HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
City of Orange
Orange, California
April 20, 1981
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p,m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
ABSENT: Commissioners none
STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew,
Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Jack McGee,
Planning Department; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 6, 1981
Commissioner Coontz called for corrections as follows:
Page 13, third paragraph from bottom of page - should be changed
to read: .. If this is an example, we can expect people to come
in with other situations similar to this, and expect variations on
standard conditions required...".
Page 22, paragraph 4 is not clear. Should read: "... although the
plea i s for people to come i n individual 1 y to discuss the proposal
with the staff, they do not come i n ...".
Commissioner Ault called for corrections as follows:
Page 1 , 6th paragraph from bottom, address reads 1850 E. Pine.
Should read, 1850 E. Heim.
Page 11 , paragraph 4, Wi 1 ber Smith stated that thi s was a residential
structure for 20 years. Commissioner Ault thought that he probably
meant this was a commercial structure.
Page 13, paragraph where Commissioner Ault expressed his views re-
garding ordinances, word "not" should be placed before "always", to
read, ".., and not always stay strictly within the regulations,"
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz,'to
approve the minutes as corrected.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR U!ITHDRAWN
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-752, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1090,
VARIANCE 1631 - DULEBOHN:
Request to allow creation of a 3 unit Planned Unit Development with
greater density than permitted by code at the southeast corner of
Collins Avenue and Lemon Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 676
has been prepared for this project.)
Jere Murphy explained to the Commission that the City Council , upon
recommendation of the Planning Commission, has directed the Staff to
prepare an ordinance to increase the density of the planned uni t
development ordi Hance to basically permit projects such as that being
proposed i n this application. Staff i s i n the process of preparing
an amendment to the Municipal Code and, therefore, recommends a
~° continuance of this application to May 18th, which would be i n sequence
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20 , 1981
Page Two
of the proposed amendment, so that if the Commission feels that
this is an appropriate application it can be acted on at that time.
Chairman Nickelson asked the applicant, hir. Dulebohn, if he objected
to this continuance. Mr. Dulebohn replied that he did not object,
but he would like to address the Commission this evening, in order
to get a feeling of whether or not they approve of his plans thus
far.
Chairman Mickelson, therefore, suggested taking this application in
its proper order on the agenda so that Mr. Dulebohn might speak.
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR
REQUEST FOR SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 9 27:
Originally approved on November 20, 1978 to allow farm supply business
at terminus of Ani to Drive, south of Chapman Avenue (previous one
year extension granted).
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FINDING CONFORMITY TO GENERAL
PLAN:
Replacement and expansion by the County of Orange of the Albert
Sitton Home for Dependent Children located in the County complex
on the east side of the City Drive between Chapman Avenue and the
Garden Grove Freeway.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1096 - WILLIAMS:
Request to allow a two-story second unit on the east side of Grand
Street, 135 feet north of the centerline of La Veta Avenue
(475 South Grand Street) .
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to
accept the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson,
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none
Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-81 (ITEM B), TENTATIVE TRACT 11486,
ZONE CHANGE 944, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1106, VARIANCE 1632,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 66 2 - LINDQUIST;
Request to amend Land Use Element of General P1 an from Low Density
(2-6 du/ac) and High Density (15-24 du/ac) to Medium Density (6-15
du/ac) Residential Designation; to change zoning from R-1-6, RM-7,
and C-1 to M-H; to create 33 mobile home lots without frontage on
a public street; and to vary from development standards of the M-H
zone for property located east of the Orange Freeway, south of
Almond Avenue. (Note: Environmental Impact Report 662 has been
prepared for this project.)
Jere Murphy presented this application before the Commission,
s tati ng that thi s i s a request to construct a seni or citizens own-
your-own-space mobile home park. To consider an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General P1 an changing the des i gnati on from
Low Density (2-6 units/acre) and High Density (15-24 units/acre).
Residential to Medium Density (6-15 units/acre) Residential ; a change
of zone to M-H (Mobile Home Park) District; a subdivision to create
33 individually owned lots; a conditional use permit to allow the
creation of lots without frontage on a public street; and a variance
from three development standards of the M-H zone, which are:
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20, 1981
Page Five
Commissioner Hart wondered what these lots might retail for and
Mr. Higgins replied that they are not prepared at this time to
specifically answer this question. He thought that Mr, Lindquist
could answer Commissioner Aul is question with regard to si ngl e
size lots.
Jerry Lindquist, 111 S. Orange, Orange, addressed the Commission
i n favor of this application, stati ng that i t is pretty di ffi cul t
to arrive at the right mix, but in this case they were steered by
the confi guration of the lot. Where si ngl e wide was the best fi t
for the space, they used a si ngl a wi de.
He addressed the six-foot block wall on the east boundary, by
pointing out that this is not for sound attenuation. However, if
they could build a good looking wood fence, it would have a signi-
ficant effect on the price of the lots. He explained that they
hope to make the price of the 1 ots as 1 ow as possible i n order to
approach the low income people also.
John Hilliard, 1538 E. 4th Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission
and Chairman Mickel son asked if he thought it would be reasonable to
sound attenuate these coaches properly. Mr. Hilliard replied that
the outside would not be feasible at the figure quoted. The only
feasible way would be to ignore the outside noise 1 evel and mai ntai n
the inside 1 evel properly. He pointed out some pl aces that are
existing under high noise level in areas in E1 Tor. He explained
that the normal home has an inside level of 18 decibels. Here it
will be 26 decibels. This is not an undue hardship. If they tried
to sound attenuate the outside of the coaches, it would raise the
cost between $500 and $1,000.
Commissioner Master wondered if it is possible to rework existing
uni ts. What would be the procedure for getting them wi thin the
sound attenuation level? Mr. Hilliard explained that the usual
technique is on new units where they specify to the manufacturer
what noise 1 evel reduction he must meet between the outside and i n-
side. The issue of reworki ng older uni is would have to be undertaken
by examining each proposed older unit moved into the park. Some
would not meet the proper noise 1 eveTs . He pointed out that 10 feet
from the freeway is a higher noise level and will require 26 decibels
as compared to 18 for the average unit. His answer to Commissioner
Master would be that it is feasible and will be within a reasonable
cost range.
Alice Clark, 205 N. Pine Street, Orange, addressed the Commission
in favor of this application, stating that this is an excellent use
of this 1 i ttl e pi ece of property. She hoped that i t woul d get going
quickly. This is near and dear to her heart.
John Rhett, Executive Director of the Orange County Medical Assn.,
300 S. Flower, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to
this application. He pointed out that on January 28, 1981, the
Orange County Medical Association, in response to Don Greek &
Associates, submitted a letter stating their opposition, which he
read to the Commission. They do not feel that a mobi 1 e home park
will be conducive to the general area nor complimentary to the
Orange County Medical Association facility. The proximity to the
freeway with traffic volume and noise level is not conducive to a
mobile home park and residential area.
He explained that they do not have technical equipment to measure
sound or air pol 1 uti on 1 evel s , but h e personally takes exception to
some of the statements made here. The traffic volume is very high
and the noise level is great. He does not feel that placing elderly
~ people i n residential units i n that 1 ocati on i s feasible. He
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20, 1981
Page Six
wondered if the property is one of development or it is a senior
citizens group 1 ooki ng after the elderly of Orange. He coul d not
percei ve of elderly people 1 ivi ng so close to a freeway and not
being exposed to air pollution. He did not see this as being an
attractive area to look at.
With regard to traffic, Mr. Rhett was greatly concerned regarding
access from Flower to La Veta and Chapman. There needs to be some
alleviation of the problem in this area.
Speaking officially for the Orange County Medical Association, they
have been approached by several developers to develop the property.
There have been no unique or different proposals other than for
residential use. He also stated that they wish to contest the legal
privilege of the developer to use the Orange County Medical
Association property as access.
Commissioner Coontz explained that the Environmental Impact Report
addresses the proposal of this project and although it might appear
sometimes that the discussion is about surroundings, actually it is
what will happen when that area is developed. It is not the freeway's
effect on the property, i t is the effect of that project on the
surrounding area.
Art Perra, 400 S. Flower, Unit 173, Orange, President of the Manana
Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission, asking for clarifi-
cation in some areas and also voicing the opinions of some 181
Orange County homeowners in that residential area to the southeast
of the proposed project. They are an adult community limited to
those who are 60 years of age and over. He thought that the
Medical Association has pointed out very well the problems. However,
he wished to have cl ari fication on the easement going back to the
property as to whether this will affect the ramp going back to their
property. He wondered just where the six foot fence is going along
the eastern portion of that property. He pointed out, as did Mr.
Rhett, that there is a terrible traffic problem at Flower and
Chapman. Cars come around that corner at terrific speeds.
Mr. Perra also pointed out the problems with the noise level of the
freeway, together with the dirt generated. He explained that they
have 40 units which back up against the freeway and this has been a
constant source of i rri tation, with people moving out regularly be-
caus e of the noise and dirt.
The homeowners in this area are also concerned about the fact that
they do not want thei r properties to deteriorate i n value. They
take great pride in the condominiums and want to keep the setup just
the way i t is now.
Mr. Higgins spoke in rebuttal, explaining that the access drive will
have no effect on the condominiums. The six foot fence is on the
Manana property and the access is entirely on the mobile home park
property.
Mr. Perra expressed his concern with regard to the segregation of
fences , i f th ey are faced with deterioration of . th ei r property i n
1 i eu of something else. They would 1 ike to have a separati on of
the two. Also, they would not want to see a wood fence put up.
They would want a block wal 1 and would 1 ike to see i t be constructed
down to Flower Street. They would like a visual separation of the
two properties. He explained that there is a small retaining wall in
that area now.
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20, 1981
Page Seven
Commissioner Hart pointed out that they are trying to keep the cost
down and he didn't see the point of a wall in the area mentioned
by Mr. Perra .
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
accept Environmental Impact Report 662.
Commissioner Coontz questioned the Staff with regard to the mitigating
measures mentioned in the Staff Report and was assured that these
items are part of the Environmental Impact Report.
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 General Plan Amendment 1-81 (Item B) to re-
des i gnate the site to Medium Density ( 8.5 units per ac) for the
reason of the difficulty of the site and that the present mix can
be accomplished by an overall medium density accommodation of all of
the present densities combined.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES : Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
recommend approval of Zone Change 944, Variance 1632, Conditional
Use Permit 1106'and Tentative Tract 11486, for the reasons as shown
by Staff Report and subject to the 15 conditions set forth in the
S taff Report, plus Condition #16 as follows
Condition #16: That a six foot block wall will be constructed
along the easterly property line.
Chairman Mickelson wondered if there could be some wording with
regard to the wall . He stated that he i s not a sound expert, but
he has had experience i n these matters and he felt that sound mi gh t
bounce off of a solid masonry wall.
Commissioner Hart amended his motion that no specific material be
used in a six foot view obscuring wall. This does not mean a wood
fence, but does not exclude one.
Amended motion seconded by Commissioner Coontz.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81-752, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1090,
VARIANCE 1631 - DULEBOHN:
Request to allow creation of a 3 unit Planned Unit Development with
greater density than permitted by code at the southeast corner of
Collins Avenue and Lemon Street. ( Note: Negati ve Decl aration 676
has been prepared for this project.)
1
Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has recommended a continuance
of thirty days to May 18, 1981 so that the code al 1 owi ng an i ncrease
i n density of that ordi Hance might be enacted at the same time.
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20, 1981
Page Ei gh t
Commissioner Ault wondered why the Commission was going ahead with
this hearing tonight, i f the code was goi ng to be passed. I t was
explained that the Council has directed Staff to prepare this
amendment. It has not been approved yet.
James Dulebohn, 1901 E. Lemon Heights Drive, Santa Ana, addressed
the Commission, stating that there has never been an official re-
vi ew of thei r plan. He wondered i f they go all through this procedure
and then the Planning Commission finds that the plan is not good,
they would like to know this now -not after a continuance. They
are also concerned with regard to the change i n the ordinance.
Mr. Murphy explained that the proposed changes are in density only.
Therefore, if these changes are approved, the variance portion of
the application would no 1 onger be requi red. Regardi ng a Conti nuance
of this application to the May 18th date, this should only be taken
if the Commission feels that this project meets the expectations of
the Commission.
Commissioner Mickelson explained that the Commission has some
al ternati ves
1 . Go ahead and hear the item this eveni ng wi th the variance reques t
for additional density. If they would go ahead wi th action to-
night, there is the possibility that they might deny this and
it would go to Council, who could possibly deny.
2. If applicant takes the continuance and ordinance changes are
approved, he could possibly not have a problem.
Mr. Dul ebohn still felt that he would like to have a review of his
plans. Commissioner Coontz then explained that there are variations
in attitudes among the Commissioners. Mr. Dulebohn then decided to
wait for the May 18th heari ng.
Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification with regard to the
May 18th continuance date. Chairman Mickelson clarified this for
the applicant.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
continue this item to May 18, 1981 .
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1104, VARIANCE 1638 - CERNICH:
Request to allow offices i n an i ndustrial zone on a si to contai ni ng
less than 5 acres located on the north side of Katella Avenue, east
of the Santa Ana River. (Note: Negative Declaration 686 has been
prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Mr. Murphy gave a short presentation of this application to the
Commission, stating that the property is an existing project which
has been there for 22 years . The building was built as an industrial
building. However, it is occupied in part by offices, at the present
time mostly on the second floor. The Staff has not approved the
business licenses for these offices because basically this is an
industrial area .
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the partner in the project presently
has an office on the first floor of the building, whereas the
application is only for offices on the second floor. The first floor
,~ i s to stay industrial .
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 1981
Page Ni ne
The Interdepartmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and comments
that large banner signs advertising the rental of space have been
i n pl ace on the buil di ng since i t was buil t several years ago.
Temporary real estate signs are limited by code to 32 square feet
in industrial and commercial zones.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings
of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declara tion
686. Although similar requests for office use in industrial zones
have been previously approved, Staff feels uncomfortable with this
proposal for two reasons:
1. Staff has never encouraged conditional use permits for partial
use of buil di ngs . The probl ems encountered from an admi nistra-
tive standpoint are significant when this is done since the
Staff member who reviews business license requests would need
to be personally fami 1 iar with the detai 1 s of this conditional
use permit in order to determine which uses are permitted in
each leasable unit. Obviously this situation would result in
complete confusion i f i t were done on a wi des pread basis .
2. Staff unders tands that the main moti vati on for the applicant's
filing of this request is to 1 egal i ze the 1 ocati on of the office
of one of the co-owners of the property on the first floor. This
situation was prompted by the City's Code Enforcement Officer's
proceedi ngs to abate the office since i t exists i n violation of
code as well as wi thout a busi Hess 1 i cense. Staff points out
that approval of a conditional use permit to allow partial
office use of the site would not correct this situation si nce
the first floor is proposed to remain industrial.
If the Planning Commission feels that approval of Conditional Use
Permit 1104 and Variance 1638 are appropriate, Staff recommends
three conditions, as stated i n the Staff Report.
Chairman Mickel son opened the public heari ng. There bei ng no one
to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the
public heari ng.
Commissioner Coontz moved, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file
Negative Declaration 686 .
AYES: Commissioners Mickel so n, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 1104 and Variance 1638, in accordance
with the remarks as stated by Staff, and subject to the three
conditions as set forth in the Staff Report.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
PRE-ZONE CHANGE 942 - NORRIGAN:
Request to pre-zone property from County R-4 to City RM-7 located
on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Palm Avenue (8722 and
8732 Palm Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 687 has been pre-
pared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating
that the applicant requests approval of Pre-Zone Change 942 in order
to zone the property RPl-7 prior to annexation to the City of Orange.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 1981
Page Ten
The property contains .544 acre of land located on the northeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Palm Avenue, is zoned R-4 (County of
Orange) and contains two single-family residences .
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant proposes to construct a
two-story 8-unit planned unit Bevel opment. Vehicular access to the
site would be via a driveway at the rear of the property onto Palm
Avenue.
Mr. Soo-Hoo expl ai ned that the present request is 1 imi ted to approval
of the Pre-Zone Change only. The condominium proposal will be
formally reviewed at a later date with the filing of a Tentative
Tract Map and Condi tional Use Permit.
The Staff REvi ew Committee has reviewed the proposal and finds i t
technically acceptable.
Staff feels that R-M-7 zoning is appropriate for this property.
A General Plan desi gnati on for medium density usually resul is i n
R-D-6 or R-M-7 zoning. However, the location of the property on
Lincol n Avenue and the medi um density of the proposed development
are felt to justify the R-M-7 zone i n this instance. Staff recom-
mends approval of Pre-Zone Change 942 for the reasons that the
proposal is similar to other developments in the area; all develop-
ment standards for a planned unit development in an R-M-7 zone have
been met; the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and
zoning; and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Coontz asked what the difference was between R-4 and
the proposed zoning. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the R-4 zoning i n
the county is equivalent to the RD zoning in Orange, which means one
unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area. The R-M-7 zoning in Orange is
equi val ent to the R-4 zoning and i s consistent with our General Plan.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the only problem could be that with the
increase in the PUD ordinance, possibly the R-2 district might be
closer to the density for a condominium. The R-M-7 zoning may not
be needed with the increase i n density that now i s being proposed
to the City Council.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Joseph Emmi, 12342 Rock Island, Downey and George Norrigan, of
Seal Beach, the applicants, addressed the Commission, stating that
they are aski ng for annexati on to the City of Orange because they
have been trying to get plans approved by the County but there i s
so much red tape, they have decided to ask for annexation into Orange.
They also pointed out that they must use Orange water and sewer
facilities.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman cl osed the public heari ng.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
accept the findings of the Environmenta l Review Board to file
Negative Declaration 687.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 9 42 for reasons as stated by
Staff.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Aul t, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissio Hers none MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20, 1981
Page El even
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1105 -ROACH/PAUL:
Request to allow atwo-story second unit in the RCD Overlay
District on the west side of Grand Street, south of Culver
Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from
Environmental Review.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating
that the applicant requests approval of Condi tional Use Permit 1105
to allow the construction of a two-story second unit at the rear
of the property located on the west side of Grand Street, south of
Culver Avenue. This property contai ns .145 acre of land, is zoned
R-D-6 (RCD) and contai ns a s i ngl a family residence. A Condi tional
use permit i s required for two-story development i n the RCD overlay .
Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant proposes to construct a
two-bedroom, two-bath residential unit over a three car garage at
the rear of the property. An open parking space is provided next to
the garage. Vehicular access would be via an alley at the rear.
All development standards for the R-D-6 zone have been complied
with.
~'' It was pointed out that the proposed unit is 25 feet high. Other
houses in the neighborhood have high pitched roofs and several are
two-story. The new uni t would uti 1 i ze the roof, si di ng and trim
details typical of the architectural style of the neighborhood.
Mr. Soo-Hoo informed the Commission that two conditional use permits
have been approved within the last three months to allow two-story
second units on other properties in this block. A third similar
application is being reviewed at the present time for a property
on the opposite side of Grand Street.
The Staff Review Commi ttee has revi ewed the proposal and finds i t
to be technically acceptable. It was also pointed out that the Land
Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for low density
(2-6 uni is/acre) residential development.
Staff does not feel that the proposal will detract from the scale
and character of the neighborhood surrounding the site. It is,
therefore, recommended that the applicant's request be approved for
the reasons that the proposal meets the development standards of the
R-D-6 zone and is consistent with the City of Orange General Plan;
and that the subject proposal will not change the profile or
character of the neighborhood.
The appl i cati on is recommended for approval with the six conditions
as set forth in the Staff Report.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
C.M. Thompson, 625 W. Katella, Orange, addressed the Commission on
behalf of the applicant. He stated that he is the designer of the
project and they are basically going to tear down an old barn and
put up a uni t for a son to 1 i ve i n. Mr. Thompson pointed out that
there is an old barn at the alleyway. This will be torn down and
the new proposed unit built. He expects this unit to have some nice
amenities since it will not be a rental unit, but occupied by the
son of the family.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 1981
Page Twelve
i~
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 1105, subject to the six conditions
shown in the Staff Report.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Mickelson commended the designer for his design, which
blends very well with the neighborhood.
ZONE CHANGE 943 - ORANGE PARK VENTURES:
Request to zone property to RM-7 on the west side of Prospect
Street, north of Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 688
has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this property, which contains 18,4 acres of land and is located
on the west side of Prospect Avenue between Chapman Avenue and
Spring Street, was annexed into the City of Orange in September,
1980 after being initiated by the applicant directly to the 1 ocal
agency formation commission without the City's participation. The
site therefore was never prezoned. In the county the property was
zoned R-4 (Suburban Res i denti al) , reflecting the 260 exis ti ng
multiple family residential units.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant requests zoning in order to
rectify a situation wherein the subject property was annexed into
the City with no zoning. The applicant seeks RM-7 zoning for the
site. It should be noted that the annexation also included the
vacant area immediately west of the apartment site which is actually
a dedicated public street (McPherson Road) and Railroad Right-of-Way
being such, it will remain unzoned.
It is recommended that the findings of the Environmental Review Board
to file Negative Declaration 688 be accepted.
Since the General Plan designates the area in general for medium
density residential development which is both consistent with the
existing land use, as well as the applicant's requested zoning, Staff
recommends approval of Zone Change 943 to classify the subject
property RM-7. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the only consideration
at this time is if the proposed zoning is appropriate.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. There being no one
to speak for or against thi s proposal , the Ch airman cl osed the
public hearing.
Ploved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
accept the fi ndi ngs of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fil e
Negative Declaration 688.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to
recommend approval of Zone Change 943.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11284, VARIANCE 1633 -
THE IRVINE COMPANY:
Request to allow creation of 171. residential lots with some lots
containing less than the required lot frontage and reduced front
yard setbacks on the west side of Newport Boulevard, south of
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 1981
Page Thirteen
Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 650 was previously
approved and no further Environmental Review is required,)
Chairman Mickelson explained that this application has been before
the Commission several times and, therefore, they would forego the
presentati on.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Bi 11 Fi schel , 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach , representi ng
The Irvine Company, addressed the Commission in favor of this
application. He stated that after reviewing the Staff Report,
they have no ques ti ons about i t. He stated that he was avai 1 abl e
for questions by Staff or the Commission members.
Commissioner Hart pointed out that, wi th regard to the equestrian
trails, it calls for the city to take over the upkeep of them. It
was his understanding that the city does not want to keep up these
trails.
Mr. Murphy explai ned that there i s a commi ttee establi shed now to
look into the maintenance of horse trails since there are several
mi 1 es of trails i n Orange Park Acres under the ci ty's maintenance
direction. The proposal is to create a vehicle to maintain these
trails i n that area for long term maintenance of horse trai 1 s rather
than the city doing this. Upon questioning by Corronissioner Coontz
as to whether this was a condition in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet,
Mr. Murphy explai ned that this was a condi tion i n the original
application as a part of the condi ti onal use permit. However, i t
does not appear to be a part of the conditions on the Tentative
Tract Map, but it is an understanding between the Staff and The
Irvi ne Company that the condi ti on can be placed on the Tentati ve
Tract Map. Commissioner Hart stated that he would 1 i ke to recommend
that the Ci ty does not maintain these horse trails anymore.
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson,
to recommend approval of Variance 1633 and Revised Tentative Tract
11284 and the accompanying subdivision map plan check, for reasons
as given by Staff.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to
recommend that the Commission does not feel that the maintenance
of the horse trails should fall upon the non-horse owni ng tax payer
of the city. Commissioner Hart thought that some kind of use fee
should be charged for maintenance.
Chairman Mickelson that that there is an adopted General Plan
i ncl udi ng a requirement for horse trai 1 s . Everyone was not i n favor
of this. However, i t is there and when an applicant, such as The
Irvine Company, comes in they see on our General Plan a designation
for an equestrian trail and they must somehow accommodate that General
Plan requirement. Then we tell them that they must own it, take care
of it and it is forced upon them. He did not feel that this was
completely fair. He did, however, support the idea that the maintenance
of the trails should be borne by an assessment district or some other
means rather than a burden to the tax payers .
Mr. Minshew pointed out that Al Rivera and his committee are trying
to get such an assessment through.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 1981
Page Fourteen
Chairman Mickelson asked Commissioner Hart if he would be agreeable
to having Staff bring back a properly worded recommendation as a
policy statement.
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to ask
Staff to provide a policy statement regarding horse trails, which
reflects the concerns of the Commission regarding maintenance.
Mr. Murphy asked for a time frame for this and Chairman Mickelson
requested a draft at the next meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1108, VARIANCE 1637 - BURNETT-EHLINE:
Request to allow retail sales of ceramic the in an industrial zone
on a site containi ng 1 ess than 5 acres at the southeast corner of
Katel 1 a Avenue and Park Street. ( Note: Negative Decl aration 690
has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.)
l
No formal presentation was made for this application.
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing and there being no
one to speak for or against the appl ication, he then closed the
hearing .
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept
the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negative
Declaration 690.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson,
NO ES : Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none
Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to
approve Conditional Use Permit 1108 and Vari ance 1637, subject to
the recommendations in the Staff Report and subject to the five
conditions stated therein.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
VARIANCE 1635 - PATS CHECK:
Request to allow construction of an office building which exceeds
the 30 foot height limit in the 0-P zone on the south side of
Chapman Avenue, west of Newport Boulevard. ( Note: Negative
Declaration 664 was previously accepted and no further Environmental
Review is required.)
Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating
that this is a request to allow the construction of an office
building which exceeds the 30 foot height 1 imi t of the 0-P zone.
The property contains 1 .43 acres and i s located on the south side
of Chapman Avenue approximately 420 feet west of the centerline of
Newport Boulevard.
Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that Zone Change 937 was approved on February
10, 1981, subject to the intent to rezone procedure to change the
zoning of the subject property from A-1 to 0-P. Proposed at that
time was a two-story 25,500 square foot office building with 102
off-street parki ng spaces .
Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the applicant now proposes a 23,500
square foot office building for which 94 off-street parking spaces
would be provided. In order to project a residential character,
however, the applicant wishes to use high pitched roofs and would
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 1981
Page Fifteen
thus exceed the 30 foot height limit in the 0-P zone. Because of
the irregular topography, the building height vari es from over 50
feet from the top of the el evator shaft to the parking 1 evel to
approximately 25 feet at the 1 owest point. The elevation drawi ng
submitted by the applicant refers to a third floor. However, it
should be clarified that only two floors of offices are proposed.
The reference on the drawing is intended to depict the fact that
the elevator must serve three stories since the rear of the bui 1 di ng
is higher than the front, due to the natural slope.
The Staff has reviewed the proposal and suggested that the double
bank of parki ng spaces coul d be interrupted wi th a four foot wide
landscaped planter into which cars could overhang. This could be
accomplished wi thout si gni fi cant modi fi cation to the proposed 1 ay-
out.
Also discussed was the need for a reci procal driveway with the
property owner to the east because of the visibility problems caused
by the curving of Chapman Avenue at this location. The applicant
indicated that he was receptive to the landscaping recommendation
and would not object to a reciprocal driveway.
Though the measured height limit is proposed to be exceeded, Staff
notes that the applicant is sti 11 1 imi ti ng development to two stori es
and wishes basically to maintain a residential profile by utilizing
a pitched roof design. Staff feels that this approach is acceptable
and points out that the subject property is located at the foot of a
hill which is approximately 145 feet above the proposed pad, thus
mi ti gati ng the height. Staff therefore recommends approval of
Variance 1635, subject to the 20 conditions stated in the Staff
Report. Mr. Soo-Hoo also pointed out that the Orange Park Acres
Committee reviewed this project and recommended approval.
Chairman Mickel son opened the public hearing.
Ray Patscheck, 640 N. Tustin, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission,
poi nti ng out that a resi dential project is above this area. He fel t
that the architect has done a great job in giving this building a
residential flavor.
Commissioner Hart questioned why an elevator was necessary in a
two-story buil di ng. He thought that i t did not add architecturally
to the project. The applicant explained that i n the back portion
i t woul d be three stories i n hei ght and i t could be a probl em for
people to climb that many stairs.
Marjorie Berquist, 7523 Twin Leaf Trail , Orange, representi ng Orange
Park Acres Community Association, addressed the Commission. She
explained that she was not really opposing the project, she merely
had some questions pertai ni ng to i t. She couldn't tel 1 by the plans
hat would happen to the grade of the property . She asked i f the
parki ng 1 of was going to come right down to Chapman Avenue or i s
the burin which now exists going to stay there. Her concern was with
the homes which are across from the proposed parking lot. These
are things which concern the Association. It was felt that there
needs to be some visual barrier. She also stated that she would
like an explanation of the grade cut they might be taking.
Mr. Patscheck replied that he will be required to cut the bank back
somewhat. There will be a continuous line of sidewalk and bank. The
parking 1 of wi 11 not drop at all . It wi 11 be about the same hei gh t
as the kennel which is there. The pad will be cut down somewhat in
the rear and the parking lot will be raised slightly and slope down
to the existing grade. There will be an embankment there. He ex-
~, plai ned that because of the type of clientele i nterested i n renti ng
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri 1 20, 1981
Page Sixteen
space i n thi s building, they are not that .concerned with being
visible from the street. Professional people are interested in
this building and do not need visibility from the street.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application,
the Chairman closed the public hearing,
Chairman Mickelson asked Staff if a six foot masonry wall would be
required. Mr. Murphy did not think this would be necessary.
Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr. Minshew whether they could approve
this without a wall. Per. Murphy stated that this could be handled
by the Staff.
Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Ault,
to approve Vari ance 1635 as requested and include elimination of
the required six foot masonry wall along the west side of the
parking lot, for the reason that topography immediately adjacent
to the site and on the site itself warrants such a variance, because
the wall would serve no purpose as intended in the code; said ap-
proval to be subject to the other findings in the Staff Report and
the 20 condi tions as set forth in the Staff Report.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Master commented that where we have an application
such as this with terrain and topography that di ffer from the usual ,
that perhaps there shoul d be a 1 i ttl e more description of same.
He explained that he has di ffi cul ty with the topography impact i n
some of the projects and that perhaps a scale could be provided.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to reconvene at a study
session on Monday, April 27, 1981 at 5:15 p.m. in Conference Room A,
and then to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 1981 at the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California.
l~
n
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 20, 1981.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Mickel son at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master
ABSENT: None
Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this
meeting adjourn at 9:50 p.m. on Monday, April 20, 1981 to reconvene at
7:30 p.m. P~onday, May 4, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers,
300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and
correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on Monday, April 20, 1981.
Dated this 21st day of April , 1981 at 2:00 p.m.
Je e N. Murphy, c,ty t~ianner ~ secretary
to the Planning Commission of the
Ci y of Orange.
.~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS~ OF ADJOURNMENT
Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the
Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting
of the Planni ng Commission of the City of Orange was held on
Apri 1 20, 1981 ; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time
and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto;
that on April 21, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of
said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at
which said meeting of Apri 1 20 , 1981 was held.
^~