng spaces .
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m, to reconvene a t 7:30 p.m.
on Monday, April 20, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers,
300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
^~
r~
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 6, 19 81.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Mickelso n at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Blaster
ABSENT: None
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master that this
meeti ng adjourn at 11 :40 p.m, on Monday, April 6, 1981 , to reconvene at
7:30 p.m. Monday, Apri 1 20 , 1981 at the Civic Center Counci 1 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 regul ar meeti ng of the
Planning Commission held on Monday, April 6, 1981.
Dated this 7th day of April , 1981 at 2:00 p.m.
ire Murphy, Ci ty aYJ anner Cana
ecre ary to the Planning Commission
f th City of Orange.
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS OF ADJOURNMENT
Jere P. h1urphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the
Planning Commission of the Ci ty of Orange; that the regular meeti ng
of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on
~'' Apri 1 6, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time
and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto;
that on April 7, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of
said order at a conspi cuous place on or near the door of the place
at which said meeti ng of Apri 1 6, 1981 was held.
C~~