Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/21/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California March 21, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 7, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept the minutes of March 7, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 994 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to rezone from the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) District to the MH (Mobile Home) District on land located on the north side of Rampart Street approximately 400± feet east of the centerline of State College Blvd. (300 North Rampart Street, Park Royal Mobile Home .Park). (Continued from February 23, ]983 hearing.) (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 24.57 acres of land and is located on the northwest side of Rampart Street approximately 400± feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. It is currently developed with a 203 unit mobile home park in the M-1 zone. Mr. Murphy explained that on May 18, 1982, City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 15-82 prohibiting the conversion of any mobile home park to any other use pending completion of a study on the ap- propriate land use provisions which should be applied to all mobile home parks. At the same hearing, the City Council directed Staff to commence public hearings to rezone existing mobile home parks to the mobile home district. Mr. Murphy pointed out that this rezone action is the ninth of nine mobile home park rezone actions on existing parks in the City. The General Plan designates the land use in the subject area for Industrial land use. Mr. Murphy then said that the Housing Advisory Committee recommendations of November 10, 1982 were heard at the January 3, 1983 Planning Com- mission meeting and recommended for adoption to the City Council. The City Council adopted the policies at their January 11, 1983 hearing and directed Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions for Council adoption. Mr. Murphy then read the essence of the Council policies which were adopted at the January 18, 1983 meeting as follows: a. Require that future mobile home park developments be placed in the MH (Mobile Home) District, b. Continue to hold public hearings to consider whether to rezone existing parks to the MH District. Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Two c. The General Plan Land Use Element should be reviewed for consistency and amendments initiated when appropriate should the City Council feel an existing mobile home park should be placed in the Mobile Home District. d. The City Council feels it is important to advise tenants that the rezoning of parks to the MH District is not to be con- strued as affording permanent protection to tenants from possible conversion to other uses. e. Should the rezoning of a park to the MH District be denied, the City Council should require that upon the change of use, closure or reversion to acreage that a Tenant Dislocation Impact Report and possibly a Tenant Relocation Assistance plan be prepared. f. The City shall refrain from direct involvement in tenant re- location assistance. g. Tenant relocation assistance efforts are best resolved between the park owners and park tenants using a neutral. third party, if necessary. h. The City views its role in tenant relocation assistance as a monitoring entity assuring public hearings and weighing the facts as to the adequacy of the relocation plan. i. The City shall not adopt a relocation assistance formula applicable to all mobile home parks as the City Council must consider cir- cumstances unique to each park. j. That once a park is proposed for conversion, all tenants are to receive benefits based on the same criteria, regardless of when they actually vacate the park. k. The City Council should adopt a set of guidelines applicable to all mobile home park conversions listing the factors to be considered when developing relocation assistance plans. 1. The factors. in a guideline could include age and condition of the park, age and condition of the coaches, amount and type of park improvements, length of tenure, demographic profile of tenants, resale potential of coaches, availability of park spaces elsewhere, and other similar factors. ~J m. After due consideration of the problem, the City Council has determined that the City should neither establish a temporary shelter park for dislocated tenants, nor require that the mobile home park being converted be retained as a temporary shelter park for a fixed period of time. However, the City Council reserves the right to determine whether any particular park should be re- tained fora temporary shelter park and for what period of time it should be so retained. The Staff has reviewed this proposal and has expressed a few concerns: 1. Should the City Council decide to rezone this property to the MH zone, the City General Plan Land Use Element will require an amendment to residential use in the area prior to reading the final zoning ordinance. Such zoning action would infer tacit approval of a General Plan revision. Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Three w 2. Some tenants may develop a false sense of security and not realize an owner may yet reuse the site by the notice and rezone procedure like that used for this action. 3. Rezoning this site to residential use may be deemed to be "spot zoning" as it relates to State zoning law, Surrounding property is zoned and used for commercial and industrial development. Staff recognizes this 10 year old park is surrounded by office and industrial uses, All have developed in a compatible manner, as there is no history of complaints about any of the uses. The park's 27 year lease has 17 years to run. Park Royale is located within close proximity of regional shopping and public transportation. Present park owners have indicated that they intend to retain the use of the site for mobile home park. It is unlikely that the City would generate General Plan changes to reflect the present mix of uses in the area. Further, to redesignate nearly two thirds of the area now designated for industrial use on the General Plan to residential use for the park site would leave a small industrial use area designation occupied by a small industrial use and a drive-in theater. With the adopted City policy that requires owners electing to terminate or change park uses to file Tenant Dislocation Plans and/or Assistance Plans, it is the Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Zone Change 994 not be approved for three reasons: 1. The proposed rezone is incompatible with the General Plan. 2. The City policy requiring Tenant Dislocation Plan and perhaps Assistance Plan filing upon the termination or reuse of a mobile home park site adequately serves to protect the rights of park tenants. 3. Redevelopment of the park and surrounding uses is not a fore- seeable action in the near future. ~ However, if it is felt that the subject property should be rezoned, it is recommended that Zone Change 994 be recommended for approval using the Resolution of Intent procedure requiring that an appropriate General Plan Amendment be approved prior to reading the final ordinance for two reasons: 1, The proposed zone is compatible with the surrounding uses and zones . 2. The proposed zone is consistent with the foreseeable and present use of the property, Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Murphy to explain to the audience in greater detail the General Plan and why the change would be in- consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Murphy explained that the area in question, as well as the surrounding areas are all in commercial and industrial zones. There- fore, any zoning for residential purposes for this specific property would be considered to be different than the use or General Plan for the surrounding properties. I Commissioner Coontz pointed out that it is California law that we have a General Plan and a relationship designed to the General Plan. She felt that what was being discussed here was probably over the heads of the people who were only interested in the zoning of the mobile home park. Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Four u Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Ernest R. Johnson, President of the Park Royale Homeowners' Assn., 300 N. Rampart St., Space #202, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, speaking on behalf of all of the homeowners in the mobile home park. He stated that they were very concerned over the negative recommendation contained in the Staff Report and explained that on Monday, March 14, 1983, 175 residents of Park Royale met in their park clubhouse with Bert Yamasaki, the Director of Planning, Furman Roberts, the City Attorney and one of the City Council members. During their explanation of the Staff Report, the question was asked as to why the Staff Report. recommends against rezoning this particular park and Mr. Yamasaki replied in words to the effect that it is only a tech nica7 reason due to the City's master zoning plan. It was explained that the park is zoned M-1 and if it is rezoned, it will have to be re-examined, re-evaluated and the Master Plan amended. However, he assured the residents that this would pose no serious problem if the City should so desire to rezone the mobile home park. Mr. Johnson then spoke to the reasons given in the Staff Report for requesting denial of this zone change, stating that if the City of Orange has the interests of these people at heart rather than the the need for a perfect master zoning plan, they will ignore the first reason that the rezoning is incompatible with the General Plan and recommend the zone change. He also said that the residents of Park Royale were appalled at Rbason #2 which states that the City Policy requiring Tenant Dislocation Plan and perhaps Assistance Plan filing upon the termination or reuse of a mobile home park site "adequately" serves to protect the rights of park tenants. He then went on to explain that when a coach is purchased inside a mobile home park all set up, including landscaping, rock work, fireplaces, patios, etc. it would cost $45,000 to $50,000. If these people were forced to move out of the park, say to Hemet, since there is no available space within Orange County at this time, the value of that same coach would drop to $20,000 to $25,000, which is a loss of almost half. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the average tenant in Park Royale is close to retirement age and they hold key, valued positions with their companies, earned from a lifetime of work and experience. Others ~. own their own businesses in the local area. If they were uprooted and forced to move, now or in the future, it would mean loss of seniority, loss of job security, loss of pension privileges, or a forced drive of many miles each day on congested roads. He also pointed out that many of the residents of the park are retired an d in their late 60's even to some in their 80's. Some are crippled, some are ill and some are on life support systems. A forced move could do irreparable damage, physically and emotionally. Mr. Johnson did not see redevelopment of the park and surrounding uses not being a foreseeable action in the near future as being a reason not to vote for rezoning, indeed thinking that it was a good reason to vote for rezoning. He pointed out that this park has been a mobile home park for the past 10 years and, according to the current. lease, it will continue to be a mobile home park for the next 26 years.. In closing, Mr. Johnson stated that there is over eight million dollars worth of property value now in Park Royale. If it were to cease being a mobile home park and the residents were forced to move, that value would be cut in half immediately. He pointed out that there are 360 residents who live there who spend their money in Orange, contribute to the work force in the Orange area and who are involved in community activities and are registered voters. This rezoning would give all of them a little peace of mind. He said that they understand that the zoning could be changed at a later date, but they feel it is proper to have it rezoned to MH a,t the present time and ask that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this zone change. Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Five w Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Johnson about his statement that the current lease has 26 years left to run, since the Staff Report states that it has 17 years left to run. Mr. Johnson replied that an extension was granted raising the time to 26 years. This was done about four years-ago when the current owner took over the lease. Commissioner Coontz explained why she had made the statements she made earlier with regard to the laws of the State of California. She thought perhaps Mr. Yamasaki could explain this further at a later time. She pointed out that the Commission did not receive a report of the meeting between the Park Royale homeowners and the people from the City. Bill Gaines, 300 N. Rampart St., Space 51, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that in view of the fact that the lease has another 26 years to go they do not think it would be detrimental to rezone to MH, They are comfortable with the surrounding uses and zones which are there at this time. He added a few more reasons for rezoning to MH and asked the Commission to consider the full impact of relocation on these tenants. Bill Bartlett, 300 N. Rampart, Space 64, Orange, addressed the Commission in .favor of this application, stating that he is the current manager of the mobile home park. He said, on behalf of the people who own the leasehold on the property that there is no plan now to change anything. It will remain a mobile home park until the year 2010. He stated that there has never been, in the history of our economy, a time when we should take a closer look at mobile home parks as now. He told the Commission that he has learned during his 12 years of management about the problems of the mobile home owners and also the problems of the owners. He explained that there is a lot of difference between moving a mobile home out of a park and an apartment dweller moving out of an apartment which has been converted to a condominium. He felt that these people are entitled to protection under the law and felt that this zone change is one positive step in the right direction for mobile home owners. The best reason to rezone this park MH is that it is a mobile home park already. Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification of the statement that he is the manager of the park and that he does not intend to change the use. Mr. Bartlett explained that he knows the Ericksons who own the property, do not intend to change the use. Richard Raines, 300 N. Rampart Street, Space 58, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that if he were forced to move out of the park it would cost him approximately $5,000- $6,000 to move. The landscaping would cost $1,000 just to tear it out. The chances of relocating nearby are almost nil. All of the other people in the park are in the same position. This would be a terrible burden on these people. Mr. Yamasaki addressed the Commission, speaking with regard to the meeting between City people and the Park Royale residents. He did not agree with the comment made by Mr. Johnson regarding the alternative that the Staff had concerns about the residents of the City. He did not make that statement directly, but said that the City Council has concerns about the people. He explained to the people that the Staff must state all of the alternatives available to the Commission. Commissioner Coontz expressed some confusion with regard to statements made by the City Council and what has been dictated to the Planning Commission through the City Attorney's office over the years and asked ~ Mr. Minshew for a legal definition of spot zoning in California if, for instance, the General Plan was not changed and this was rezoned to MH. Mr. Minshew explained that the definition of spot zoning is nor- mally considered the change of use of a small area. He did not know exactly how small a small area would be considered to be. This could be used to benefit a landowner or it could be used to downzone, which would be considered inverse condemnation. He thought that it was Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Six difficult to argue a spot zoning or inverse condemnation. Mr. Johnson felt that they were not asking for spot zoning. It was his understanding that the bank holding the loan on this land stated that the owners have no intention of .changing the use of the land within the next 26 years. Elizabeth Hoskins, 300 N. Rampart Street, Space 31, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that she has lived in Park Royale for l0 years. She is a widow .and this is her permanent home. She wanted consideration from the Commission for those who live alone. Vickie Talley, 17845 Skypark, Irvine, representing the Mobile Home Park Owners of Orange County, as the Executive Director of that association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She pointed out that each person who addresses the Commission is con- cerned about a permanent place of residence and the Staff has clearly stated that this zone change will not give this kind of security. She said she was addressing the Commission because she saw possible ~ action by the Commission as a threat to the members of her association. Her concerns are on behalf of the park owner and she pointed out that after doing extensive study of the parks in Orange and what has happened to them over the years, she discovered that these parks were set up originally with the idea that 10 or 20 years down the road they would probably be converted to other uses when the land became more valuable. In the meantime, mobile home housing has become such an affordable mode of housing, together with the fact that affordable housing has become a rarity in Orange County in recent years, which places a different light on how mobile home parks are looked at today. She pointed out that the original application for use of the property in question began several years ago and they requested on two different occasions an R-3 zoning. -These were denied both times both by the Planning Commission and City Council. In 1970 the current lessee came in to apply fora use as a mobile home park. Staff recommended denial and at that time the Planning Commission went along with it. She read from that Staff Report, stating the reasons for denial, among them the fact that this piece of land lay in an intensively developed indus- trial and commercial area. Ms. Talley pointed out that this is exactly the situation today. She said that there were no reasons given in the Council minutes and no background as to how the applicant pleaded his case, but she suspected that he told the Council that allowing this to be a mobile home park would not threaten the area, since it was only a variance and placed the property in a landbank position, looking at a higher and better use in the future. Ms. Talley told the Commissioners that this property is much too valuable to retain as a residential use. She pointed out some conflicts in the Staff Report, stating that we all know that the Staff must make findings. She hoped that this would be addressed at a later time. She also pointed out that this is not a compatible use. It is a residential use in an area that is commercial and industrial. She explained that inverse condemnation and downzoning is a real issue today and should be taken into consideration by the Commission. She felt that this is spot zoning. Clearly the entire area is not residential and this is really what we are looking at here. The bottom line is that this came about through concerns for the residents. As far as protecting the residents is concerned, she felt that the policies which have been adopted more than protects the residents in this case. These people came in on a lease and the people know that they cannot live there forever. • L Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Seven Commissioner Mickelson asked Ms. Talley about her statement regarding the app]icantion which was denied in 1970 for R-3, asking if the City Council later approved this. She replied in the affirmative. Eugene Katnik, 1205 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, a member of the law firm which represents the property owners, in distinction to the lessees (Ericksons) who lease the property for 26 years, addressed the Com- mission in opposition to this application. He stated that there is currently no threat of the lease being terminated, the use being changed, or the variance being eliminated. He said that he had the impression from the statements made that there is some imminence of this happening and that is not so. He also pointed out that a zone change to MH would not insure this remaining a mobile home park for 26 years or 26 months. He explained that the property owners went into this zone position with the idea of total planning regarding properties in the trust. Everything is in balance and working well. Those property owners feel that they have the right to rely on the law as it stands. They are not attempting to accomplish anything. They are the real property owners and everyone involved has a vested property interest. The property owner looks to the government to protect them. As he understands it, the function of government is to handle emergency problems and to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. There is nothing that is threatening. these residents at this time. Even the Staff Report points this out. Mr. Katnik felt that status quo should be maintained and he felt that the owners have the right to have that maintained. The fact that other parks have been changed is immaterial. The fact that new parks will require certain conditions is fine - that is progress. He felt that a new tenant coming into this park if it were zoned MH would be mis]ed. He reiterated that nothing is happening, nothing is about to happen as far as the use of the property involved. They wish to go on record advising the Commission that they feel it would be improper, unreasonable and totally unnecessary to make a zone change to this property at this time. Dan Jacobs, Mobile Ritz Park, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he felt that inconsistent statements had been made when it was stated that all of the parks in Orange had been rezoned. His park has not yet been rezoned. He explained that he has no plans for reconversion and he considered that the action that might be taken is downzoning. He felt that rezoning to MH does not gain mobile home owners anything and neither does it gain land owners anything. It only gives a false sense of security to the residents of the park. Commissioner Vasquez clarified the statement made with regard to all parks having been rezoned. Mr. Johnson then asked Mr. Jacobs whether he had given a written statement to his tenants that they can live in his mobile home park as long as they wish. He asked the same question of the attorney for the owners of Park Royale. He also asked Ms. Talley if the residents who move into a mobile home park know that it is a temporary situation when they move there. Commissioner Mickelson stated that, in his opinion, what Mr. Jacobs tells his tenants is rm business of the Commission or the public. Ms. Talley said that she would not have any way of knowing whether or .not each potential resident of a mobile home park was told of the temporary nature of a mobile home park. However, at the time the park was built it was clearly on a variance and a lease was signed at that time. That lease was then a 26 year lease and then was extended l0 years further. This is a fact that this existed. Mr. Bartlett again addressed the Commission to clear up this point. He said that when this variance was originally given many people moved into the park knowing at that time exactly what their situation was. They told the people when they moved in that the master lease is good Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Eight n until 2010. That is all they are required to do. They also disclose that they are on a variance if they are asked. He did not believe that any park manager goes any further than that. However, these pwople own homes within this park and he was sure none of their homes would sell if they were told that they could pay $40-50,000 for a mobile home and then two years later they would have to move and the mobile home would only be worth $5,000. These people come into the mobile home park on faith against a very real danger that this could happen. As far as lulling people into false sense of security, when you live with the fact that the property could be changed to a high rise commercial property these people are taking a big chance. Mr. Bartlett pointed out that there are 320 people in this park who would like a little assurance that they are full fledged citizens of this city. Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Bartlett what kind of land lease the residents have and was told that their lease reads 26 years that the ]and will remain a mobile home park. The tenants lease .reads for one year, or could be on a month to month basis. Sometimes a longer lease is granted. He explained that some new mobile home parks are granting their leases for 30 years. Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification that this was a variance and not a conditional use permit. She was. told that it definitely was a variance. Ms. Talley again addressed the Commission., stating that she was a little confused about Mr. Bartlett's involvement in this as he is going to leave his position as manager of Park Royale. She wanted to correct one of his statements made about a 30 year lease, since this is simply not so. The park in Santa Ana does provide its tenants with a five year ]ease. But there is no such thing as a 30 year lease. Sheldon Ferrell addressed the Commission and explained that just because Mr. Bartlett is leaving his position in the park does not mean that he is severing his connections with the residents of the park. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that one of the things that keeps coming through in these hearings is that MH zoning is not a guarantee. She explained that the landowner can always come back in and request a zone change. She also pointed out an alternative given by Staff in each of these cases, which was that an ordinance can be adopted which would indicate to the residents of the mobile home park that it has or has not been rezoned and what that means. She felt that she would like to see the policy resolution made into an ordinance because only then will the parks zoned MH get the benefit of a real hearing of what happens to the people in the park or will they understand what is really happening. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 994 for the reasons that: 1. Use has been in existence for 10 years. 2. The project is large enough to have developed its own environment within the boundaries. 3. The proposed zone is consistent with the present and fore- seeable use of the property. Commissioner Coontz stated that she felt that the only other thing to do would be to continue this and get the information that is needed. She also did not wish to include a Resolution of Intent because there is a question on the acreage involved for spot zoning. Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Nine Mr. Minshew explained in a little more detail what spot zoning entails and there was more discussion in this regard. Commissioner Master pointed out a large acreage in the city that had been zoned Commercial and was converted to multiple family residential. He did not recall hearing about spot zoning at that time. Commissioner Vasquez said that in contrast to .previous mobile home parks which have come before the Planning Commission, this one is exceptional in view of its location and the ramifications if it is zoned MH. Also, the concerns of relocation and assurance, assurances have been made several times. He felt that, particularly in this instance, the needs and concerns expressed can be met by the policy recommendations that are already in effect. He said that he was sensitive to the concerns expressed by the residents of the park, but felt that they are covered by the policies already in effect. He did not feel the City would abandon these citizens but would endeavor to protect their rights. Commissioner Nickelson said that he shared many of the same feelings as Commissioner Vasquez and wished to emphasize some of the policy guidelines which were set forth in the Council Resolution, namely: that hearings should be held to consider whether parks should be rezoned; and that if the General Plan Land Use Element is inconsistent an appropriate amendment should be initiated if the MH zone appears appropriate in an existing mobile home park. He thought that there is a situation here that goes beyond just the mobile home park. He thought that they could assure the people here that this City is concerned and will do everything reasonable and proper to protect them. He did not think that the zoning change does that. He felt that they should put more confidence in the fact that the 26 year lease is binding on the parties involved. He explained what would happen if the General Plan is amended and the surrounding land owners are notified that there will be a zone change, By zoning this parcel you inadvertently change the zoning next door. He agreed with Commissioner Vasquez that we should look to other means to accomplish the protection of the residents. Commissioner Coontz felt that the City of Orange was a little late in doing something about mobile home parks. It took quite a bit of work on her part to push this through. She thought that the resolution or policy plan is not really that binding because the policy plan is only as good as the Council that is in session. Therefore, something stronger should be done. She strongly felt that a recommendation should be made to the City Council to make part of this policy a reality so that 25 years down the road there will not be a repeat of what happened on La Veta. Chairman Hart expressed his sympathies to the mobile home owners and explained that, with the exception of Jacobs, he has voted for the mobile home change of zoning in all of the other parks. He has reservations here, however, believing that the residents of this park already have protection with a 26 year lease for this park. He was concerned for the liability of the city in downzoning this park. He said that he would have to support a denial of this motion. The Commission then voted on Commissioner Coontz's motion for approval of Zone Change 994. AYES; Commissioner Coontz NOES: Commissioners Hart, h1aster, Nickelson, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION FAILED Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Ten 1 Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend denial. of Zone Change 994 for the reasons that: 1. The proposed rezone is incompatible with the General Plan. 2. The City policy requiring Tenant Dislocation Plan and perhaps Assistance Plan filing upon the termination or reuse of a mobile home park site adequately serves to protect the rights of park tenants. 3. Redevelopment of the park and surrounding uses is not a fore- seeable action in the near future. 4. The effect of rezoning this property on the adjacent land use. 5. Rezoning this property to MH would be "downzoning" it and would be a detriment to the land owners. Commissioner Vasquez explained that this simply represents an issue whereby one must weigh planning issues against the u7 ti-mate concerns presented. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend that the City C~~uncil consider the adoption of an ordinance stating that any change of use, including reversion to vacant land may require the preparation of a Tenant Dislocation Impact Report and possibly a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan. Commissioner Mickelson said if there was any urgency on she saw no urgency, but was park if it is not rezoned. a policy resolution which c~ another. that he supported this motion but asked it. Commissioner Coontz replied that thinking about down the line for this This would afford protection other than Auld change from one political time to Commissioner Mickelson asked if it is implied that a study and report will come back to the Commission and the answer was in the affirmative. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz then referred to a September 23rd memo which suggesi;ed that mobile home rezoning is not construed to afford permanent protection for the tenants from possible conversion, but it is to slow down the process and to assure the tenants of adequate notification and the opportunity to address relocation requirements. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to recommend that the City Council consider directing Staff to distribute copies of the Council's resolution (No. 5826) regarding mobile home park rezoning to the residents of all mobile home parks which have been rezoned as a part of the present program of consideration of rezoning for all existing mobile home parks. Such action would assist the residents to better understand that the rezoning is not a perfect solution nor is it to be construed as affording permanent protection to tenants from possible conversion to uses other than a mobile home park. Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1983 Page Eleven IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 995 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to rezone from 0-P (Office-Professional) and R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential -- 6000 square foot lot) Districts to PI (Public Institution) District on 4 parcels of land located on the northwest corner of Main Street and Maple Avenue (264 North Main Street and 1405 West Maple Avenue). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) By consensus of the Planning Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Gene Severs, 292 N. Main Street, Orange, addressed the Commission expressing concern with regard to the possible building of high rises in that area and asked if there would be any restrictions in this regard. Chairman Hart felt that, according to statements in the Staff Report calling for the allowance of government buildings that there could possibly be high rise buildings. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Hart brought up a letter received from the Orange Unified School District, which he asked to be made a part of the record. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to recommend denial without prejudice of Zone Change 995 and ask the City Council to direct the Staff to meet with area residents and the School District Staff to investigate alternative zoning proposals. Alternatives could include consideration of 0-P (Office-Professional), RD-6 (Duplex Residential) and PI (Public Institutional) Districts, as well as special limitations of the "A" Suffix (Single-story) and the maintenance of a residential architectural character. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-751, ZONE CHANGE 996, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1264 - KEITH B. COLLINS: A request to rezone from the R-1-10 (Single-Family Residence - Minimum 10,000 square foot lot) District to the R-7-40 (Single- Family Residence - minimum 40,000 square foot lot) District, to create 4 lots and to permit creation of lots without frontage on a public street on land located at the eastern terminus of Grovewood Lane about 1,]00± feet east of Windes Drive (7417 Grovea~ood Lane). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 826 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) By consensus of the Planning Commission, no Staff presentation was made. Commissioner Coontz asked a question with regard to Staff recommendations on Zone Change 996, on page 3 of the Staff Report: "The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood." She wondered if this was a standard statement and wished for clarification. Mr. Murphy responded that now and then a Staff member will come up with a new approach to a problem and he thought that what they were saying is that approval of this application would not be detrimental to people's acquiring property either in the area or on that site and occupying that property successfully. Planning Commission Minutes March 21 , 1983 Page Twel ve Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Keith B. Collins, owner of the property in question, explained that this property was left by his father and it was his desire to divide the property among the family. Due to the topography, it would be cut up in excess of 1 acre parcels. It is not being divided for sale, just for distribution among the family. He pointed out that the report showed a mobile home on the property which does not exist. They are making it into four divisions. r~1 L ~ There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 826. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 83-751, Zone Change 996 and Conditional Use Permit 1264 for the reasons as outlined in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, April 4, 1983 at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. u n