Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/17/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION City of Orange Orange, California March 17, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson 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 Plinshew, Assistant City Attorney; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 3, 1980 Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve the minutes as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: A request from E1 Modena Improvement Association for a continuance on Item #2 under New Hearings - Zone Change 921, Tentative Tract 10949, Conditional Use Permit 1017 - Sand Dollar Development. They are requesting continuance to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, on April 7th because of concerns of the people in the area and the fact that some of those people had a conflict in schedules and could not attend tonight's meeting. Bob Torres, 4525 E. Agua Way, spoke in favor of a continuance, stating that a number of people are at this meeting to express their feelings opposing the project. By granting more time, they can get together and discuss the needs and wants of the community. The people who are con- cerned would like the area to remain a single family type dwellings. Overall traffic flow is also a problem and concern. These are items that could be worked out with Sand Dollar if they would be in agreement with the people in the area. They need time. Ray Longbotham, a local resident, addressed the Commission, also asking for a continuance on this matter. He stated that there are 29 homes in his tract and only three people were notified. The whole tract is affected by this zone change. They are located at the corner of Marmon and Hewes and there is only one entrance and one exit which will be affected. Dan Kregmore, area resident, also addressed the Commission requesting a continuance on this matter so that all of the people who will be affected can be notified. Randy Blanchard, President of Sand Dollar, 16371 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that he had met with Mr. Torres and they have discussed some of the problems. He felt that if the people would like more time to look at the proposed plan, they are not opposed to an extension to April 7th. They would like everyone in attendance who is affected by the proposed development to express their views. If the people would like more time, they are in agreement. He wondered if the Staff would like a meeting in order to study and talk about the problems. Mr. Murphy answered that they will talk with the developer before the April 7th meeting. Richard Sepulveda, 529 S. Hill, stated that most of the people in the section being discussed did not get any notice. As half of them do not speak English, he wondered if a notice could be sent in Spanish. Commissioner Ault suggested that Mr. Sepulveda work with them to explain the situation. Commissioner Coontz brought up the problem of those in the area who do not read. Therefore, an interpretation would be helpful to them. She suggested that Mr. Sepulveda assist those in the neighbor- hood who needed interpretation. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Two Ray Longbotham again addressed the Commission, stating that he lives right across the street from E1 Modena. He felt that these are not a well educated group of people - many of them do not read English. This should be submitted to them in a way that they can understand. Commissioner Coontz felt that this is up to the people in the community. The Staff will help as much as they can. Mr. Longbotham questioned the Environmental Report and Commissioner Coontz replied that the Staff will make themselves available to the people who have any questions. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to continue this hearing to the April 7th regular Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mickelson felt that it was a bit unusual for surrounding property owners to be asking for an extension of time. If there is controversy and there may be by the next meeting, and they agree to disagree, would it be proper to take testimony tonight and then continue the hearing until April 7th? Chairman Coontz felt that we already .have some testimony as to the flow of traffic, entrance and exit, etc. Commissioner Ault felt that if the applicant is willing and the people are willing, they can do more getting together and getting the problems solved. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Coontz questioned the Staff as to whether there was a traffic report coming to the Planning Commission. Mr. Murphy stated that a traffic study was done and a report could be given to the Commission if they wished one. Chairman Coontz replied that the Commission would like a traffic study report. Mr. Murphy corrected his statement saying that there was no traffic study done on this particular project. It was not felt to be needed as part of the review. Chairman Coontz then directed the Staff to make a traffic study or a memorandum from the traffic engineer regarding this area. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: PRE-ZONE CHAP! E 919, TENTATIVE TRACT 10947 - THE BUCCOLA COMPANY: A request for rezoning from County E4-15,000 to City R-1-10 and approval of a 28 lot subdivision at the northeast corner of Rancho Santiago Boulevard and Bond Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 613 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) This hearing has been continued from the March 3, 1980 meeting, at the request of the applicant. Jere Murphy made the presentation for the Staff on this application. He stated that the parcel in question is an 82 acre parcel at the Northeast corner of~Rancho Santiago and Bond in the general East Orange area. The area is presently in the County of Orange and is under request for annexation, that being the reason for the request. The property is currently zoned E4-15,000 (small estates, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size). The applicant's proposal is for 28 single family lots with public streets and 10,000 square foot minimum lots on 9.54 gross acres yielding a density of 2.94 dwelling units per acre, which would be consistent with the East Orange General Plan, allowing a maximum of 28 units for this property. Justification for reduced lot size and R-1010 zoning (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size would be based on the dedication of public streets to the City of Orange. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1980 Page Three Comments from the East Orange Implementation Committee were: 1. That the proposal basically fits with the concept of the East Orange Plan. The committee also recommended elimination of one lot to give the subdivision the appearance of less density from the street. This would be a collector street and would be seen by people passing through the area. 2. Also recommended that special landscaping be put in for the lots facing Santiago. 3. Concern was also expressed for the elminination of trees which took place in the tract across the street. This changed the appearance of the area. Staff recommends approval of Pre-Zone Change 919 and Tentative Tract 10947 with the 11 conditions as listed in the Engineers Plan Check Sheet, which basically requires minor changes. Commissioner Ault did not understand the third concern of the Committee to eliminate one lot to give the impression of a larger lot subdivision. They would like to see fewer homes in the tract. However, they felt that the removal of one lot would give the appearance of lower density. Members of the committee felt that 15,000 sq. ft. lots would have been more appropriate for the area. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. George Buccola, 1645 Bayside Drive, Corona del Mar, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He addressed himself to the comments previously made by the Staff. He pointed out that this could be a rather sterile approach, having straight streets, having gotten away from the gridiron pattern years ago. Normally they do not face houses on major thoroughfares, which Santiago was at one time. On the west side there is a very large development which does have configurations in the tract which are very pleasing. Overall, there is a wooden fence and in back of that house looking at you. Their thought was that they wanted something that was pretty and also have a wide house on 105 ft. lots which were 115 ft. top. Another 25 ft. of landscaping was put in front of that so that you would have a house sitting back 35 or 40 ft. He stated that if there is a concern about these houses with driveways coming out, one of them could come out on Bond. On the interior of the tract, they are hoping that the Planning Commission will permit rolled curbs instead of verticle curbs and sidewalks. Since these are short streets and two are cul de sacs about 430 ft. long, again the lots will be, in this instance, about 112 ft. wide, which would create a very nice atmosphere for each cul de sac. They feel that they are doing exactly what the people want. They are asking that they be permitted to ahead on what has been laid out. John Mickler, Vice President of Hunsacker & Associates, engineers on the project, wanted to clarify questions on the storm drain. They will be installing the drain and want to be sure it is according to Condition #4 in the Engineers Plan Check. Gary Johnson stated that they had met with Mr. Hunsacker and discussed this item. The original wording was somewhat ambiguous so they changed it to make it more specific that the drain would be built. This was changed after the original conditions were submitted. John Vilivitch, 723 S. Dodson, San Pedro, addressed the Commission, stating that he has been here three times. He was supposed to get together with the applicant, but no one has contacted him. He questioned the statement that the parcel contains 8.468 acres of land. When you divide 8.5 acres into 28, you get a complete different number than what we are talking about now. He went to the site and took measurements and the numbers are not going together. P tanning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Four ,~ He also wanted to stress the point of wooden fences. He has a lot on Lomita Avenue across from this property. He felt that if he would have to look at wooden fences, it would be terrible. He listened to the statements about beautification, but what about the other side? There are beautiful old eucalyptus trees along Lomita. He has stressed that these are not to come down. Nothing has happened and he doesn't know the city's intentions. When this land was designated at 15,000 sq. ft. per lot - now they are coming in with a concept which is not in keeping with what was. originally meant to be there. He felt that they should definitely not interfere with the surroundings which are adjacent to the property. He wanted to know exactly what the square footage of each lot is. The way he has computed this, there can be no more than 26 lots. He wants to see some kind of land preserved. He is only talking about 2 feet. No one would be hurt if a strip of 2 or 3 feet could be dedicated to Lomita Avenue to preserve the looks of the area. He pointed out where Lomita is located adjacent to the tract. He showed where the eucalyptus trees are located and also some cypress trees. He is asking that somehow the development take into consideration how this will look to the people on Lomita. ~ Chairman Coontz explained that eucalyptus trees are very hard to preserve when an area is under development, because of their shallow roots. Mr. Vilivitch understood that but wants some concern shown for the beautification of Lomita. He would like to see a strip dedicated. He was also disappointed that no one got back to him to talk about this. Commissioner Mickelson questioned the staff regarding the row of eucalyptus trees. Mr. Johnson stated that one of the problems at the time the map was submitted was that there was not enough surveying to determine where the lots were. According to this plan, not only are the trees in question on the property, but according to the map, Lomita may be part of this property also. This is one of the reasons why Condition #8 (Subject to maintaining the integrity of the existing drive along the northerly property line) was put in. Mr. Johnson stated that they did not talk about the beautification aspects. Commissioner Hart wondered what this would do to the lots along the northern boundary line. The northerly line and the easterly line, as shown in the tentative map are a little incongruous with what is actually there. There were several comments about the fact that there are different numbers in the various statements. Commissioner Mickelson explained that we have hassled with East Orange for some time and everyone has finally agreed to 28 lots. Mr. Vilivitch argued about the difference between the 8.4 and 9.4 as a full acre. This may be an error, but when you bring the street in the way it is, perhaps you are eliminating the intent of the subdivision. He is very concerned because he is affected by the Planning Commission decision. He is arguing about what he has to look at. Even if you put this area into the City of Orange, the county residents still must be taken into consideration. Commissioner Hart questioned the difference in the acreage amounts. Apparently a mistake was made as a typographical error. Buccola's total of 9.638 acre is the correct total. There was a clarification on the issue of the driveway. They have now surveyed up to date. They have the preliminary survey on the northern boundary and there is an encroachment of an average of 4 feet for almost the entire length. They will have to maintain this or go to court over the encroachment. Mr. Buccola pointed out that Lomita Drive is an easement intended to reach a water well, which he also owns. Others have taken access to this easement and have built their homes. Regarding the -trees in question - all along the property line the owners asked the county for something and at the time Ms. Grindle said that the people should not have to look at the ugly nursery buildings. Trees were planted on the easement. The trees now there are quite a bit into the property and they are not the type to be saved. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Five ,~ The Chairman closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. There were questions for the staff from Commission members regarding what standards would be in effect for the streets. Mr. Johnson answered that this is one of those maverick type areas. Ther is 15 ft. of fall from one side of the property to the other. It can be either considered hillside or flat land area. We have both kinds of street standards. At this time, they are proposing hillside street standards. For this type of local street there is 36 ft. of street section within 52 feet of right-of-way with an 8 ft. parkway. Flat land standards would be 36 feet in 60 ft. right-of-way, which is quite a difference. He wondered if there was any quarrel with hillside standards. The sidewalk is usually placed adjacent to the curb. If that is done, the only thing you are really talking about is the width of the parkway to allow tree installation. We can leave that as a hillside standard. Commissioner Hart wondered about the rolled curb. Mr. Johnson replied that the Staff would like the Commission to decide whether they want to go with that or not. Staff feels that this should be held for a more rural type of development like Orange Park Acres. The problem is that kids delight in running up over the curb and wiping out landscaping. Rolled curbs will not contain drainage. There really shouldn't be a problem ,however. Commissioner Mickelson made the comment that you approve no sidewalks and then the people come back in and ask for sidewalks. Commissioner Coontz stated that this is a standard tract - not a particularly rural one. She wondered if the west side was rolled or vertical curbs. The answer was that they are vertical. Mr. Mickler said that vertical curbs and sidew, Santiago. But they would like rolled curbs on Commissioner Mickelson called attention to the The Commission took a firm stand to retain the the City Council said no. Commissioner Coontz it is very difficult to save them. elks are proposed on the interior streets. tract across Santiago. eucalyptus trees and again pointed out that Chairman Coontz stated that it should be suggested that they study the trail designation and perhaps change the plan. With the development there, it doesn't make sense to continue the trails. Commissioner Master wondered about the trail dedication for that area and Mr. Murphy clarified the matter. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if the trail designation is in the master plan for East Orange. Mr. Murphy suggested that the Commission recommend that the City Council take a look at the designation, since it is no longer a desirable place for horse trails. The property west of Santiago and south of Bond is all developed now. That is north and east of this property and there is no need to pass this property with horse trails. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 614. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Commissioners Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none - none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 919 and Tentative Tract 10947, as stated by Staff, to include amended Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED P'ranning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Six Commissioner Mickelson requested that Mr. Mickler speak with the Staff in order to work out the driveways. Chairman Coontz moved, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to recommend to the City Council that they review the trails in the area and per- haps eliminate them or realign them because of urban development which has taken place in that area. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson none none MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 920 - MARIENTHAL Jere Murphy gave the Staff's presentation on this application. This is a request for change of zoning from R-1-7 to RD-6 for property located on the west side of Tustin Street, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. (Note: Negative Declaration 614 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) ~ Slides were shown as part of the presentation by the Staff. This was decided upon because of the unusual configuration of the parcel of land. It was pointed out that the trees in the background will be the boundary of the property. Property is just a little over a half acre - .58 of an acre. It is presently zoned R-1-7 and the average slope is 2 to 1. Topography is the major question with regard to the zoning. The plan submitted by the applicant shows a series of retaining walls, creating the area for yards around the property. There is very little description of manufactured slope area on the plan, which would be required. The surrounding land use and zoning are a motel in C-1 zone to the north and apartments and single family residences in the City of Anaheim; miscellaneous commercial establishments in the City of Anaheim to the northeast; a motel in a C-1 zone and a vacant parcel to the east; single family residences in a R-1-7 zone to the south and west; and single family residences in the City of Anaheim to the northwest. Tustin Street is a primary arterial with a 100 foot width and Santa Ana Canyon Road is a commuter street with a 60 foot width. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this area as suitable for low density (2-6 units/acre) residential development. The applicant proposes to construct two duplexes on the property, sharing a common driveway, north of the duplexes, with one of the duplexes located close to the west side of Tustin Street and the second duplex situated west and slightly south of the first. The duplexes would have two bedrooms and one and one-half baths per unit and would be constructed with the dwelling units situated above the garages in a multi-level configuration with the garages set into the slope itself. The driveway, extending in asouthwest-northeast direction, would have a maximum grade of 15 per cent and a width of 25 feet requiring the duplex located furthest from the street to be fully sprinklered for fire safety considerations because of limited accessibility to the Fire Department. The density of the proposed project will be 6.9 dwelling units per acre. The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 614. Relating to the question of the consistency of this proposal to the City's General Plan, Staff is of the opinion that the density proposed (6.9 dwelling units per acre) versus that allowed by the Land Use Element (6 dwelling units per acre maximum) is similar enough that little would be served by requiring a General Plan Amendment on a project of this scope. In order to expedite the process, therefore, it was felt that the application should be accepted and processed. In evaluating the details of this proposal, Staff believes that single family zoning is the appropriate use of this property. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Seven ~ Commissioner Mickelson commented that there is 6% in front of the four car garage - it looks like it will be hard to make that - he wondered if the Staff had considered this. This was discussed with the Staff. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, Don Marienthal, 16 Tanglewood, Irvine, owner of the property, stated that what he heard from the Staff tonight is not what he was told when he worked with the Staff and his architect. He has tried to work with the Staff to propose a plan that would be acceptable. He didn't know whether he should ask for a continuance. He felt that they had presented a plan by which the initial grading and slope would be lost in building two single family dwellings. He was hopeful of being able to get a zone change to build the duplexes. Their program shows little to no change from single family dwellings to duplexes. He realized that their plan is very preliminary. They have changed it several times in order to conform to requirements of the Planning Department, Fire Department, etc. However, they can still make more changes, if needed. He felt that the Staff was greatly concerned about limit of grading and excavation. The proposed plan for the two duplexes will not require extensive grading, as it would for single family dwellings, which need yards and space, etc. He pointed out that the proposed unit it trying to meet standards of the Planning Department. It is designed to look like a single family dwelling and he is planning to build it to look like other buildings in the area. The plans are for a 3500 sq. ft. dwelling, or 1750 sq. ft. for each unit. He explained why there is less grading because of the type of design for the buildings. Commissioner Ault asked if the applicant wished a continuance in order to thrash out the problems a little more. Mr. Marienthal replied that he really wants to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have and also hear any comments that others may have from the surrounding community. Commissioner Ault had some questions about the building design. Mr. Marienthal answered that this will be two units. It is slightly "L" shaped in design. Commissioner Coontz commented that it looks a little like a motel. He replied that this is not the final design. But it will be basically like the drawing. Jerry Bernheimer, 1746 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Orange, addressed the Commission, wondering how far to the west these buildings will go. There is a chain link fence running by that hill and he wanted to know how far to the east of that fence these buildings will be built. He stated that it is very beautiful there and he doesn't want to see anything built that far to the east. Mr. Marienthal replied that the buildings are approximately 50 feet from that fence. He also replied to the questions about landscaping. He desires to landscape the hill, which now appears to be an eyesore. He would like to make a lovely atmosphere of trees and Spanish the roofs. They have worked out with Engineering an adequate approach for the driveways and he feels it is safe to turn around there. If Engineering has more ideas to make it safer, they will certainly listen. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mickelson questioned th.e Staff as to whether applicant would have the option of dividing the. parcels and building a duplex and a single family dwelling, if this were. zoned R~D-6, The answer was no, Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Eight Commissioner Nickelson pointed out that the Staff is concerned that when we change from single family to two family dwellings on a rear lot, you have parking problems since there are more visitors and more cars involved. However, he did feel that the applicant's statements that he is not going to have any greater parking space or footprint for the duplex than for a one family dwelling is valid. Commissioner Coontz felt that perhaps the Commissioners had made an error in originally zonging the parcel the way it was zoned and now we are being asked to increase the density. She was concerned about the accessibility to the lot, regardless of whether it is a single family or a duplex, because of the dense traffic, which moves very fast along that street. Commissioner Master pointed out that the Staff had some changes in mind. He wondered if there were any comments as to how to improve the plan. The Staff indicated that the topography of the property dictated the plan as proposed. It was felt that a continuance would not do any good here. Commissioner Ault felt that this is an unusual type of property, but he didnt see why it should make any difference as to single family dwelling or duplex. He didn't think that the density of duplexes will bother the neighborhood. Commissioner Hart stated that he wished they could waive the setback require- ments and combine the buildings in some manner. Applicant is forced by the two lots to give us a configuration of the property with a plan that just doesn't do justice to the property. Mr. Murphy was asked to comment on this. He stated that he didn't think he could make any meaningful comment to the statement. A combination of the lots would require a higher zoning. There- fore a R-D-6 zone was a zone that appeared to be less in intensity. The _ R-M-7000 district would have to be used to go to any other use other than two units - higher than two units per lot. He was asked about a zero lot line and answered that the applicant could have applied for a variance for a zero lot line if he could meet the fire requirements to place the buildings adjacent to each other on that property line. Mr. Marienthal stated that he plans to live in the rear building and there- fore is concerned with it being accessible and pleasing to look at. However, Commissioner Hart pointed out that he may not always live there. Applicant felt that it wasn't possible to create a turnaround or to move one of the buildings in the rear. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to accept the findings of the Environment Review Board to file Negative Declaration 614. AYES: Commissioners Ault, Hart, Master, Nickelson NOES: Commissioner Coontz ,~, ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commi-sinner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 920. AYES: Commissioners Ault, Hart, Master, Nickelson NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ~.. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Nine IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1019 - WAYFIELD COMPANY: Request to allow development of an aqua-tube recreation activity at the north~~aest corner of Chapman Avenue and the Newport Freeway. (Note: Negative Declaration 618 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Murphy presented this request for the Staff. Slides were shown of a similar water slide being built in the area, which is approximately the same height, but contains twice as many flumes. The project is in the city of Downey. It is part of a large recreational facility containing miniature golf, miniature cars, as well as many recreational buildings. Mr. Murphy explained the similarities and the differences between what is being built in Downey and what is being proposed here. The property is located on the northwest corner of Chapman and the Newport Freeway. He pointed out to the Commission where the tubes will be placed on the property. The property is zoned C-1 and contains a Skateboard Park and Conditional Use Permit 850 was granted previously, permitting the Sakteboard Park. The application is basically for a 492 ft. tower, which was originally to be 65 ft. tall. The tubes will be fully enclosed and 6 feet in diameter. The pool at the bottom is approximately 20 ft. x 30 ft. in size and ranges from 3 ft. to 8 in. in depth. The facility is proposing to serve approximately 100 persons per day. The Staff, at the time of the original preliminary review asked for a traffic study to be performed, which has been prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. Although it is suspected that there could be problems caused by the roller skating rink traffic nearby, the Traffic Engineer has indicated that he has inspected the report and finds it would not be detrimental to the traffic on Chapman and Wayfield. There might be a possible distraction to the motorists on the freeway. If the Commission finds that the application is acceptable, the Staff suggests two conditions: 1. That landscaping be installed along the freeway, along the edge of the property, particularly near the southeast offramp. 2. That the applicant cooperate with the management of the roller skating rink so that the two facilities do not empty out at the same time. Possibly the hours of the two facilities could be staggered. Chairman Coontz had questions regarding the safety of the water slide. She wondered if there would be a problem with the enclosed tubes - you couldn't get out of them until you got to the bottom. She also wondered about the age limit of the participants. She stated that she had seen toddlers going down in Anaheim who couldn't swim. Commissioner Mickelson asked if on the previous proposal before the Commission a few weeks ago, wasn't the original proposal reversed? The Staff indicated that they had asked the applicant to try to make the appearance of the structure as little visible from the freeway as possible. It has now been lowered and moved away from the freeway. Chairman Coontz questioned the landscaping - she wondered what kind of landscaping they were talking about. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Applicant, John McGuire, 157 N. Wayfield, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He attempted to answer some of the questions regarding the traffic problems, stating that a traffic study had been done and the report came back that it would be adequate for the area. He also pointed out that they have followed the Staff's recommendations and changed the location of the tubes, placing them farther away from the freeway. The platform is now covered and will be internal. Regarding cooperation with the adjoining property owners of the roller skating rink, he felt this would be a tough situation. He felt that the landscaping aspect would be no problem. He pointed Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Ten out that Wild, Wild Wet in Anaheim seems to have had no basic problem with trying to screen their property, and that they saw no problem doing the same with this property. Going back to cooperating with the roller rink as far as hours were concerned, he stated that there is no reason to work together. They basically are open in the evenings and this facility would be open during the daytime hours. Their traffic will not come together all at one time. Chairman Coontz wondered what a person passing by would see. The answer was that they would be looking at tubes coming down towards a catch basin. You could definitely not see the basin. If you are on the off ramp of the freeway, the first 4 to 5 feet are higher than their property line. You would see more from the freeway than from the off ramp. He answered the Staff's question regarding the safety aspect, regarding some control over the ages and condition of the people using the tube. He explained that there will be someone at the bottom and at the top and also someone at the catch basin. He felt that they have an obligation to be very careful. He pointed out that the Skateboard Park operation is very safe. They enforce the rules rigidly, as they do not want any liability situation. Greg McCarey, a local resident, addressed the Commission in favor of the application, stating that he owns property on either side of the Skateboard Park and would like to see the proposed water slide go in. Terry Wolf, 157 Wayfield, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of the application, stating that because this is a complete tube, there would be less access to it by kids attempting to climb from one tube to another. Also in a complete tube, there is little problem with one overturning. They go down all the way. He also mentioned that the amount of water is so small the re should not be any problems. As far as screening, they went through the same thing with the Skate- Board Park. They went to the Design Review Board and worked with them to put in the right thing. They will be most happy to do this again for the aqua tubes. This is going to be an ongoing thing, like the Skateboard Park and there will be no large groups of people coming or going at one time. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 619. Commissioner Master felt that this is a touchy situation when we are talking about economics. He pointed out that the batting cages are still physically there. They have not been torn down, even though they are not used anymore. He is concerned about another high edifice being erected and the city possibly being stuck with it forever when it is not being used anymore. Chairman Coontz asked Mr. Murphy if it would be possible to have a condition stating that the tubes would be removed after a certain amount of time after it is unused. It was felt that with property values the way they are today, if they don't make good on this - there will probably be something else going in. It was pointed out that the batting cages are coming down soon. Commissioner Ault stated that we have to be realistic. We cannot condemn an owner for trying to make an improvement in his business. Why add conditions that will be a burden on the people. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Eleven Chairman Coontz pointed out that the Commissioners must be concerned as to health, safety and welfare. Motion by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1019. Commissioner Mickelson questioned how far the tunnel would be from the freeway and was told that it would be 200 to 250 feet. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1021 - AMERICAN TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATION CORPORATION: This is a request to allow construction of a 50 foot antenna and earth station on the west side of Glassell Street, south of Maple Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 619 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo made the presentation for this application on behalf of the Staff. This property is located on the west side of Glassell, south of Maple Avenue on the site of the old SAVI Building. Applicant is planning to use the building to house their offices. They are proposing to bring parking off of Olive on the western portion of the site. Seventeen parking spaces are proposed on-site with room for an additional two spaces available in the garage structure and two more available between the main building and garage structure. Storage space for conduit and cable is proposed within the garage structure. The currently existing utility pole between the buildings will not be used and will remain as is. The proposed antenna tower will be fifty feet in height and the seven meter earth dish will be approximately 20 feet in height. The applicant has proposed an eight foot view-obscuring fence to shield the two antenna structures from view and protect them from vandalism. The primary concern of the Staff is whether this is compatible with the downtown concept around City Plaza. The applicant has contacted Downtown Businessmen's Association and the Chamber of Commerce, who have accepted this proposal. The Staff recommends that the Commission accept Negative Declaration 619 and approve Conditional Use Permit 1021, with the 13 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Mickelson wondered why there must be 13 conditions attached to this recommendation when, if they were going in on a normal office use, they would get a business permit and do it. It was explained to him that many of these conditions are the normal conditions. Commissioner Master wondered if a tower that high would have an aircraft warning light. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Keith McCartney, resident of Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, pointing out that the theatre building located on Maple and Glassell is approximately 110 feet tall. He then thanked the Staff for their recommendations and support. Chairman Coontz asked if there is a possibility that in the future there would be a request for a higher tower. However, the applicant, Mr. McCartney, doesn't see that happening. Chairman Coontz wondered if there was such a request, would the Staff have another Conditional Use Permit. The answer Commissioner mmission C i Pl h . o ann ng e was yes - or it would come back to t Hart asked if there would be any interference with TV viewers in the area and was told no. The tower itself is not an antenna, but a 50 foot structure Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Twelve with an antenna mounted on top of it. It is a triangular structure. The diameter of the dish itself is approximately 21 feet. They are two dif- ferent structures, the tower being a 50 ft. structure and the dish being 21 ft. in diameter and sitting right next to the tower. They are two separate facilities. Commissioner Mickelson asked the applicant if he had read all of the conditions set down by the Staff and accepted them. The answer was that all of the conditions do not apply to them. Some apply to the building owner. They understand that the Design Review Board is requesting that the western wall will be brick. They have a landscape design architect planning the design for the whole area. Commissioner Master asked if they receive via the dish and what is the purpose of the tower. It was explained that the tower will receive and the earth dish receives from a satellite. They are two separate functions. Les Schneider, 122 N. Glassell, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he is slightly south of the applicant's site. He would like to see cable TV come in, but is concerned about the future. He was concerned about antennas being mounted above the 50 ft. tower. Also, an 8 ft. fence will hardly hide the tower. He wondered if perhaps the Commission could have a condition to make it look like the old water tower, in keeping with the old town concept. There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master felt that perhaps the proposed fence is for security - not beautification. The original proposal was to construct a chain link fence. However, they understand that they must construct, not only a chain link fence on the east side and north side, but also a slump stone wall on the west side and the south side to hide it from neighboring North Glassell. They are now locating the structures on the rear of the property and they will not be conspicuous on North Glassell Street. Commissioner Ault moved, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 619 . AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve Conditional Use Permit 1021 for reasons so stated. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: VARIANCE 1571 - SPIRES RESTAURANTS, INC. Request to allow a freeway oriented sign which would exceed height limits on the west side of Santiago Boulevard, north of Lincoln Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application for the Staff. There will be a 24-hour restaurant erected on the west side of Santiago Boulevard, north of Lincoln Avenue, with a freeway sign of 30 feet in height. Allowance is only for a 20 ft. high sing, therefore, applicant is requesting a variance. Based on the current zoning regulations, the lot frontage would only allow for a sign 23 ft. 5 in. in height. The Planning Commission has historically expressed a policy to generally allow freeway oriented signs Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Thirteen only for service and tourist oriented uses. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as suitable for local commercial use. The Staff finds no justification for allowing extra height for the sign, particularly since the elevation of the property is the same as the freeway level. The Staff recommends that. the variance request be denied or, if applicant would erect sign in accordance with standards Staff recommends, approval of the sign to comply with the Orange municipal standards. Chairman opened the public hearing. Jack Britton, 1146 E. Rosewood, Orange, addressed the Commission as the representative of the manufacturer of the sign in question. He explained that they did a site survey and they found that the only question would be the Shell sign which is on the adjacent property. He showed on a site plan furnished by the city the Shell gas station and where their sign is. Then he showed where they are proposing that their sign should be. He has measured the sign and it is 30 ft. high. The point he wished to make is that Spires property is 560 feet and they referred to the ordinance that states that the sign should be no higher than 23.5. He stated that this parcel is so much greater than the Shell property and yet they have a 30 ft. sign. In October, 1977 he took out a permit for the Brickyard Shopping Center and they were granted a variance of 48 feet. However, there was a drop of 18 feet inside. So they have a 30 ft. grade level there. Therefore, Spires is asking for the same privilege that was granted to Shell Oil, Coco's and the Brickyard. Harry Brooks, 6800 E. Orangethorpe, Buena Park, Vice-President of Spires, addressed the Commission in favor of the application, stating that a 30 ft. sign would be of great assistance because Spires is looking for tourist trade from the freeway. Once they pass the restaurant, they will either have gotten on the Riverside Freeway, going east or west, or they will be going toward Newport Beach. They need a sign this high to catch their eye. Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. Mr. Murphy explained that the Shell station was built 10 years ago, under a different set of codes. There was a different situation there. The determination of the height now was based on the frontage of the property on the freeway. This has changed since the station was built. Commissioner Ault pointed out that the codes are made to help the people. He thought that Spires needs the 30 ft. high sign. They are bucking several high signs nearby. We are only talking about 5 feet in height. Commissioner Ault moved to recommend approval of Variance 1571. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Master made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend denial of Variance 1571. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend approval of a freeway oriented sign 23.5 ft. in height. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Fourteen ,AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners Ault, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED The applicant addressed the Commission, stating his concerns that he can see approval of a 50 ft. tower, but not approval of a 30 ft. sign for Spires. Chairman Coontz replied that decisions on signs are often controversial. But the people have a right to appeal. The decision of the Planning Commission will be final unless an appeal is filed with 15 days. The appeal should be addressed to the City Council. Commissioner Master stated that he was very impressed with the Spires sign and asked if signs are a major factor along the freeways. Mr. Brooks answered that they have a large marketing and TV advertising program and they are getting to be quite well known. The freeway signs do bring people in. They have one in Norwalk 60 ft. high, one in Long Beach 55 ft. high and these bring people in. Chairman Coontz stated that the industry is feeling the brunt of those people who have set up too large signs. They feel they must depend upon a sign in those particular areas to bring people in. Commissioner Ault felt that the whole sign situation is a result of environmentalists. IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1020 - ORANGE PARK ACRES MUTUAL WATER COMPANY: This is a request to allow a water company maintenance and utility facility in the R-1-6 zone on the west side of Prospect Avenue, north of Walnut Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 620 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo made the presentation for the staff on this application. This property is located on the west side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of the centerline of Walnut Avenue, and contains 3.6 acres. It is in the County of Orange zoned R4 and contains a single family dwelling. It has been pre-zoned City R-1-6 and is in the process of being annexed into the City of Orange. The pre-zoning of this site was completed simultaneously with presentation of a plan by Con rock Company to purchase the westerly portion of the original Orange Park Acres Mutual Water Company property for sand and gravel extraction. The site presently being considered is the balance of the property. Tentative Parcel Map 328 is presently being processed through the County of Orange to establish the new lot line. The northern portion of the site had previously contained a residence converted into an Orange Park Acres Mutual utility building, as well as a water well located on what will be an excavation area. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow erection of utility building and operation of a water well (which is being relocated from its original location to a point further east) on the property. The applicant wishes to construct an approximately 1250 square foot building which would primarily be used to house water related equipment; also, the rear yard area would contain storage. The applicant states that a maximum of three employees could utilize the site and that the public would rarely visit the site. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and indicated concern that the driveway be of adequate width to accommodate the use, that the front setback be adequately landscaped, that the building elevation conform to specifications of the Design Review Board, and that Prospect Avenue be dedicated and improved at this location. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Fifteen The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 620. The Staff also recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1020, subject to the 17 conditions listed in the Staff Report. There is a question as to whether Prospect is actually a secondary arterial or considered a local street. The ultimate idea is to widen it to a secondary arterial. Correction should be made for the record. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Jim West, Conrock Company, 3200 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. Marilyn Curtis, 37 Bond, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. She lives across the street from the property. She questioned if they would be storing equipment and wondered what it would look like. She pointed out that since Katella is washed out, the traffic in this area is unreal. Will this create more traffic? She wanted to know where the landscaping would be. The answer was that the front, side and back will be landscaped. She was concerned about open storage of equipment. Applicant replied that they would like it planned in such a way that it is a complement to the area, rather than an eyesore. Mr. West pointed out that the building that was there has been torn down. The agreement with Orange Park Acres was that they will build a building comparable with surrounding homes in the area. It will look much better than the house that was there. The only office space to be used there will be very minimal. There won't be an office where many employees will go in and out. Mrs. Curtis wanted to know if they will be allowed to add on in the future without letting anyone know. It was brought out that this is designated as a public facility so it could not be used for anything else and cannot be expanded. It will be landscaped to be a complement to the area. This is one of the conditions. Whatever is built must be acceptable to the city. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that the site plan shows a 5 foot dedication. Clarification was made that Prospect south of Bond is only 25 feet. There was a discussion between Commissioner Mickelson and Mr. West and Mr. West agreed to give further details regarding what is being planned as far as the streets are concerned. Dedication will be part of the parcel map. Ed Yarbor, 653 N. Prospect, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating his concern about the fact that they are talking about widening the street in front of the building they are going to put up where it deadends and at that place there is a row of eucalyptus trees. He wondered if the street is going to come up and dead end right there. Gary Johnson explained what is planned for that area. Generally nothing will be done on either side of this develop- ment unless it is a site distance requirement. The eucalyptus trees will not be removed except in front of the property. At this point he did not know how far from center line the trees are. He didn't have an answer right now. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 620. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Sixteen Motion by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1020. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Coontz asked Mr. Yarbor to check with the Public Works Department to see what limits of widening will be and Mr. Johnson will see what the problems are regarding the trees. IN RE: VARIANCE 1572, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1018 - WUNSCH: Request to allow a bona fide restaurant which would serve beer and wine in the M-2 zone as well as a reduction in off-street parking for property located at the southwest corner of Main Street and Collins Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 621 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff to allow a restaurant in an M-2 zone which would sell beer and wine and also allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Approximately four years ago, Mr. Wunsch began a small restaurant on the site to complement his catering business. He was unaware of needing a conditional use permit. He recently requested a beer and wine license and the Staff discovered that there was no conditional use permit for the restaurant. The applicant's hours of operation would be between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. The primary traffic would be for the lunch crowd in the surrounding industrial area. Seating is for 20 people. Obviously most of the patrons would come to the facility on foot. The applicant is requesting an additional parking space of 5 more spaces. The Staff feels that this is reasonable, especially in light of the fact that there will be quite a bit of foot traffic to the restaurant. Since there is no compatibility problem in the area, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration and approve the variance and Conditional Use Permit 1018, subject to the 7 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Herb Nowak, 911 Boone Circle, Anaheim, representing Mr. Wunsch, addressed the Commission in favor of the application. He explained that this all happened rather backwards. The owner decided, while selling gourmet sandwiches, that patrons would enjoy a glass of beer or wine with their lunch. They then discovered that only a modified restaurant can have a beer and wine license. So the first application was for a modified restaurant. They then had to apply for a variance for additional parking spaces. They would like to continue the business basically as it has been going on for several years. They do not plan to change anything. It is a very small eating area, but they have a large volume of business. The term bona fide restaurant is really just to get this accepted. They do not plan to enlarge their facility. Chairman Coontz closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. Motion by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 621. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Motion by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1018, subject to the 7 conditions listed in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1980 Page Seventeen IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Coontz adjourned the meeting 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 24, 1980 in Hall, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, and thence to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. o Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Eas at 10:50 p.m. to reconvene at the Conference Room of the City California, for a study session; n Monday, April 7, 1980 at the t Chapman, Orange, California. ~~ 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF ORANGE ) OF ADJOURNMENT 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 17, 1980, said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on March 18, 1980 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 January 21, 1980 was held. a EXCERPT FROM THE P1INUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 17, 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 ABSEPdT : None Moved by Commissioner hlickelson, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 10:50 p.m. on Plonday, March 17, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, April 7, 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 Plonday, March 17, 1980. Dated this 18th day of March, 1980 at 2:00 o.m. ya'ere r~urpny, ui ty ~ ~ a~lner ~ 5 cretary to th Planning Commission of the City of Or nae.