Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/3/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION City of Orange March 3, 1980 Orange, California 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, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson (late) ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Jack McGee, Planning; Jim Reichert, Planning; Darrell Verberg, Fire Department, Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 4, 1980 Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to approve the minutes as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master 'OES: Commissioners none ~,BSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: A request from the Buccola Company for an extension of time on Pre-Zone Change 919, Tentative Tract 10947 to March 17th. Dick Hunsacker, of Hunsacker & Associates, explained that Mr. Buccola is on vacation at this time and asked for a continuance. John Vilivich, 836 Gaffer, San Pedro, addressed the Commission on this item, explaining that he had driven 40 miles to speak to this issue. He has driven here before only to have the item continued and felt that it is unfair to extend this. He also stated that he would like clarification of the numbers issued in the proposal. The numbers stated in the acreage are confusing. Chairman Coontz suggested that he call the Planning Staff and talk to Mr. Murphy and that he also talk to Mr. Hunsacker. Commissioner Master also pointed out three different numbers on different papers with regard to this issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master to grant an extension, as requested. A. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioner Dickelson MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy requested that Amendment 2-80 be withdrawn until the "Olde Towne" Committee implementation program is established. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to withdraw Amendment 2-80 until further notice. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED Chairman Coontz asked for discussion among Commission members regarding various items on the agenda to defer for study session. It was decided public input would be received on both mobile homes and condo conversions, but action by the Planning Commission would be continued until after a study session is held. Mr. Murphy stated that the Staff has prepared a series of studies re mobile home conversion, including a study of existing parks in the city. As apart of these studies, recommendations were made at the February 4th meeting and the Staff asked that the hearing be continued so that Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Si x Robert Hinton, 2422 W. Almond, Orange - addressed the opposition to the proposed amendment. He stated that Commission in he would not like to see high density building in that area. With two cars in every garage built, we could expect West Almond to become a race track during the busy hours. He also did not believe that there is a 37 ft. entry - more like 30 ft., as there is a large storm drain on one side of the area in question. Estelle Dupre, 2412 W. Almond, Orange - also addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed amendment. She felt that if it is rezoned for high density, it will mean children and at the present time this is a very quiet and subdued neighborhood. Many children will change the whole atmosphere. Mr. Fifield responded to the opposition by stating that he thought that because they would like to make this affordable housing, it would cater to the young couples. Probably small units, which would not be conducive to families with children. They want to work with the people who are already in the area. They do have a concept - a plan for a cluster arrangement. They are thinking in terms of a total number of 72 units in a cluster arrangement with lots of open areas and parking space. If access cannot be worked out, they will not be able to use the property. Richard Smith, 2314 W. Almond, Orange - addressed the Commission about his concern with the area which will have to be used in order to get in and out of the property. West Almond is a dead end and is only 31 ft. wide. A street would take up 20 ft. of the property. The Chairman closed the public hearing, as there was no one else to speak on this application. Commissioner Mickelson brought up a point of discussion. He agreed with the Staff's opinion that this property might be suitable for medium density. He thought that the best control we have over the situation is to keep it a low density situation until a second access is guaranteed. He was concerned that this area has a very serious safety problem. Chairman Coontz thought that since the Commission has nothing to look at as a design, they must be very aware of this problem of access. Commissioner Ault moved that the Commission accept the findings of the Planning Department to file Negative Declaration 607. Motion failed for lack of a second. There was more discussion among the Commission members regarding modifi- cation of statements in the report. Commissioner Master wondered how they would go about amending a Negative Declaration, as the Commission had never done this before. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declara- tion No. 607 with the additional finding that there would be internal circulation problems created with high density development. This problem can be mitigated, however, with the provision of a secondary access point in the southern portion of the property and that a re- designation of the property to medium density will further reduce the impact. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Seven Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element from low density to medium density residential on the subject property and, further, that the intent to rezone procedure be utilized when the zone change is considered, due to circulation and access problems associated with the site. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1014 - ST. PAUL'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: Request to allow an elementary school in the R-1-7 zone on the south side of Walnut Avenue, east of Hewes Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 615 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo made the Staff's presentation on this application and explained that the maximum enrollment for the proposed elementary school would be 120 students, ranging from kindergarten to 6th grade. The proposal is to erect four geodesic domes, each dome diameter being 38 feet, containing 1100 feet, with a total area of 4400 square feet. The domes would be erected on the front of the area, with a playground in the back of the area. There would be a parking lot between the proposed school and the existing church. The Staff recommends accepting Negative Declaration 921 and approval of Conditional Use Permit 1014, as listed in the Staff Report. The Staff also suggests that a 6 ft. block wall be provided along the south property line between the proposed school and family dwellings. The existing wall is deteriorating and is not 6 ft. in height. The Staff suggests an additional condition requiring the 6 ft. block wall. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. James Griffith, 19091 Glen Arran Lane, Orange - Chairman of the Board of Trustees of St. Paul's, addressed the Commission in favor of this proposal. He stated that he felt that this would be an asset and serve the community. John Wenk, 4621 Silverleaf, Orange - addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. He stated that he lives adjacent to the proposed school and is most concerned about the resaleability of his property should these buildings be erected. At the time he purchased his property, he chose it in order to eliminate the problems going along with a school. Perhaps another person purchasing his property now would have the same concerns. There would be a definite impact on the homes adjacent to this proposed school, such as balls coming over walls, etc. He wondered what the legal liability would be for the property owners if a child were to injure himself or fall into a pool. He noted that in the drawing there is an existing 5 ft. wall. He showed photos showing the height of the wall and stated that this wall is deteriorating and is not structurally sound. Chairman Coontz pointed out that there is a condition that a 6 ft. wall will be built. Mr. Wenk felt that perhaps a 6 ft. wall will not be high enough. Judy Lupin, 4613 E. Silverleaf, Orange, also addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed school. She stated that she had approached the pastor of St. Paul's in order to get permission to knock the wall down in order to get a tractor into her yard because of flooding during the recent rains. The pastor told her that she would have to have a $300 bond. She also mentioned that there are trees on the church property, one of which fell in the Wenk yard and Mr. Wenk was told that it was his responsibility to get rid of the tree. She felt that resale value of her property would go down if the school is allowed. She stated that if the pastor cannot take care of problems going on now, how will he take care of an entire school? Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Eight George Eaten, 468 N. Hamlin, Orange - spoke in opposition to the proposed school. He stated that his property was located just east of the existing church. He claimed that he has nothing but problems now and adding a school will just add more problems. He just spent $1680.00 to have his pool replastered after some of the church children threw things into the pool and damaged it. He claimed that there is a 6-8 ft. ditch on the north side of the street and it is not wide enough for school traffic. Also, he felt that adding a school in this area would create a noise problem. He felt that a church school should not be in a residential area. The existing church rents its building out 5 days a week to students 14-16 years of age. They have caused damages in the neighborhood. He questioned if 1.77 acres was the entire lot or just the lot next to the church. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that this was the entire lot. Mr. Eaten thought that this was a very small lot to build a school on. He was concerned that this will certainly depreciate the properties in the area, not to mention that the buildings will be quonset huts. They now have a constant problem with balls being thrown on his property. Flowers are constantly being trampled. Commissioner Ault questioned Mr. Eaten about the damage to his pool. He explained that the boys had torn old boards from a fence and threw the boards, plus nails and tea bags into his pool, causing extensive damage. Russ Stebenne, 480 N. Hamlin, Orange - addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed school. He explained that his property lies adjacent to the church, on the east side of the church. Based on the plan, he says that his back yard will be a parking lot. He purchased his property based on residential zoning. They have already experienced property damage from school children. He also felt that the buildings are nothing more than quonset huts and does not want to see this in the neighborhood. He felt that the church does not take good care of their property now and adding a school will only cause more problems. Mike Jackson, 486 N. Hamlin, Orange - spoke in opposition to the proposed school, stating that he has a wrought iron fence around his home. If the school is built, it would certainly decrease the property value, take away their privacy and create more noise. Dwight Sullivan, 4423 E. Sycamore, Orange - minister of St. Paul's, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed school. He stated that he did not remember a tree falling from the church property onto someone else's property. With regard to the party who wished to knock down a portion of the church wall to get a tractor into her yard, he explained that the general policy is to have a bond put up in order to protect the church. From the church's standpoint, this is a business policy. With regard to the pool damage, he asked who had done this and the man didn't seem to know. He explained that their children were only there on Sundays at Sunday School. There are schools in the near vicinity and sometimes children come on the church property when no one is there, who possibly cause property damage. Many people have made statements about damage, but he has not seen any number of their people doing this damage. Chairman Coontz questioned Pastor Sullivan regarding the application for expanding a day school to elementary school. She wondered about what percentage would be day school and what percentage elementary school. She also wanted clarification about an allusion made to an existing rental of the church for school purposes. Pastor Sullivan replied that there is presently a small private school with 18 students and two teachers, renting space at the church. This consists of the 4th grade through high school. Chairman Coontz wondered if this is a church- related school and could they be causing the problems. She also wanted to know if they would be incorporated into the school being planned. The answer was no. Pastor Sullivan then explained that they have a one year rental agreement and at the end of their year, the church will decide whether they will continue to rent their space. Chairman Coontz pointed out that there should be a conditional use permit for this small private school. It was also explained that day school means, in this case, that the school gets out at 3:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Nine Pastor Sullivan then explained that the church will be leasing their property to someone else to run the proposed private school. It will not be affiliated with the Methodist Church. Phil Robinette, 1433 N. Meads Avenue, Orange - Pastor of First Assembly of God Church, which is located immediately west of the strip of property in question - addressed the Commission with regard to his church's wishes regarding the property. They originally occupied the piece of property in question where the Methodist Church now is. They finally exchanged properties. One of the things discussed at that time was that the property to the west might be used for this church (corner parcel) to expand their parking lot. They also share the neighbors' concerns about the nature of these new buildings. He wondered if they are to be temporary or permanent. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that it is his understanding that they are to be permanent. He realized that they are more portable than usual, but it is the Staff's understanding that they are to be permanent. Mr. Robinette stated that it was his understanding that they are to be temporary. He asked to see drawings of what these buildings will look like. How will they blend in with what is already there? Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that they have nothing available at this time, but they have a brochure which the applicant gave to them which shows what the geodesic dome looks like. Pastor Robinette stated that these structures will not look like anything in the area right now. Commissioner Mickelson questioned as to whether there was a contractual arrangement with regard to the parking lot and was told that there was nothing in writing, only a verbal agreement. This is still their long term plan and this option is still to be available to them in the future. These buildings are supposed to be temporary. John Wenk stated that if any expanded facility is allowed to be put in, this will be an enticement to children in the area to come onto that property. Judy Luper spoke again regarding the fact that the pastor knew nothing about the tree falling and the discussion regarding a bond if the fence was taken down temporarily. She felt that if he is the pastor of that church, he certainly ought to know what is going on. George Eaten spoke again regarding the fact that he is in opposition to temporary building being constructed on the church property and leased out. When the lease is up, they will have nothing but quonset huts to take down. Chairman Coontz explained that the buildings have a conditional use permit attached to them. However, Mr. Eaten felt that there is no investment in these types of buildings. Pastor Dwight Sullivan, 4423 E. Sycamore, Orange - responded that these buildings would be of a nature, being geodesic buildings, that would be temporary. If the person who is leasing would wish to take the buildings away, they may do so. It is with that understanding that the church is entering into the agreement. The buildings will not belong to the church. The person who is leasing has a stake in the maintenance and care of the buildings. The present lot is vacant and not very pretty. Construction of a new building would probably tend to curb stray use of it by the children. The school which is coming in will be of benefit to the neighborhood. It will be a school for gifted children. Commissioner Master asked if the pastor was aware of the condition that a block wall must be built when this school is constructed. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that if the existing wall is structurally sound and can be added on to, this can be done. The building department will decide on this. There were questions regarding the nature of this school and the under- standing is that it is to be a Cardin school. It was explained that this means that it is a private school based on values of old fashioned Americanism, stressing home, family, church and country. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1980 Page Ten Chairman Coontz then asked the city engineer what plans the city has for improvement of Walnut, if any. Mr. Johnson replied that the city has no plans for improvement. Part of that road is in the county and he knows of no plans to widen it. There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ault moved, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the board on Negative Declaration 615. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to deny Conditional Use Permit 1014. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED _.J RE: AMENDMENT 1-80 - CITY OF ORANGE Amendment to Article IX of the Orange Municipal Code relating to Condominium Conversions. Chairman Coontz suggested that this issue be continued to a study session. Mr. Murphy made the Staff's presentation of the information regarding this section. He stated that the Staff has worked with the City Attorney's office in this matter and the work has been completed at this time. It is the recommendation of the Staff that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and receive input on the proposed ordinance. Also, that the Commission review the proposal and all written comments and oral presentations. If Commission finds that extensive discussion of the proposal is necessary, staff suggests a special meeting be set. Staff also recommended that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council including appropriate comments and concerns. Chairman Coontz raised a question regarding the date that the moratorium ends and Mr. Murphy replied that it will lapse approximately June 20. If the Commission's recommendations go to the City Council by April 7 there will be ample time to take action before the moratorium lapses. After some discussion among the members, Chairman Coontz requested that the Staff research the possibility of a housing analyst regarding this situation. Chairman Coontz then opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master moved, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to continue this hearing to a study session March 24 and thence to a regular meeting April 7. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Eleven ~N RE: NEW HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 922 - M-R BATAVIA Request to prezone property from County A-1 to City M-1 on the east side of Batavia Street, south of Fletcher Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 503 was previously accepted and no further environmental review is required.) Stan Soo-Hoo made the Staff's presentation on this application, stating that the property contains approximately two acres of land; it is currently zoned A-1 and contains a duplex and vacant storage facility. The surrounding land use and zoning are M-1 to the north and south, with dog kennels and residences in both sections, a flood control channel to the east and railroad tracks and industrial development in A-1 (County) zone to the west. The Staff feels that this is the most logical zoning of the site, but because of the fact that in August of 1978 the City Council denied applicant's proposal for zone change to M-1 and conditional use permit for the conversion of a residence to an office, because of concern over the lack of compatibility of the truck storage operation with abutting residences, the Commission might wish to zone to interim zone A-l, since the future use of the site is still in question. There- fore, Staff recommends that the property be prezoned to M-1, or, if the alternative is desired, an interim zone (A-1) may be imposed with an intent to rezone to the M-1. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Scott Miller, 9415 Mt. Israel Rd., Escondido - addressed the Commission in favor of the application, admitting that he does not have any specific plans for the site at this time. He thought that the prior controversy had been caused by the truck storage yard and he does not feel he should be punished for that. He wants to develop the property in conjunction with the existing neighborhood. Denny Reed, 11292 Rainier, Garden Grove - also addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed prezone change, reiterating what the previous speaker had said. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to allow Pre-Zone Change 922 and recommend to the City Council that the zone be changed from A-1 to M-1 -light manufacturing, without the use of the intent to rezone procedure. AYES: Commissioners Ault, Hart, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to go out of order on the agenda and move to "Miscellaneous Items". AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: RECONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE 911 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 79-775 - ROHLANDER: Request to allow a change of zone from R-0 to 0-P and to create four parcels on the west side of Santiago Boulevard, north and south of Heim Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1980 Page Twelve Mr. Murphy made the presentation of this request for a zone change, pointing out that the subject property is an irregular shaped parcel. containing 2.08 acres of land located on the west side of Santiago Boulevard, north and south of Heim Avenue. This is an excess freeway parcel, formerly owned by the State of California, and is zoned R-O. It is presently vacant. The surrounding zoning and land uses are a gasoline service station in the C-1 zone to the north, single family residences in the R-1-8 and R-1-10 zones to the east, single family residences in the R-1-8 zone to the south and the Newport Freeway on the west. At this location, Santiago Blvd. is a secondary arterial with an ultimate width of 80 ft. and Heim Avenue is an unimproved local street. Because of uncertainty regarding timing of future improvement of Heim Avenue, the City Engineer has consented to permit provision of off-street parking within the right-of-way. The General Plan Amendment 1-79/Item "E" was approved on May 1, 1979, changing the designation of the site from low density residential to 0-P and at the public hearing held at that time, opposition was heard from area residents to a commercial zoning. The City Council assured these residents that specific plans would be reviewed via the Intent to Rezone Procedure to insure area compatibility. The applicant is requesting that the subject property be rezoned from R-0 to 0-P to allow development of the site with an office proposal. The applicant is also asking for approval of a tentative parcel map to create four parcels on this site as he proposes to construct four office structures with a total building area of 60,000 sq. ft. A total of 240 parking spaces (83 under structures, 24 compact and 133 open). His building concept consists of providing a number of off-street parking spaces. He originally was planning two floors of office buildings, but the City Council's statement, as Staff understands it is that buildings are to be one story in height at street level. Staff recommends approval to the City Council of revised plan of one story office buildings. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. David Rohlander, 5215 Honeywood Lane, Anaheim - applicant addressed the Commission in favor of the issue. He stated that the plans have basically been revised to single story structures and there will be no lofts. Miles Fars on, 2462 Robinhood Place, Orange - addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed zone change. He was concerned about the proposed elevation. Going south on Robinhood Place it drops to about 15 ft. and the property is in stair step levels down to the cul de sac, where it drops quite a bit. The property behind his property is a couple of feet lower. He wondered if the builder plans to do a landfill and how tall the one story building would be. He was told that it would be 22 ft. He stated that he does not like to see these creeping changes. About 14 years ago there was a master plan, which is now called a General Plan. But changes are constantly being made, changing from residential to commercial. He is opposed to changes for commercial development. Robert Fentnor, 2490 Robinhood, Orange - stated that he has just purchased his property and this proposed building will be in his back yard. He would not have purchased the property if he had known the zone was to be changed from residential. He will no longer have a view and his privacy will be invaded. He pointed out that traffic is already bad on Santiago Blvd. This added traffic will just make matters worse. He asked for rejection of the zoning. Henry Lincoln, 20380 Orange Tree Lane, Orange - addressed the Commission in opposition to the zone change, stating that his home is directly in back of the double building. He wondered what it will mean if they go from ground level. He was answered that the tallest building will be 18.6 f t. He pointed out that if the building is 22 ft. as previously mentioned, it will be right in front of their plate glass window. He brought up the fact that he was told that a traffic study was done in this area. It is his understanding that a tape is put down to count Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Thirteen the cars. To his knowledge, this was not done. He feels that the traffic study was not made in the interests of the residents. Bob Shaker, 2459 Robinhood Place, Orange - addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed zone change. He wondered what the city plans were for Heim. Mr. Johnson stated that there have been studies made to explore the possibility of Heim going across the freeway. They have talked to the State and they have said that this road is not viable at this time, particularly because of the amount of money they have to work with.. Mr. Rohlander has asked the city to abandon this portion of Heim. However, the city will not recommend this. But he will be allowed to use this area as parking until such time as a decision is made on Heim. After being questioned regarding abandonment or condemnation of Heim if it was to be used for an overcrossing for a freeway, Mr. Johnson further stated that there would be some kind of a loop created giving access to various roads. They do not anticipate acquisition of property in that area. The city is negotiating with the State right now for a signal at Lincoln and Santiago and also at the Newport Freeway off ramp at Lincoln. Hopefully this will be in the near future. Question was asked if when the final package is submitted would it also include hydrology and drainage study? Mr. Johnson explained that basically there is a drainage pattern which will not be changed. There will have to be some improvement made on site. Mr. Johnson then went a little further into the subject of extension of Heim. Lawrence Kirwan, 2034 Orangeview Lane, Orange - spoke in opposition to the application. He spoke about concerns of congestion in that area and the problem of safety. It is his understanding that there will be a four-lane road. This is on a curve and there have been several accidents there. Regarding height of the buildings, his understanding is that the City Council is concerned about the height on site - not after landfill. Regarding noise - more cars will bring more noise to the area. Betty Fentnor, 2290 Robinhood, Orange - stated that she had not realized that there would be parking on Heim. She pointed out that their home is on Heim and Robinhood and Heim is a deadend. Any parking that is allowed will be right in front of them. A building 18.6 ft. high will look into their bedroom. Bob Reach, 2317 Robinhood, Orange - addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed plan, stating that he has not had any notification of any public hearings on this issue. They have asked the City Council to do a traffic study and he wondered if this has been done. Robert Fentnor stated that 110 registered voters and homeowners have signed a petition requesting that this petition be denied. Mr. Rohlander responded to the issues regarding land fill. He stated that they do not intend to use a landfill and the buildings will be 18.6 ft. high from grade - grade being not Santiago, but actual site grade. Depending on the location of each building, they will vary 20 ft. and will fall lower as you go south. They will be considerably below Santiago. He spoke to a realtor earlier about abandoning the street, which meant that half would go to the property owner. He later found out that the city did not wish to abandon the street. The realtor was aware that this development was going in. He pointed out that on the plan there are several trees planned. In addition, all parking is to be be- hind the house with shrubbery. There will be a green belt. Santiago will be improved and widened at Mr. Rohlander's expense. Parking will be provided at the same ratio per square footage as proposed for the 60,000 sq. ft. He said that the city had done a traffic study of their own. When traffic was brought up as a problem, he had a traffic study done and sent to the city. Both studies were comparable. He assured the Commission that he plans to landscape this project and make it a very nice one. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Fourteen There was discussion among the Commission members regarding the various heights of the buildings and the landscaping which will be used to enhance them. Jerry Burgin, 2489 Ro'binhood, Orange - addressed the Commission with two questions - he wanted to know how far behind the block wall fence the buildings would be. The answer was that the standard set back is 10 ft. The faschia or eave would be 10 ft. in height, which is the same as a house. He also wished to know how far it is to the end of the lot from the block wall fence to the freeway. The answer was that the width of the building is 40 to 50 ft. All windows will be below the wall. ~, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN RE: There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. After discussion among the Commission members, Chairman Coontz pointed out that the City Council has decided that a one story plan, which is now being submitted, is the acceptable criteria for development. Motion by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of the revised plan to the City Council. Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Mickelson Commissioner Master Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: AMENDMENT 3-80 - CITY OF ORANGE Amendment to Section 9105.5 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to rear yard setbacks. Stan Soo-Hoo presented this amendment for the Staff, stating that this is just the rewording of an awkwardly worded section. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Code Amendment as set forth in the Staff Report. Motion by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the code amendment and recommend approval to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: AMENDMENT 4-80 - CITY OF ORANGE Amendment to Section 9112(8) of the Orange Municipal Code relating to Title Company verification of mailing lists for Tentative Tracts and Zone Changes. Mr. Soo-Hoo made the presentation for the Staff regarding Amendment 4-80, stating that the Staff finds an inconsistency between the application requirements for conditional use permits and variances on the one hand, and zone changes and tentative tract maps on the other. The nature of this inconsistency concerns the requirement for a title company to prepare the list of property owners within a 300 foot radius of the applicant's property for conditional use permit and variance applications, whereby such title company verification is not presently required of applicants for a zone change or tentative tract map, yet both applications require a list of nearby property owners. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a Code Amendment which would require title company verification of surrounding property owners for tentative map and zone change applications. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to approve the code amendment and recommend approval to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1980 Page Fifteen 'AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Coontz adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 17, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. u U U s STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF ORANGE ) OF ADJOURNT~ENT Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange, that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange held on March 3, 1980, said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on March 4, 1980 at the hour of 1:00 p.m. I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at tiahich said meeting of March 3, 1980 was held. EXCERPT FROM THE MIPJUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GRANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD OPJ MARCH 3, 1980. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: None Moved by Chairman Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 11:45 p.m. on Monday, March 3, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, March 17, 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, March 3, 1980. Dated this 4th day of hlarch, 1980 at 1:00 p.m. ere Qurphy, ~ ty Penner &~Secretary o they Planning Comm ssion f the City ~C~nae. ^!