Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION City of Orange Orange, California April 21, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Ault STAFF Jere P, Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Bert Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development; Lon Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 7. 1980: Commissioner Mickelson asked for a correction to the minutes to read as follows: Page 14, second paragraph, after ...."but all right-of- ways.", add "and similar properties throughout the city. Therefore, he does not consider this a conflict of interest to enter into this discussion." Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson questioned the minutes of the Design Review Board regarding the landscaping plan of Villa Ford, with a motion to approve with three conditions, one being that the espalier be approved by Mel Ayling and that the irrigation be approved by Mel Ayling. He wondered why this was referred to a particular individual for approval rather than Staff, or is P~Ir. Ayling a Staff person? He was told that Mel Ayling is the Public Works expert in the field and is the person who is responsible for landscaping in both parkways and parks and represents the Public Works Department on matters of concern to that department at the Design Review Board meetings. IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Request for one year extension of utilization period for Conditional Use Permit 927 which allowed development of farm supply business in C-1 zone at the terminus of Anita Drive, south of Chapman Avenue. (Originally approved by Planning Commission November 20, 1978.) Staff recommended that approval be given to the request for one year extension of time. !: Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson moved to accept the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: Chairman Coontz suggested that Amendment 13-79 - City of Orange and Amendment 1-80 - City of Orange be moved to the end of the agenda. There being no objections from the audience, it was moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to move Amendment 13-79 and Amendment 1-80 to the end of the agenda. 1 • Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Two AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 921, TENTATIVE TRACT 10949, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1017 - SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT: Request to rezone property from RM-7-A to RM-7 and to allow an 88 unit planned unit development on the northeast corner of Hewes Street and Montgomery Place. (Note: Negative Declaration 616 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Murphy made the presentation for the staff on this application, indicating that the subject property is located at the intersection of Hewes Street and Marmon Avenue. He showed topographic maps indicating that the property is presently used primarily for nursery growing purposes. It is presently zoned RM-7-A multiple family with single story limitations. The property to the south is subdivided into narrow, long lots and is zoned single-family residential. There are duplexes to the northwest. Property to the south is zoned RM-7000-A district. To the east is the Panorama Heights area in the county or Orange and is a development of single-family priced lots. The project has been revised since the Planning Commission saw it originally. The present development proposal is for 88 dwelling units on the 9.09 acres of land, which is slightly less than 10 units per acre density. Provision in the development plan is for 227 parking in addition to the garages. Applicant is requesting the zone change to remove single story limitation, thereby allowing two-story develop- ment and a conditional use permit and tentative tract for a planned unit development for condominiums as shown on the plan. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Staff is not aware of the original history of the zoning to single-story multiple family, but it probably was in order to limit the density but still allow the multiple family use. The Master Plan would allow up to 15 units per acre. Therefore, the Staff feels a 10 unit per acre density would be appropriate, con- sidering the duplex use to the north and the smaller family lots to the south. The Planning Commission continued this item from the last meeting in order for this revised plan to be prepared. Questions were asked at that time in regard to the effect on the school district and a report has been submitted. The Commission also asked fora report from the Traffic Engineer, which report is in the Planning Commission's ~~ packet regarding traffic circulation in the area. Mr. Murphy went on to state that the one area of discussion with regard to the project that remained was surrounding the use of Montgomery Place to the south and the two access drives that take off from Montgomery Place into the project. The primary access now will be from Hewes Street in the northwest corner of the property and the proposal is that a traffic signal be developed at that point. That would be the dominant direction of the ingress and the egress that would take place regarding the project. The Staff orginally felt that these two drives along Montgomery should be developed as full two-way access to the project with Montgomery Place being converted from its present one-way direction to two-way, thereby allowing direct access from Hewes on Montgomery into the project. To the south of Montgomery there is a one-way loop system utilizing the two streets within the residential area. The people within the area to the south would like to see the one-way system retained and these two drives used as an exit only from the project to Montgomery. The Staff has prepared revised conditions which speak to that matter of the access to Montgomery, if the Commission feels it is appropriate to provide that one-way system exit only to Montgomery. The only other special conditions are that of the traffic signals at Hewes Street and Marmon Avenue. The other conditions are standard con- ditions. Chairman Coontz questioned Condition lla - stating that the two private streets shall be used for both ingress and egress, subject C Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Three to City standards and Montgomery Place is a two-way public street. Item llb stated that "If Montgomery Place remains as a one-way street..." She asked if the Planning Commission has a choice of either lla or llb. Mr. Murphy explained that they had that choice or a modification of either one. The Staff felt that the one-way out direction could work and there would be an opportunity to evaluate that in time and make changes, if necessary, to Montgomery Place. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if the developer planned to have a gated community with controlled access. Mr. Murphy was not sure whether the major entrance at Hewes and Marmon would be gated, but he felt that the two Marmon e~cits would have to be gated, in order to allow for adequate emergency service into the area, even though they would be one-way out to normal traffic. Commissioner Mickelson then asked if the Commission were to accept Conditions lla and llb as they stand, would that mean that the Staff would have the ability to require the exit only as long as the Montgomery Place remained one way, and if at some future time it became two-way, they could be released from the obligation of allowing both ingress and egress. Mr. Murphy answered that he thought that the intent would be that the Staff would have the flexibility of making the one-way system for the project separate from Montgomery, so that they would either have Montgomery as a two-way syytem, which exits only from the project. Staff would like to see that flexibility kept, so that depending on how that system works, it could be modified in the future. Commissioner Mickelson questioned Condition 6, subject to constructing a traffic signal, wondering if that would be the sale responsibility of the developer. Mr. Johnson answered that this is his understanding. He explained that this intersection is not on the city's priority list in the near future. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out the memo from the Police Department indicating that there are five conditions regarding the architectural design of the units. It was explained that the applicant has agreed to make these changes. They are design features that allow for more self-policing of the area. Commissioner Mickelson thought it was difficult to accept a condition where they had not seen a floor plan. Chairman Coontz stated that perhaps the applicant would be able to answer these questions. Commissioner Hart wondered if perhaps this wasn't a subject for the Design Review Board rather than the Planning Commission. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding security vs. esthetics. Commissioner Master stated that he would have liked to see a statement regarding capacity effects of the arterial street. Mr. Johnson replied that Hewes is a road that,provided other streets that are built, such as Crawford Canyon Road, which had been discussed previously, would handle the traffic adequately. This project is not going to affect the capacity of that street that much. Given the elimination of certain parallel streets, such as Crawford Canyon, Imperial Highway, Cannon, that route, plus maybe another projected route, would be the one to Prospect Street, this could well add problems to the street. There are possibilities, not probabilities. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Randy Blanchard, President of Sand Dollar Development, 16371 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of this application. He explained that this project has been 8 or 9 months in the planning stages. They have tried to incorporate as much as the community wished into the project. They have agreed to put a traffic signal in, at .~ t Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Four their expense. They are trying to design something that is attractive to the community and a great deal of money has been spent in the design of the architecture. He addressed himself to Commissioner Mickelson's question about the design features of the units, stating that their architect has reviewed the police requirements and doesn't see a problem with them. The police and fire departments made several suggestions and they are trying to go along with them. Bob Torres, 4525 E. Agua Way, Orange spoke in favor of this application. He stated that several months ago, he was approached by the Sand Dollar Developers and by request of the Planning Department he has been working very closely with Sand Dollar, representi ng E1 Modena Homeowners Association, to try and bring something into the community that is worthwhile. They have been negative to other plans, but are in favor of this plan. He explained how they brought the traffic signal problem to the attention of the developer and Sand Dollar agreed to put one in in order to work with the community. They have also agreed on other problems, such as Montgomery Place. Many people felt that if Montgomery was two-way up to the site of the development, then people would then start going south on Hill. Therefore, the builder agreed to make it a one-way street only. There are a few other little problems, but they will work together so that everyone hopefully will be happy, Herm Flores, 441 S. Hill and 493 S. Hill, Orange, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he is renting one house, but building another down the street - hence the two addresses. He indicated that he has lived in this area since he was a child. It was a very peaceful area - there is a green belt and a park - and now they are going to clutter it with a condominium development. He said that he has heard all of the arguments regarding traffic, but nothing about schools. He pointed out that he had to go along with a certain criteria in order to build his house, but now a builder comes in and builds two-story buildings. This area was supposed to be low density single-story zoning. It was pointed out to him that this property has been zoned for multiple- family housing for quite a while. He again asked what the impact will be on the schools in the area. Chairman Coontz answered that they have a report from the school district. Flowever, this is an informational document only. A copy of this report was handed to Mr, Flores. He stated that he thought he was living in a residential area when he moved there, but now he is in the middle of a condominium area and apparently will have to learn to live with condominiums next door to him. Ray Longbotham, 4433 E. Justice, Orange, spoke in opposition to the application. He again questioned whetkrer or not an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. Chairman Coontz answered that it was discussed before that it is a Negative Declaration only. The traffic report that had been requested has been added to the Negative Declaration. Mr. Longbotham stated that he had spoken to Mr. Dennis regarding the traffic situation. He thought that unless you live in the area, you cannot make judgements. He pointed out that Marmon, where the main entrance to the development will be situated, is an odd intersection. He felt that a thorough investigation is needed here. There are two odd intersections between Esplanade and Hewes along Marmon. These cause difficulties now and this area should be thoroughly studied. Chairman Coontz explained that the builder is agreeable to building a traffic signal there and this is a very costly thing. She pointed out that it is quite far down on the priority list for the city and for the builder to do this is an expensive undertaking. Mr. Longbotham said that he wanted to see an in depth traffic report in this area. He drives out of that area every morning and evening and sees the difficulties there. He felt that the people in the area would feel a lot safer if this is studied. Pauline Craigmore, 4629 Agua Way, Orange, spoke in favor of the application. She stated that she has five grandchildren who live in that area and she spoke highly of the proposed development. ^~ Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Five Wilbur Bullard, 4609 Agua Way, Orange, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he drives down Marmon every day and sees no problem, especially since they have agreed to put in a traffic signal. This will improve the area. Mr. Blanchard responded by stating that he understands today in the business, that they must come in and try to talk to the people about their problems and needs. They try to understand the problems and work with them. They have been in contact with Mr. Larsen of the Orange Unified School District and have met with several homeowners on the corner and discussed the traffic signal. He explained that the signal will cost the builder $100,000 to install. He felt that the people will be proud to have it. There being no one else to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. 0 Commissioner Master thought that it would be appropriate for the City Engineer to make some comment regarding the capacity, in order to make this report complete. He felt that knowing what the impact would be is the bottom line. Commissioner f~lickelson thought that perhaps com- ments could be included from previous minutes in this regard. He recalled that it was discussed during the meeting when it was continued and the traffic engineer had said he had reviewed it and that the streets were adequate and there was no concern. Therefore, the Staff and the Environmental Review Board had accepted a Negative Declaration on it. He recalled that Commissioners had then asked for additional information in the form of the report that came to them. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the report, as Staff understood it, was in addition to the Negative Declaration. It was not written in an attempt to answer the Environmental Impact or Negative Declaration, but as supplementary information for the Commission. Commissioner Mickelson felt that it would only be helpful to add Com- missioner Master's comments to the report, although he gathered from Commissioner Master's question that he was not sure that it would be verified by the traffic engineer. The significant point is that the property is in effeft zoned R-3 - multiple family. It is limited to single-story and the zone change is merely to change from single-story to two-story to allow a different type of construction, and perhaps a higher quality development. The real point is that the basic density factor does not change going from single-story to two-story. There would still be the same amount of traffic generated because the density factor does not change. The other part of the application is a con- ditional use permit for a condominium as opposed to what perhaps might be a subdivision of duplexes, four-plexes or six-plexes, which would again meet the code and have the same density factors. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 616, with the findings that the removal of the one-story height limitations will not affect the permitted density for the site, thus allowing developer to have a planned unit development. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Zone Change 921 from RM-7-A to RM-7, with the findings that the removal of the one-story height limitations will not affect the permitted density for the site, thus allowing developer to have a planned unit development. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Six AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioner Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson none Ault MOTION CARRIED Commissioners then discussed the conditional use permit, with regard to conditions lla and llb and whether they both should be left in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Mr. Murphy stated that based on the public hearing that the Commission should decide whether they wished to go with Condition lla or llb and direct the recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he did not get the idea that the Commission was to choose between lla and llb, but that they were to be carried through so that the Staff had the option, in the event that Montgomery Place becomes two-way, then they could allow both ingress and egress, but as long as it remains one-way, it would be exit only. Staff would have the flexibility to work it out. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Commission should indicate that there is a direction to attempt one way or the other, so that they would have something to assess. Commissioner Mickelson stated, as a point of discussion, that in the long run, he felt that establishing Montgomery as a two-way street is the better solution. However, that is not the wish of the people. He would like to avoid going back through the hearing process again. Commissioner Mickelson then asked Mr. Johnson if he intended that lla or llb be chosen as a dire ction. Mr. Johnson replied that he hoped for direction from the Council. Originally there was a lot of opposition when they went one-way. Now no one wants to change it. There is some concern that traffic will come up on Hill Street on the north side of Park, coming down and into this development. But he didn't think this will happen. He thought that other entries into the development were being closed and there should be more versatility. His suggestion would be that it should be made a two-way street and if there was a problem that they could go back to the one-way concept. He felt that this development needs more versatility getting in and out of it. He would like to give the people in the development more of a choice. The intent is to leave it one way westbound on Montgomery. That means that the people from this development would only be able to go out on Montgomery - they would not be able to come in that way. They would have to come in via the traffic signal. There was more discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Mr. Johnson did not see a problem putting the street back to a two-way street and looking at it periodcially to see if there are any problems. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1017 and Tentative Tract 10949, subject to Engineer's Plan Check List, including discussion of Montgomery Place as per Condition llb, with the future right to change said street to a two-way street if the one-way street does not prove satisfactory. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: Since the first three items under New Hearings were like requests, Commissioners decided to group them together, both for discussion and decision. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1025 - NAUTILUS II OF ORANGE: Request to allow tanning booths in conjunction with a fitness center on the west side of Tustin Street, south of Meats Avenue. (Note: tJegative Declaration 627 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Seven CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1028 - LAWRENCE: Request to allow a tanning salon in the C-1 zone on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of Prospect Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 623 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) COfdpITIONAL USE PERMIT 1031 - ACHENBAUGH: Request to allow a tanning salon in the C-1 zone on the south side of Chapman Avenue, east of Prospect Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 625 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Chairman Coontz explained that the City Attorney had indicated that usage here could be either C-1 or C-2 and the only reason the Planning Commission has this is that it was the City Council's desire and the P1 anni ng Department's desire that i t be handled through a conditional use permit. An emergency ordinance was adopted by the City Council, requiring a conditional use permit in the C-2 zone and the City Attorney's offi ce has taken the position that this wi 11 be true of the C-1 zone as well. The use would be allowed in either the C-1 or C-2 zone by con- ditional use permit, according to Mr. Murphy, under the emergency ordinance. It was pointed out that there are regulations which will be going into effect in May with regard to these uses. Chairman Coontz then asked the audience if there was anyone who objected to the position of the tanning booths in regard to their geographical location. There being none, Mr. Soo Hoo made the presentation of these three applications on behalf of the Staff. He pointed out that the first application, Nautilus II, is asking to operate tanning booths in conjunction with a fitness center, on the west side of Tustin, south of Meats. The second one is a tanning salon on the south side of Chapman, west of Prospect Street, and the third one is also a tanning salon located in the general vicinity of the second one on the south side of Chapman, east of Prospect. The second two are tanning salons only, unlike the first one. He pointed out that the Commission allowed a tanning salon on the east side of Tustin Avenue, just north of Taft earlier this year. The Orange County Health Department expressed concern over the potential adverse physiological reaction caused by excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation. These are listed by the County Public Health & Medical Services Department as (a) inflammation of the cornea of the eye (keratitis); (b) skin burns (erythema); (c) skin cancer; and (d) premature aging of the skin. The City Council has just passed an emergency ordinance that for an interim of 120 days would only allow tanning facilities in the C-2 zone, which requires a conditional use permit and the City Attorney's office, shortly thereafter, interpreted that order from the City Council to include the C-1 and C-2 zones. One of these salons is really different than the other two, since it plans to incorporate the tanning booths within a fitness center. The tanning booths would be separated into two general areas, one set of 3 booths would be within the women's dressing area and one set of 4 booths would be within the men's dressing area. This would be a total of seven booths. The other two on Chapman - the one represented by cup 1028, is proposing 10 tanning booths, while the third one is proposing 4 tanning booths. Staff feels that the City Council's emergency ordinance was to ensure that the public's health and safety were protected with adequate con- ditions for these proposals with the conditional use permit until more permanent measures could be taken. Staff's re commendation is that the Commission approve these applications, subject to the conditions listed in each of the reports. He asked the Commission to note that Nautilus has a slightly different condition regarding the door hardware. Mr. Soo Hoo explained that these are basically the same measures proposed for the tanning salon which was previously allowed. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Eight ~ Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. She explained that she felt there was no need to hear from the applicants on these applications, There being no one to speak in opposition, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner h1aster to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board with regard to the Negative Declarations 623, 625 and 627. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permits 1025, 1028 and 1031, subject to the conditions pertinent to each application. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1027, VARIANCE 1574 - DE LA CRUZ/ GARZA: ~' Request to allow a residence in a commercial zone. above a market and to allow reduction of required setbacks on the south side of Palm Avenue, east of Cleveland Street. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Mr. Soo Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff, pointing out that this application is also a request to allow modification of required setbacks. The site of the proposal is located on the south side of Palm Avenue, 100 feet east of the centerline of Cleveland Street and contains 2100 square feet of area. The site is zoned C-1 and presently contains a small neighborhood market. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing market because of structural deficiencies and replace it with another market with a two-bedroom residence on the second floor area. The market would contain approximately 1,200 sq. ft. of floor area while the residence would have approximately 1325 sq. ft. One garage space is proposed which can be reached via an 8 ft, wide driveway. Staff feels that varying from the established residential setbacks in this case is justified, both because of the limited size of the lot and since the project's primary use is as a market and thus follows commercial setback criteria. In addition, lot size constraints also prevents pro- vision of more off street parking spaces. However, Staff is confident that the parking demand, as proven in the past, will be minimal, since this is primarily a neighborhood with many senior citizens living there, and most of the market traffic is foot traffic, Staff also feels that the residential nature of the area, as well as the character of a small neighborhood market, makes the proposal of a secondary residence above it acceptable. Also, the small amount of floor area on the floor plan will not encourage a demand for many parking spaces. Staff recommends approval of this application, subject to the 11 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Mr. Soo Hoo pointed out that the conditions listed in the Staff Report 1 through 5 and 1 through should be listed 1 through 11. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Pasquel de la Cruz, 289 N. Cleveland, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He stated that he purchased the property and at that time it was a market. He was going to fix it up and reopen it. However, the structure was very bad, so he decided to tear it down. He explained that the neighbors want this market because there are many senior citizens and they walk to the market. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Nine Pete Lindenberger, 276 N. Harwood, Orange, addressed the Commission, questioning the existing setbacks. He wondered if the reason applicant was asking for increased setbacks was because it was part residence. He was told that this was correct, that he was asking for a variance to modify that requirement. Setback would be 6 feet from the property line, which is inside the sidewalk. New structure would be built on the property line, but the existing structure is now built on the property line. Mr. Lindenberger asked where the one-car garage would be located. He was told that there would be an 8 ft, drive for the garage and it would be accessible from Palm. He then wanted to know how high this two-story structure would be and he was told it would be just a little higher than 20 feet. Marianne Alderson, 654 E. Palm, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she did not understand where exactly the beginning of the structure would be as far as reducing the required setbacks. She wondered how this related to the present structure. She was told that it would be approximately in the same area as the present structure. Commissioner Hart explained that the reason why the applicant is here is because he wants to tear down the present building. Pis. Alderson's other concern was that the building be built in keeping with the general idea of the neighborhood architecture. Commissioner Master explained to her that the plan called for using shiplap construction, or clapboard, on the outside of the structure, which is in keeping with the surrounding buildings . Commissioner Mickelson explained the term, "reduction of the setback" It is the reduction of the technically required setback, but not a reduction of the existing setback.. The existing setback is 0 on each side, and can't be more than 2 or 3 feet in the front. There being no one else to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve Conditional Use Permit 1027, Variance 1574, including the four findings in the Staff Report, and subject to Conditions 1 through 11. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1029, VARIANCE 1575 - RUIZ: Request to allow a second story in the RCD overlay zone and to allow expansion of a residence without provision of a garage on th east side of Grand Street, north of Culver Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review,) Mr. Soo Hoo made the presentation of this application on behalf of the Staff, stating that this applicant is requesting approval of their plans to construct a second story onto their existing single story residence. The zoning code does require that any second story alterations must receive a conditional use permit in the RCD district. The subject property contains 6,275 square feet of land located on the east side of Grand Street, approximately 90 feet north of the centerline of Culver Avenue. The property is zoned R-D-6 (RCD) and contains a single family house, study room (accessory structure) and tool shed. There are single family residences in the R-D-6 zone to the north, east and south and single family residences and duplexes in the R-D-6 zone and multiple residences in the R-h1-7 zone to the west of the property. It was pointed out that Grand Street and Culver Avenue are 60 foot local streets. Applicant wishes to construct a second story on an existing single story residence. A single car garage exists on the site, which the applicant states was converted into a study approximately 40 years ago and he is requesting that it not be converted back into a garage and they not be required to build a new garage structure. He wishes to upgrade the existing converted room and thereby not provide garage space on the site. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Ten Staff viewed the neighborhood in question and observed that there are many two-story houses in the area. In addition, Staff has noted that the single story houses of the neighborhood have high, pitched roofs that give the neighborhood a second story character. There are also some houses in the area either without garages or with garages converted to other uses . In this neighborhood, most of the structures, whether single or two-story, approach the thirty foot height limitation for residences. Staff, therefore, feels that construction of a second story, with proper architectural review, would not detract from the existing character of the area. In addition, the Staff feels that the proposal is a minor enough expansion, since it will not directly affect the parking situation, that the lack of a garage should not preclude its approval. Staff re commends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and variance, as requested, with the two conditions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Joe Ruiz, 383 S. Grand Street, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that they moved to Old Towne area of Orange because of its charm and their addition will be in that vein. Additionally, he is asking for a variance for the garage only to use it in the way that it has been used for approximately 40 years. The building is 60 years old and not of any particular design. It is not stucco - kind of a mixture of siding. It is not particularly distinctive. There being no one else to speak to this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Nickelson to approve Conditional Use Permit 1029 and Variance 1575 for the reasons outlined in the Staff Report and subject to building plans being submitted to the Design Review Board and project being built by the approval of the Planning Division. Commissioner Nickelson suggested that there be an additional finding stating that the variance is necessary to allow the same or similar privileges of other property owners in that same zone in the vicinity. It was decided to allow the motion to stand as is. ~. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Nickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1030 - ALVIN: Request to allow conversion of two single family residences to offices on the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of Waverly Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 624 has been pre pared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Murphy presented this application on behalf of the Staff. H e pointed out that the subject property is a rectangualar shape consisting of two smaller rectangular parcels containing .37 acre of land (total) located on"the north side of Chapman Avenue approximately 86 feet east of the center line of Waverly Street (1015 E. Chapman and 1025 E. Chapman.) The property is zoned 0-P and contains two single family residences. There are single family residences in R-1-6 zone to the north; office- professional use in the 0-P zone to the east, and the north and south sides of Chapman. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21, 1980 Page Eleven Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant intends to convert the two existing single family residences on the subject property to Office- Professional facilities. The two proposed offices with a combined square footage of 3336 square feet, will share a common 30 foot driveway apron in the front. Three parking spaces will be provided in front for the easterly located building. A 15 foot wide driveway, located between the two buildings, will provide access to additional parking located in the rear of the bui 1 di ngs against the existing property 1 i ne . Each building will have an additional 6 parking spaces in this rear area, 5 being located in two existing garages. The property will be shielded on the sides by a concrete block wall that turns into a wood fence as it extends toward the front (Chapman Avenue). The applicant proposes to retain an existing 82 ft, wide driveway located on the eastern boundary of the property leading from Chapman Avenue to the rear parking area. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the 14 conditions stated in the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickelson questioned whether there really are 54 ft, of setback at this time. It shows 10 ft, of dedication, 10 ft, of land- scaping, three 9-ft, parking spaces fora total of 54 feet. Mr. Murphy explained that this is what they have been told by the applicant. They have not measured these dimensions. Commissioner Mickelson then questioned the parking spaces in the front of the property, as it was his understanding that 0-P zoning requires parking to be in the rear. Mr. Murphy thought that this requirement is for C-P zoning. Commissioner Mickelson then asked that assuming these dimensions are correct and these two properties are owned by the same party now, why couldn't the driveway along the east boundary be eliminated, reduce some of the paving in front and make a two-way driveway. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff felt that the second driveway might be of some value in assisting the circulation on the property. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that there are so many driveways on Chapman Avenue now and each one is a point of conflict. The more points of conflict you have, the more incidences of accidents there are. Mr. Murphy made the suggestion that this be discussed with the applicant. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Jean Alvin, 9962 Highcliff Drive, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She explained that they would like to take these two buildings which are now being rented as single family residences, and change them into office buildings. This would be a better use of the land. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if they could project to using one driveway and have less paving and more landscaping. Mrs. Alvin replied that they feel the double driveway between the two buildings would help with the exiting from the buildings. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Murphy pointed out that a 15th condition should be added and that would be that, regardless of whether there are one or two driveways, that there be reciprocal rights of ingress and egress and also reciprocal parking so that there are no future problems with the future combined use of these two properties. Commissioner Mickelson then asked Mr. Johnson what the existing half width is of Chapman Avenue at that point. Mr. Johnson replied that it is probably 33 ft. with a right-of-way of 22 ft, of roadway. Ultimately it will be 43 ft. with 32 ft, of roadway. Commissioner Hart wondered how much would be taken off the front of this property for dedication. The answer was 10 ft. of additional right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Twelve Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board in regard to Negative Declaration 624. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1030, as stated by the Staff and subject to the 14 conditions listed in the Staff Report, including the addition of Condition #15 that there be reciprocal rights of ingress and egress and also reciprocal parking. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED VARIANCE 1576 - ENVIRONETICS ARCHITECTS, INC.: Request to allow an office development which would have less than required setbacks and off-street parking as well as more than permitted number of compact parking sppces at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 626 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Murphy presented this application on behalf of the Staff, pointing out that the Commission is probably familiar with this property, having seen other plans for said property. Mr. Murphy explained that this is a rectangular shaped parcel of three single-family lots containing approximately .52 acre of land, located at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Avenue. The site is presently vacant and is zoned R-1-6 with an intent to rezone C-1 pending review of final plans. Zone Change 815 was approved by the City Council on May 10, 1977, subject to the intent to rezone procedure. At that time a convenience store/donut shop was proposed. On July 26, 1977 the City Counci 1 re viewed a proposal to develop a drive-thru restaurant on the site and found it unacceptable. On April 25, 1978 the City Council, after much input from area residents regarding compatibility between residential and non-residential uses, found preliminary plans to develop a 9,411 square foot, 2-story office building acceptable. Concurrently, a variance was approved by the Planning Commission to allow a 10 foot setback along Manchester Avenue, as well as to allow provision of 43 parking spaces in lieu of the 46 required by code. A special effort was made at that time to minimize the impact of the proposal by facing the narrow building face toward the residences to the west and eliminating any windows on that side. Commissioner Mickelson asked what the setback on the western boundary of this plan was. He thought that this had been a two-story plan with semi-subterranean parking with a blank wall facing the west property. Mr. Murphy replied that it was some 23 feet from the west side. Mr. Murphy explained that the surrounding land use and zoning are single family residences in the R-1-6 zone on the north and west sides of the property, with vacant land in the C-2 zone to the south and vacant land in the C-1 zone to the east. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to develop a modified office proposal on the site. According to the applicants' statements, a maximum 45 foot high (3 stories over parking), 16,500 square foot office building is proposed for which 55 parking spaces are to be provided - 66 spaces normally would be required (1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area). In addition, 26 of these spaces (47%) are proposed as compact stalls. The code allows a maximum of 20% in compact parking. Lastly, 3-foot setbacks are proposed along both street Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Thirteen frontages in lieu of the required 10 feet. The Staff is concerned about these variances, both in terms of the landscaping of three feet not being able to provide adequate landscaping within a limited size area, as well as the variance on parking not being justified because of the fact that there is no hardship on this particular property in terms of that parking reduction. Any overflow of parking that might be needed for the property could very easily flow into the adjoining single-family residential tract to the west and to the north. Staff did not make any comment to the applicant as to the height of the building, as they felt that should be a part of the public hearing response through tonight's hearing process. Mr. Murphy pointed out regarding the height of this building that the City Council recently turned down a 6-story building proposal on Katella Avenue, apparently looking at a basic two-story maximum height for commercial properties adjacent to single family residences. Mr. Murphy went on to point out that the applicant proposes parking on the entire ground level with varying number of floors above that ranging from one to three. The western wing would contain one story though an exposed patio is proposed above. Vehicular access to the site would be from Manchester Avenue. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and indicated that the severity of the variances requested indicates that the applicant is attempting to overbuild the property. It was also pointed out that the landscaping illustrated for the north and west property lines was extremely exaggerated unless the applicant was willing to commit to planting what appear to be 30 ft, tall trees at very close intervals. There are probably two basic issues involved with this proposal - the request for modification of parking and setback requirements and also the question of acceptability of the project in general since the property is still technically zoned R-1-6 subject to the intent to rezone procedure. The intent of the variance process is to allow for modification of development standards where strict adherence would deprive a property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. It must, at the same time, be remembered that these same development standards apply to all developments in the same zone and any exceptions or modifications to them would be considered special treatment unless they could be justified as offsetting a hardship ~,, not faced by other similar properties. In this case, the applicant seeks to reduce the parking requirements from 66 to 55, to allow 47% of those spaces as compact spaces versus the maximum allowab le of 20%, and to reduce the setback requirement form the street from 10 feet to 3 feet. Staff feels that this is an attempt to grossly maximize floor area by disregarding the few development standards which exist for commercial development, standards which other commercial builders must strictly follow. The property is zoned R-1-6 with an intent to rezone to C-1 zone. This procedure was imposed specifically to insure that future development of the site be compatible with the abutting residential uses. A tremendous amount of effort was expended by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, City Council and Staff to properly plan the previous 2-story office proposal in an acceptable manner. The present revised proposal appears to contain two major deficiencies in this respect: 1. An open patio proposed above the west wing would overlook the residences to the west and is located only 23 feet from the property line and would effectively be on the third story. 2. The equivalent of a four-story building will overlook residences to the north though a greater setback is proposed (48 feet). Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Fourteen The applicant indicates that "Dense Tree Growth" will be provided along the north and west property line and the plans submitted do show an immense amount of tree planting. However, Staff must seriously question both the applicant's financial ability to provide such a short-term result as well as the ability of a 5-foot wide planter to accommodate it. Unless the applicant is willing to specifically commit to providing landscaping of the magnitude represented at the time of development, Staff suggests that representations of such be ignored. Staff feels that significant changes should be made to the building before they can support the project. After much discussion among the Commissioners regarding the placement of parking spaces and the way the building is supported, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Applicant, Eric Lerner, 1111-0 Ohio Avenue, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He answered the Commission's questions regarding the way the building is supported and also pointed out that the spaces under the building are 10 feet in width, the spaces outside being 9 feet in width. He stated that after reading some of the negative recommendations in the Staff Report, it is the intent of these developers to try and work with the city to arrive at a solution that would be satisfactory to everyone involved. This property does have a history of problems. It is their belief that the first two-story building was not built because it was not financially feasible. They want to use this land to its maximum use with a minimum impact on the surrounding area. Their first design was rejected. They are now proposing the current design. He pointed out that there have been two staff reviews and also the neighboring residents have been involved in this proposal. The developers called fora dinner meeting and invited the neighboring residents. Only one came and they interpreted this to mean that they did not object to this proposal. He spoke of a letter from Mr. Murphy, outlining the staff's objections to this development and the company's answer. With regard to Page 4, paragraph 2 of the Staff Report concerning compact car spaces, he pointed out that cities such as San Diego and Los Angeles are now allowing a larger percentage of overall space for compact spaces. He explained that the building is set back from the street 10 feet on the Manchester side and 13 feet on the Chapman side and it is only for landscaping that there is a three-foot width. He also pointed out that the dense landscaping will have to be used in order to comply with what the neighboring residents need. He explained the kind of landscaping that would be used. They wi 11 be going to consi derab le expense to put i n the type of landscaping that is needed. He went on to explain that they have crammed the site with as much parking spaces as possible because they must have as much building leasable space as possible in order for this to be financially durable for the developer. He then referred to Page 4, paragraph 4 of the Staff Report, discussing the patio. He pointed out that if this is objectionable to the Commission, it can be deleted. In response to #2 under Paragraph 4, with reference to a four-story building, he admitted that this is the equivalent of a four-story building. This is a site that is interfaced between a residential area and what is going to be a growing commercial area. They have tried to address both of these issues. With regard to the configuration of the building, it was his understanding that there was some discussion about ratios of distance to height of adjacent residential properties. Regarding the number of occupiable square feet, what is negotiable is the configuration of the building. It is divided into essentially four squares. There still must be the same number of square feet available, but the squares can be moved Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21, 1980 Page Fifteen around. If the Commission feels that the setbacks need to be greater in comparison to the height, it is conceivable that they would take the third floor square and put it in another place. They have tried to provide some very generous landscaping if and when this plan is approved. The scheme employs residential materials, if not a residential profile. They have eliminated any windows on the west facing side. However, the occupiable square footage is the most important issue. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if, when the Staff calculates the gross square foot area, do they include the red area in the plan? The answer was that they include any portion of the building that is enclosed on three sides minimum. Unless it is clearly an outdoor walkway that is subject to weather conditions - environmental conditions, rain, heat, etc., it is included in gross floor area of the building because it could be occupied temporarily or permanently. The elevator is included, but the patio is not included. Commissioner h1ickelson pointed out that unless there is a significant discrepancy in how the square footage is calculated, he felt that their ordinance is minimal at 1 per 250. There is no place else to park . The applicant then answered the geustions of the Commissioners in regard to the parking areas. He pointed out which areas were outside of the building, explaining that in their square foot calculation, they took into account the outside strip as circulation. It will never be leased space. Commissioner Hart was curious about the sequence of events regarding the plans of the design of the new building. He wondered if they had ever been before the Planning Commission before. Mr. Lerner said that they had not. However, the previous scheme had some prior feedback on his design. Therefore, he approached the previous owner and received some sugges ti ons . Richard Denman, 2427 Bangham Drive, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission, representing the developer of the project. He explained that an attempt was made to create something that was compatible with the environment. They purposely moved as far from the property line as they could and planned heavy landscaping in order to block and screen the building from the neighboring residents and to screen people from looking down on the residents. They felt that this is the only way to make commercial property interface with residential property as close as this is. They are trying to give this building a residential feel for compatibility. They are tyring to utilize the site so that it will be economically feasible and usable. Commissioner Master questioned Mr. Denman with regard to the parking and the fact that some of the spaces look impossible to get to. Mr. Lerner replied to this question, pointing out how the parking spaces would be reached. Commissioners Coontz and Master still questioned the fact that there are several parking spaces that are inaccessible. Mr, Lerner explained that if the plan is approved it will probably go through some changes in configuration. They would like to get some dire ction from Staff on this, There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Chairman Coontz pointed out that the most important problem with this project is not the parking, but it is the height with regard to the neighboring residents. It would seem to be an ideal area for a building of this type, but realistically it is backed up to a residential area. A two-story structure is about all the Planning Commission could work with. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Sixteen Commissioner Mickelson stated that he agreed with the Staff that the developer has not justified the variance. The site is square and perfectly flat and he sees little reason for a variance. This is one of those sites that people have been selling to each other for years and nothing has happened on it. Commissioner~H~rt was inclined to take the legalistic approach on this. He believed that they are talking about a hardship. It was not created by the city, but it was created by the price of the property. The Planning Commission is not involved in this. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he saw two things wrong. One is the basic resolution of intent which the Council did on this. He does not see legal and appropriate justification for granting a variance. He would want to take Staff's recommendation to deny. The applicant spoke again, regarding developing this property. He wondered if they should pursue this as a residential site rather than a commercial site. It is economically impossible to do what the Planning Commission seems to be suggesting. They would like some guidance as to what they should do with this property. The two-story building is not the answer economically. He asked if condominiums or apartments could be built on the site. He was told that he would have to apply for a zone change. However, the Planning Commission was not recommending or suggesting this. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Hart to accept the findings of the Environmental Revi ew Board regardi ng Negative Declaration 626. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner r1aster to deny Variance 1576 because applicant has not substantiated sufficient hardship to justify the granting of the variance's request. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, f~lickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy pointed out on behalf of the Staff that this decision will be final unless there is an appeal to the City Council within 15 days. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: AMEND~1ENT 1-80 - CITY OF ORANGE: Amendment to Article IX of the Orange P~uni ci pal Code relating to Condominium Con versions. (Continued from meeting of April 7, 1980.) Chairman Coontz expressed the Commission's appreciation of Commissioner Mickelson's work on the recommendations that he gave. Chairman Coontz pointed out that in their response to the November 8, 1979 Planning Department study on possible revisions, the Planning Commission was unanimous in its recommendations to the City Council that (1) the Commission was concerned about the rights of the property owner to use his property in a reasonable manner without unnecessary government regulations. However, Commission recognized that there is social impact of condominium conversions that must be dealt with in an effective manner. She explained that at that time they were under a lot of pressure and looking at condominium conversion applications at the time and because of the moratorium they had gotten separated from those out in the audience and she felt that they have now begun to take a little different stance than they did when they were under pressure. Secondly, they recommended a housing analyst responsibility and thirdly they indicated concern over the upgrading of older housing through condo conversions, which seriously would affect the senior citizen with a low income. The Commission also indicated that they we re interested in Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 21 , 1980 Page Seventeen application review criteria and findings in making a determination on condo conversion applications. Chairman Coontz then proposed to go through the ordinance and look at the latest revision of the Planning Staff in combination with what Commissioner Mickelson has done. Sh e suggested that the Commission go through and agree or disagree with what they want kept in the ordinance. She stated that this could be in the form of a motion, depending upon the reaction of the Commission. Section 1781.020, pertaining to the written description of the common areas - 3, 4, 5 - all should be retained, except that the DRB review be deleted. B under this section - tenant information - add to #2 the phrase: "retain gummed labels for the purpose of notification to the tenant." Retain #3 - the proposed sale price and retain the current rents. Commissioner Hart disagreed with this. He felt that it is almost impossible, as long as these projects take to go through the hearing and finally get them converted and get the work done on them, to give a figure that they can live with. What we are suggesting is to hold someone to a price. There was discussion among the Commissioners on this point. It was agreed to add: ..."Proposed sales price subject to escalation." Commissioner Nickelson explained that the reason he felt strongly about #3 was because at the present time it is in violation of the Department of Real Estate regulations to quote prices. That is debatable because we say "the proposed sales price" so you are proposing a range and, therefore, we are not quoting a price. It was agreed that the developer cannot be saddled with a fixed price. Section 17.81.030 - Final P1ap Requirements. Commissioner Mickelson explained that this changes the concept of the ordinance quite a bit. It puts a series of things that were required under the application to be required only after the tentative map is approved and prior to the final one. Chairman Coontz wondered if this should be placed at the end of the ordinance. Commissioner Mickelson didn't think this matte re d - the important point was whether the Staff feels strongly about requiring the CC&Rs, etc. as a condition of acceptance of the tentative map or if they feel that they can take action on the map and then require them. Commissioners de cided to change this to "...final map requirements." Section 17.81.040., provision for protecting current tenants. Chairman Coontz suggested retaining everything except reference to "either increased relocation assistance payments at least 50% above that given to renters...". She questioned Commissioner Mickelson regarding his suggested change to .. up to a maximum of 50%". Decision was to change to 50 %. (e) No increase in rents should be retained. This is a very important question that the people in the audience would tackle. It was de cide d to keep this in. Discussion regarding (a) with decision to retain, with notice being given by the city. (h, i, & j) is cleaning up the language of the ordinance. To be left in with language changes wherever needed. Section 17.81.050 - Physical Standards. (b) - Building Safety - to be eliminated. It was felt that (e) - Utility Metering - should be retained. Upon discussion among the Commissioners, Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that the Housing Code is not the Building Code. Housing Code is basic safety elements, which probably do need to be upgraded if a reason can be found to do it. When the Building Code is amended, this does not -affect the Housing Code. (h) Laundry facilities - decision of Commission to eliminate. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1980 Page Eighteen AYES NOES: ABSENT: AYES NOES: ABSENT IN RE: (i) Noise Standards - State to be met. Commission decided to eliminate this paragraph. Section 17.81.060. Determination Procedure. Introductory paragraph OK. Paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) to be retained, but (e) to be eliminated. Secti on 17.81.070. Limited Time of Effect. It was deci ded to eliminate this section. Commissioner Hart asked Staff how SCAG comes up with th eir figures. It was explained that they use condemnation figures and by the time they get the figures out it is quite outdated and they admit that. Chairman Coontz moved, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve this amendment , as discussed. Commissioner Mickelson recapped by stating that you make application, submit all of your things under Section 17.81.020 and the city is responsible for sending out a notice of public hearing. He questioned as to whether this notice goes out under the city's normal procedure of 10 days prior to the public hearing. Mr. Murphy answered in the affirmative. Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson Commissioners none Commissioner Ault 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 April 7, 1980.) Commissioner Cart moved, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve this amendment, making the same changes that are applicable in the condo conversion ordinance, following the same basic concept. MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that he did not think that the basic relocation question was similar at all, because in an apartment the people pick up their furniture and move out with a little help. But in a mobile home park, they must find a place to move their unit. Mr. Murphy explained that in this section they are talking about other alternatives more than about moving the mobile home coaches. Some further discussion among the Commissioners regarding various aspects of the amendment. Commissioners Coontz , Commissioners none Commissioner Ault Hart, Master, Mickelson MOTION CARRIED A~~OURNMENT~ Chairman Coontz adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 5, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman, Orange, California. s n STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER OF ADJOURNMEfJT 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 Oranne, that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange held on April 21, 1980, said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of ad,iournment attached hereto; that on April 22, 1980 at the hour of 10:00 a.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 21, 1980 was held. EXCERPT FROM THE MIPJUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORAfJGE CITY PLAPJNING COMMISSIOf~! HELD OPJ APRIL 21 , 1980. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 n.m. PRESEPJT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, P1ickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Ault Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m. on Monday, April ?_1, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 n.m. Monday, May 5, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, April 21, 1980. Dated this 22nd day of April, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. -~~ i 7 i Jere Murp y, City P1 ner & S cretary / to t e Planning Commr lion of he City ( of ange.