Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/16/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 16, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. City of Orange Orange, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, Ci ty Engineer; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. I N RE: AYES: fd0 ES ABSENT: IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 2, 1981: Commissioner Coontz pointed out on page 13 of the minutes for March 2, 1981, where Chairman Mickelson stated that he would like to amend his previous motion. The words, "Motion agreed by unanimous consent." should be added. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to approve the minutes of March, 2, 1981 , as corrected. Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart Commissioners none Commissioner Master NEW HEARINGS: VARIANCE 1618 - FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK: March 16, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED Request to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Orange Municipal Code for bank at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and California Street (1220 Katella Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 634 was previously filed and no further environmental review is required.) Mr. Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that the applicant is requesting approval of Variance 1618 to allow 14 fewer parking spaces than are required by code for an 11 ,021 square foot bank building currently under construction. He pointed out that the property contains 1.19 acres of land and is located on the south- west corner of Katella Avenue and California Street. The bank is being built as part of a shopping center which has recently been buil t on that corner. Mr. Murphy then explained the background of this application, pointing out that on July 7, 1980 Conditional Use Permit 1042 was approved to allow this building (which is within 660 feet of a residential zone) to be constructed to a height of 38 feet. At that time, the floor area of the building was shown to be 8525 square feet. An additional 2496 square feet on the second floor was proposed to be walled off as unusable in order to lower the parking requirement (pending filing of a variance). The building is currently under construction per these approved plans. The applicant was specifically cautioned at the time, that granting of a variance is not assured and, therefore, that the additional floor area could conceivably not be habitable in the future. The applicant is now proposing to open up that 2496 square feet of area for use. The parking requirement fora bank building is cal- culated as one parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area. This would be 57 spaces for the original 8,525 square foot building. A reduction of 15 spaces has been granted administratively for cars which will use the drive-up facility and an additional Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Two 15 per cent reduction (9 spaces) has been granted because of the joint use of parking faci 1 i ti es by the bank and the adjacent shopping center. This brings the total required parking for the bank down to 36 spaces and the total for the center to 288. A total of 290 parking spaces are provided on the shopping center and bank lots. Reductions for joint use have already been granted for the shopping center buildings also with the expanded proposal. an additional 16 spaces would be required, thus rendering the de- ficiency for the center as a whole at 14 spaces. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the shopping center abuts a local street (California) that provides access to a residential area to the south. Staff is concerned that any shortage of parking will result in an impaction of this residential street. Mr. Murphy explained that the purpose of a variance is to correct a hardship which would occur if requirements of the zoning ordinance were strictly applied. Parking requirements for this building were known when the design of this project was begun. The applicant chose to build additional unusable floor space into the b uilding rather than matching the amount of floor area to the number of parking spaces which could be provided. In doing so, the applicant has created his own hardship which he now seeks to remedy by re- questing a variance. Reductions have already been given adminstra- tively to compensate for the special conditions resulting from the drive-thru facility and the adjoining shopping center parking. As stated earlier, Staff is concerned about commercial parking in the residential area to the south. Further reductions appear unjustified in this case. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of Variance 1618. Mr. Murphy further pointed out that one letter of opposition has been filed by the California Homeowners Association. Commissioner Coontz questi oned the figures i n the Staff Report. The report indicated that 57 spaces were granted, 1 ess 15, equaling 42. Then minus 9, which means 33. However, the report states 36. This is a difference of three spaces. Commissioner Hart stated that the additional spaces being asked for would require 16 more spaces than the 57 original spaces . He won- dered if this was correct and Mr. Murphy replied that it was. Commissioner Hart felt that this meant that the figures were even further off. The original 57 plus 16 which are being requested would bring the total to 73, and taki ng off the allowance of 24 spaces already given, thi s would mean a total of 49 spaces . Mr. Murphy replied that the only information that he has on hand is the additional 24 spaces will require 16 more spaces. The shopping center has two extra spaces, which means that 14 additional spaces are required . There was more discussion among the Commissioners and the Staff in this regard and Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the 57 original parking spaces minus 15 for the drive-thru equals 42. Then 15% of the 42 comes out to 6 spaces rather than 9. Now the requirement is brought back up to 50 spaces. Mr. Murphy stated that he would assume they are providing 34 spaces since they are asking for 16 additional spaces. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Three Daniel Walker, 11072 Rancho Santiago Blvd., Orange, addressed the ~`~ Commission on behalf of the applicant. He first asked what the requirements are for parking spaces in the City of Orange. He was told that the requirement is one parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area, He then pointed out that there is a quicker changeover in parking spaces for a bank. The average customer is usually in the bank only 5 to 10 minutes. There is also a fast changeover going through the drive-thrus and waiting at the consol es . As many as a thousand cars can go through on a busy day, which figures out to about one per minute, Mr. Walker further explained that there are certain things which the bank has done for convenience' sake which have a relation to the parking si tuati on, They have very extended hours . They are open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. every day, with a total of 5-7 tellers on hand. There is also a 24-hour teller, which can be used after hours . He then spoke about the second floor of the building. He pointed out that it is mainly intended for storage. It is not intended mainly for leasing or for office space. The upstairs would also consist of a lunch room-and their escrow office. They plan to use the extra space upstairs for a proof deposit department, which would consist of 5 to 6 employees. The Proof Deposit employees come in at 3:00 to 4:00 p.m, and go home at 8-1.0:00 p.m. The reason that banks have a large storage area is because the government requires the banks to keep 25 years of records on file. Mr. Walker explained that Farmers & Merchants also have a Garden Grove branch which has been open for 30 years now and is out of storage room. They plan to use some of this building's storage space for Garden Grove storage also, Commissioner Ault asked for confirmation as to 5-6 employees working upstairs after hours, This was confirmed by P~1r, Walker. Mr, Walker then explained that the only reason for a cus tourer to go ups tai rs would be to visit the Escrow Department. Commissioner Coontz had a question with regard to the Conditional Use Permit. She pointed out that at the time the Staff suggested, and the applicant agreed, that the second floor was going to be walled off and would be unusable. She wondered why someone would build a second floor and then wall it off. Mr. Walker replied that he wasn't sure that this was the complete understanding between Staff and the applicant, since they did allow them to put doors in the walls. Commissioner Mickelson stated that his understanding was that the second floor was not to be occupied but that it could be used for storage. However, Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that he had spoken with the architect personally at the counter and the agreement was that this floor area was not be occupied at all. It was understood that they were doing this at their own risk, that the only way it could be occupied would be with a variance. Commissioner Mickelson then asked the applicant to repeat his state- ment with regard to the different shifts at the bank . Mr. Walker repeated that the tellers work from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. This is half the crew, which is 5-6 employees. The total teller department has 9 employees with a limit of 15-16~in the future. The Proof Department works from 3:00 p.m. to 8-10:00 p.m. There would be no increased parking because the same amount of employees will be going home when the Proof Department employees come to work. ~` Commissioner Coontz wondered about the applicant's statement about banking hours being mostly at night, after the shopping center hours. Mr. Walker corrected this, There is activity until 5:00 p.m, every day except Friday, when they are open until 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Four Katherine Hartman, 1201 N. California Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She is the president of the California Homeowners Association, representing 40 homeowners in the block. She explained that California is a private residential street. Parking is in a circle and each resident has private parking space. The only space for visitors is on California and there is already a parking problem in that area. She stated that the California Homeowners Association opposes the granting of this variance. Commissioner Ault asked if the shopping center parking lot is full and is this why their street is congested? Mrs. Hartman did not know, she only knows that their street is very congested. Bob Hitchcock, owner of 1400 E. Katella, Orange, addressed the Com- mission in opposition to this application, stating that he opposes the variance because of the congestion in parking. In the beginning, he pointed out, they were very comfortable with their parking area and shared their spaces with their neighbors. However, now about 4:00 p.m. their parking lot is full and there is some double parking in the area. The area is growing. H e explained that in this center there is an office building which will have employees who park all day. This then is going to be an aggregate situation. He stated that 1400 E. Katella has 99 parking spaces in the back and these are all full in the afternoon. There i s one parking space for each 156 square feet, which is even a little more generous than the code calls for. Paula Christiansen, 1201 N. California, Orange, addressed the Commission i n opposition to this application, stati ng that she is on the Board of Directors of the California Homeowners Association. The area is definitely over-saturated with commercial parking problems. Don Jose's parking is extendi ng al l the way down California and around the corner. The residents there are resigned to the fact that at certain times there is no space to park in front of their homes. In front of their homes is not quite what they consi der commercial parking. She pointed out that the applicant's statement that after six .months of the shopping center being open there has never been over 30% of the spaces visible from Katella occupied at any one time, and commented that the center looks as though it is still under construction and therefore people are not really aware that it is open for business. She feels that a commercial center will not reach its potential until one year or more from the date of construction. And certainly not in February or March, which are the poorest months for retailers. Mrs. Christiansen wondered which figure was correct - 33 or 36? She was told that the plan shows 42 spaces on the proposed plot plan, so they are aski ng for 10 spaces reducti on from the original 52 proposed. Mrs. Christiansen explained that she had gone to some of the banks in the local area and counted parking spcaes. The new Wells Fargo Bank at Collins and Tustin has 70 parking spaces for the bank's use only and they have four drive-th ru spaces . Securi ty Pacific, also i n the same 1 ocati on, has 56 spaces and two drive-thru faci 1 i ti es . They do not have to share any of their parking. She has heard that these lots are quite busy and quite full. For these reasons, she and her neighbors believe this variance should be denied. Carl Baker, 1314 E. Adams, Orange, also addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that this corner is be- comi ng disastrous . He opposes the variance and also takes exception to the applicant's statement that the shopping center is fully developed. He pointed out that there is a big restaurant in the shopping center and it is very busy at lunch time. Lunch time is also busy for banks and they will need the parking spaces. He feels that this will create a problem. The overflow will put traffic along residential streets which wi 11 be disastrous . Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Five ~" Mr. Baker also questioned how seriously the Commission can consider that this additional 2500 square feet will be used for storage. This is an expensive storage area. It seems logical that they will eventually find storage space elsewh ere and use the upstairs space for customers. It is hardly fair for the bank to expect the city to approve this variance now. Why didn't they ask for i t when the plans were developed? If they want to be fair, the whole thing should have been ironed out before. It was wel l known i n advance what had to be done. The variance had to be applied for from the beginning. What really bothered him is that it is conceivable that the Commission will take the Staff's recommendation and deny the request, and then once a year the request will be before them. Mr. Baker explained that the residents are not opposed to progress and they are not opposed to commercial development. They just want to see fairness. The applicants are getting big reductions even without this variance. Commissioner Coontz asked a question with regard to whether the people are still considering blocking off California from the public use. She felt that this is a multiple problem, not just caused by the shopping center. Mr. Baker explained to the Commission why there was so much traffic through their street. This is a short cut for people coming out of the post office, etc. It is becoming a very bad situation. The people 1 i vi ng on Adams have considered approaching the Ci ty Cou nci 1 to request a cul de sac arrangement rather than what they are be- coming, which is a secondary commercial street. Mr. Lazlo, who owns one of the apartments facing California, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that California is no longer a street - it is a parking lot. If anyone omes to visit him, they cannot come to that street. The bank parking will make a tremendous parking problem here. Commissioner Ault asked if this problem exists the entire day or just when the restaurant is open. Mr. Lazlo replied that the problem exists all day, but really gets bad in the afternoons. Robert Jenkins, the architect for the Farmers & Merchants Bank project, addressed the Commission, explaining that he originally worked for the shopping center and they wanted a bank on the corner of the center. Farmers & Merchants came along and decided to build on this corner. They really need 11,000 square feet to operate because they are more of a regional bank rather than a branch, such as Bank of America. They were well aware that they were underparked for the square footage. However, they did not hide anything. They told the Planning Department that they would cut off the second floor space, but asked i f they coul d come back for a variance as they are doing now. Mr. Jenkins explained that he has designed many banks and knows what parking is needed. This city is higher than any city around in their parking requirements. He pointed out that in Brea they were allowed 20 spaces for two drive- th ru windows . Commissioner Hart commented that he could not imagine a responsible business arbitrarily overbuilding and agreeing to block off that overbui 1 di ng if they do not get a vari ance. Mr. Jenkins answered what else can they do? Commissioner Hart felt that this was quite a gamble. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that the question really before the Commission is whether they have justified their request for reduction in parking. Mr. Walker then addressed the Commission again in rebuttal to those in opposition. He stated that his grandfather started this bank. He pointed out that their bank in Belmont Shores has no parking facilities and that city has cooperated with them. He clarified that the drive-thrus will not be designed to have the cars come in from Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Six ~' California. They will exit to California. He also pointed out that you have two to three cars exiting a minute, which usually does not cause a traffic hazard. There are many banks who have many parking spaces, such as Bank of America. They run into millions of dollars . They find this to be in excess. They run with less spaces and do not seem to have a problem. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ault asked the Staff if this stands as it is now, are the applicants precluded from using that second floor even for storage purposes, even though there are no employees up there. Is the question really whether they conduct business up there? Mr. Murphy replied that the bank has not asked to use that 2500 square feet for any purpose. Staff's only involvement has been that it is going to be used as a dead area, From Staff's point of view, it is considered an unusable area. Commissioner Ault stated that he could not understand thei r building 2500 square feet of space and not using it. If there are no parking problems involved with its use, why can't i t be used? Commissioner Coontz asked if the variance could be conditioned along the lines of limited use for the second floor storage. Could you grant a variance wi th the understands ng that the 2500 square feet could only be used for certain purposes? Mr. Murphy answered that thi s can be done, but i t would become a matter of policing . Commissioner Mickelson did not see any of the normal legal justification for such a variance here. He tried to ask them to come up with some argument of hardship, but he does not see that presented to the Com- mission. On the other hand, he hears Commissioner Ault's concern that, as a whol e, we have rather stringent parking rules i n the ci ty. It was stated that the office building is not fully occupied as yet. He feels that at this point in time a hard approach should be taken. Perhaps i n another year or two, when the shopping center i s i n ful l use, then perhaps a variance would be in order if there is some justification for it. Commissioner Ault felt that so much good property is being wasted with al l the empty parking spaces around the city. However, he agreed with the neighbors about the congestion on their streets. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to deny Variance 1618, since the applicant has not shown undue hardship. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart NOES: Commissioner Ault ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy explained to the applicant that this decision is final by the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days . Chairman Mickelson explained that if this is appealed, there will be another public hearing and the same notices will go out. • Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Seven ~' Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to recommend that the City Traffic Engineer make a study about what can be done to improve the traffic situation and flow pattern in the area of Katella and California, Wilson and Adams. Commissioner Coontz explained that the reason for this motion was that regardless of the problems that the bank brings, there continue to be problems with the commercial buildings in the area in general. Something needs to be done there, Chairman Mickelson wondered if the Traffic Safety Committee should be looking at this situation, rather than the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Johnson explained that this committee will certainly be looking at this situation. The Traffic Staff will make a report first and then use the Traffic Safety Commission as a sounding board. Usually the Planning Commission would formally ask the Staff to study this problem. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the homeowners are contacted in a situation such as this. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Mickelson stated that he would not support the motion because he felt that they cannot decide tonight on such a serious si tuation. He pointed out that we are using too many band aid approaches to our problems and this needs a more comprehensive approach. Commissioner Coontz thought that perhaps if a study had been made originally, then the problems would not have occurred. Commissioner Ault felt that California Street has a very unique situation. I t i s an easy back entrance to too many places . AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Ault, Hart NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 940, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1093, VARIANCE 1624 - DAUM: Request for rezoning from RM-7 to C-2 and to allow a machine shop in the C-2 zone with 1 ess than the required number of parking spaces on the west side of Batavia Street, north of Chapman Avenue (122 North Batavia Street). (Note: Negative Declaration 674 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Murphy presented thi s appl i cati on to the Commission, stati ng that this property contains approximately .17 acre of land and is located on the west side of Batavia Street, approximately 153 feet north of the centerline of Chapman Avenue. The property is zoned RM-7 and contains two residential units . He explained that the applicant reques is a change of zoning from RM-7 to C-2, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a machine shop in the C-2 zone, and a Variance to al 1 ow fewer parking spaces than required by code. The applicant proposes to construct an 800 square foot machine shop between the two existing residential units . One garage parking space and a carport exists presently on the site, while a second was demolished in order to construct the proposed structure. The applicant feels that 8 parking spaces are available. However, it appears that almost all do not conform to code requirements as they involve tandem parking. In addition, the Traffic Engineer has stated that a proposal to park at the southeastern corner of the site is unacceptable since i t involves backing out to Batavia Street. Thi s is an arterial street, thereby making that plan unacceptable. There- fore the parking situation consists of two spaces existing on the site Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Eight ~'° presently to serve both units . The zoni ng code requires that five spaces be provided for this combination of uses (3 for the residential .units and 2 for the machi ne shop) . Mr. Murphy pointed out that the applicant processed this proposal as a two-car garage through the Building Division, but was held back when i t was determined that h e desired industrial electrical service. It was then found that a machine shop was the true proposal and the applicant was advised that the various applications and public hearings were requi red. Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has reviewed the request and indicated that the lack of adequate parking, as wel l as the proximi ty of the site to residences, renders the property inappropriate to locate a machine shop on. Staff recommends that the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 674 be accepted. Because of the site's location on Batavia Street, as well as the proximity to commercial zoning and uses, Staff feels that rezoning to commercial is logical. However, they would recommend C-1 or the most intense commercial zone acceptable at this location. Re- lating to the proposed machine shop, however, Staff must note that such a use is typically permitted only in the industrial zone which characteristically is removed from residential uses with which machine shops are generally thought to be i ncompati bl e with . Light whol esal e and light manufacturing using only electrical power is allowed, subject to a Conditional Use Permit in the C-2 zone. Obviously a key considera- tion revolves around the acceptability of the proposed use with surrounding properties . Staff feel s that the existence of residences abutting the site to the north , west, and south make a machine shop operation ques ti onabl e. Mr. Murphy further pointed out that aggravating this problem is the fact that only two legal parking spaces may be provided, though the code requires provision of five spaces. The obvious problem is that the developed site was not designed for the additional development with the resul t being an extremely congested 1 ayout with a parking situation which cannot meet code requirements. The applicant presents no evidence of special circumstances to justify the variance request. Because of these problems, Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permi t and Variance requests for the reasons that: 1. The proposal i s not compati b l e with surrounding residential use. 2. No evidence of special ci rcumstances was presented to justify granting of a Variance. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Jim Daum, owner of the property in question, and the applicant, addressed the Commission, pointing out that this is a business 1 ocati on and i s very congested. He explained that backing out on the street is the accepted way. He also explained that this is a very small machine shop, which his son runs in his garage at this time. He will just move from a residential area to a commercial area. He does not cause a problem now and wi 11 cause 1 ess problems in the new location. Mr. Daum explained that this machine shop does not cater to a large volume of business. They do not depend upon people to bring their automobiles i n. Therefore, parking is not a problem for them. He admitted that bakinc out onto Chapman is a problem, but this will Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Nine ~° never change. H e pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report states that there is no impact on the area. Their business will be facing a service station which creates more noise than they will cause, since the machine shop is entirely enclosed. Commissioner Ault asked about demolishing the residence. The applicant answered that they have demolished the residence and false work in front because i t does not fit their architectural design. He ex- plained that his son will live in the residence and the machine shop will be separate. Chairman Mickelson asked about the machine shop being operated in a residential area. Mr. Daum explained that the shop is being operated at 903 Van Bibber now and there have been no problems. Chairman Mickel son asked a questi on with regard to deeding some of the property to the city. The applicant explained that he had deeded some of the property for the widening of the street. David Daum, proprietor of the machine shop requesting to operate at 122 North Batavia Street, addressed the Commission, describing the servi ce that he offers . He specializes i n precision work on parts no larger than 9x24. He occasionally gets a part that is 6'x4', but that i s rare. He works to close tolerances and caters to thi s particular type of work. People don't just come in off. the street. Most of the work he goes outside for. There will be some delivery on the street, which could present a problem, but they will work around this. These are precision parts, like hinge fixtures for mechanical assembly on a medical machine. He has subcontracted work for the aerospace industry also. Mr. Daum went on to explain that their present fabrication uses a lathe 10'x3'x4' high. He has a power requirement which must be satis- fi ed by zoning. Therefore, he must be i n a C-2 zone i n order to get the proper power because the power is not adequate working in his home. He pointed out that he had intended to operate at his resi Bence, but needed the extra power. Chairman Mickelson wondered if he could back up and deliver materials and finished products without having commercial vehicles on the site. The applicant responded that the traffic on the site will always be a problem. Commissioner Hart was bothered by a zone change to C-2. He asked Mr. Murphy about the uses allowed in the C-2 zone. Mr. Murphy explained that C-2 is heavier commercial zoning. It allows used car lots, adult only use, alcoholic beverage without food, and automotive repair, the types of businesses mostly found on West Chapman Avenue. Betty Lucas, 341 N. Shaffer, addressed the Commission in opposition to thi s appl i cati on, explaining that she owns the duplex at 136-137 N. Batavia and opposes this application both for the type of zoning and the parking lack. If they did have some extra parking, it would over- flow into the next two duplexes. Also, she assumes that a lathe would be noisy. There is a duplex right next door to the property in question and her duplex is located on the same side of the street. Ray Mitchell, 374 Maplewood, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he owns the property just to the north of the Daum property. He opposes this zone change because a machine shop i n the primari ly residential area seems to be going against any logical development. There would be physical noise with pounding and grinding, electrical noise which wi 11 interfere with TV reception of the tenants, and odor coming from cutting oil and • Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Ten ~` solvents, fire and welding equipment. He also pointed out that there is not enough parking in the area now. When the city widened Batavia they took some of thei r parking away. There i s no curb parking i n the immediate area now. People will be parking in their driveway when they find nowhere else to park. He does not understand the fact that they are here to discuss this variance, when work is al- ready going on. Why are they here? Chairman Mickelson explained that they are building a two-car garage and if the zone change is not granted that is all it will be. .Luis Sanchez, who lives just west of Mr. Mitchell's property, also addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that i n the past three or four months a new thri ft store has opened and they are 1 os i ng thei r parking spaces i n the nei ghborhood . There i s no way anyone can back out of the driveway i n ques ti on without getting hit. With regard to noise, he has already had quite a bi t of noise from the 7/11 Store which is open on a 24 hour basis. Some- times there are refrigerated rigs parked in the area which are very noisy. The applicant states that he will be using drills and lathes and this can be noisy. Mrs. Sanchez then addressed the Commission, also in opposition to this application, stating that she is concerned about what the applicant's working hours would be, as her brother owns the property directly behind this property and there is no legal fence. Since this is a residential area and there are small children around, this could b e a problem. Also there would be quite a bit of noise. They would not want to spend their weekends hearing someone grinding and making a lot of noise wh~er~ they want to sit home and relax. There is already a lot of noise in this area. They do not need more. Her bedroom will face thi s proposed business . She also pointed out how dangerous i t wi 11 be to back out of that property onto the street. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that one of the conditions, if this application is approved, will be a 6 foot block wall to be constructed on the north and west sides of the property. Mrs. Sanchez explained that she can hear conversation from Mr. Barrera's gas station at 7:00 a.m. There is quite a bit of noise in the entire area. They also need their parking spaces. Parking is being cut off from Batavia so the people come over to Citrus. The main complaints of the neighbors is parking and noise. Mr. Daum again addressed the Commission in rebuttal. He explained that he woul d be keeping normal business hours . He does not work on week- ends and keeps standard working hours. With regard to the noise problem, he has been working out of his home for the past two years and they have not had any complaints. As far as the traffic and parking problems are concerned, this is a four-lane road and it will be a dangerous problem any way you look at it when you are talking about putting a commercial area in this spot. Mr. Daum pointed out that there are three buildings across the street with mansard roofs and this will have a mansard roof also. They will try to make i t attractive. He realizes there i s quite a bit of noise. This area does not cater to residential areas any longer. Chairman Mickelson asked the Staff if he understands the operation correctly, this might qualify for a home operation. There are lathes being used in many residences. If there were no noise, no customers, no delivery vehicles, does this qualify as a home occupation? Mr. Murphy replied that he would have to read that code. He thought that thi s would be a stretch i n the code. ~~ There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Eleven Commissioner Hart asked the Staff if they were considering the right zone for this use. This seems like a manufacturing process. Commissioner Coontz read an explanation of C-2. Mr. Murphy commented that Staff has similar concerns because the code does specify light manufacturing. The most ideal zone would be industrial . C-2 does allow, by Con di ti onal Use Permit, 1 i gh t manufacturing use. It is a question of interpretation of what this would mean. They. have allowed the storage buildings on south Tus ti n and the small industrial buildings near the Garden Grove Freeway interchange, but i t is not as heavy a use as proposed i n this parti- cular case. Commissioner Hart felt that some questions need to be investigated. He recommended postponing a decision in this matter. Commissioner Ault felt there was nothing to be gained by a continuance. He stated that he admires the young man's ambition, but he felt that there was more opportunity i n R-M-7 rather than i n C-2, There are other areas more specifically designed for this type of business. He didn't really want to see this open up to C-2 zoning. Chairman Mickelson felt that the type of noise generated by this business is not nearly as great as other businesses nearby, Com- missioner Hart has concern fora zone change to C-2. This particular use may not always be i n effect. He would not object to C-1 with a variance to allow this use, however. In that way there is some control, Commissioner Ault felt that heavy duty use of equi pment affects the residents' TV reception and he did not approve of that. Chairman Mickelson thought that this problem could be handled. He asked Mr. Murphy if there was any way in which this could be accomplished by a use permit i n the C-1 zone. Mr. Murphy replied that he was not aware of any way. He explained how they had gone about indicating how the applicant might make application to provide the least offensive means of using his property the way he wished to, Therefore, he was without al ternati ve suggesti ons i n terms of how this can be accomplished without the necessary zoning. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that i f the Commission considers C-1 , they would set themselves up for setting another precedent. This could be a problem. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 674. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Aul t, Hart NOES: Commissioner Coontz ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Staff had made a comment in the Staff Report that unless the use as proposed for the property is accepted, there would probably be no positive result coming from rezoning the property to commercial , because i t would render the residential use as non conforming. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to deny Zone Change 940, Condi ti onal Use Permit 1093 and Vari ance 1624, Commissioner Coontz stating that she was not against the young man's enterprise, but that she does not believe this is a proper place for C-2 or proper use in that area. r Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Twel ve AYES : Commissioners Mickel son, Coontz, Ault, Hart NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED VARIANCE 1623 - KIBBE: Request to allow less than the required off-street parking than required by code fora commercial building at the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Lime Street (1100 West Chapman Avenue). (Note: Negative Declaration 679 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow 17 parking spaces in lieu of the 37 required by code for a proposed 7400 square foot commercial building. The property contains .32 acre of land and is located at the south- west corner of Chapman Avenue and Lime Street. It is zoned C-2 and formerly contained a used car sales lot. It is now vacant. The applicant requests a variance i n order to cons truct a motorcycl e parts and accessories store with 1 ess than the required off-street parking spaces. In addition, of those spaces provided, 16 would encroach into the required 10 foot wide front setback along Chapman Avenue. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant proposes to construct a two- story 7,400 square foot retail building at the southern portion of the site. 17 parking spaces are indicated on the plans to be provided on the northern portion of the site with access to Lime Street. He pointed out that the Engineering Division has advised that dedication of a 15 foot corner cut-off would be required, thereby eliminating the northeasternmost parking stall and permitting a yield of only 16 spaces. Mr. Soo-Hoo then pointed out that the zoning requires that parking for retail uses be provided at a ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant would need to provide 37 parking spaces, thus the proposal is deficient by 21 spaces . In addition, a 10 foot wide landscaped front setback is required along the Chapman Avenue frontage which the applicant proposes to virtually eliminate in order to locate parking. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it unacceptable, due to the magnitude of the deviation from code requirements. It was generally felt that the applicant's rationale that hi s business required 1 ess parking than specified by code was not valid. Since the building may be used for a~ retail use, it was not inconceivable that if the applicant were to relocate in the future, the developed site could be sold to a higher volume retailer which would result in parking problems. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff recommends that the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 679 be accepted. Mr. Soo-Hoo then went on to explain that, as the Planning Commission knows, development standards are contained in the zoning code to direct and guide development in specific land use zones. These standards are consistently and uniformly applied to all projects within similarly zoned parcels. A variance, of course, may be granted to deviate from these standards, however, since they involve an exception from a general rule which other property owners must abide by, valid reasons must be presented to justify such a request. The zoning ordinance requires that special circumstances be demonstrated which apply to the subject property which renders it unique to other properties, such as size, shape or topography. The applicant has not demonstrated special circumstances which relates to the property, instead, their emphasis has been to independently projecting the future parking needs of their specific business, ignoring the City's parking standards . Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Thirteen ~` Mr. Soo-Hoo went on to state that while Staff does not favor requiring surpluses which would go unused, a very key concern in this case is that no guarantee exists that the applicant will occupy this property in perpetuity. Should the development be sold in the future, any retail enterprise may legally operate from it with only 46 % of the .required parking, or 17 spaces for 7,400 square feet of gross floor area . Staff does not feel , therefore, that i t i s realistic to allow a reduction of over 50% of the parking requirement when future needs may call for addtional spaces. Relating to the elimination of the front setback, Staff cannot validly justify this deviation from the code either. Admittedly, much of West Chapman Avenue does not reflect this setback due to the age of development of most properties. However, the long range plan, in accordance with this standard, is to eventually provide a 10 foot wide continuous landscaped strip along the length of Chapman Avenue. Generally speaking, it appears that the subject plans were prepared with no regard for zoni ng standards with the sole justi fi cati on being what the applicant perceives to be adequate to meet their own needs. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out, as he had previously stated, this does not provide for future needs should a change of use take place. Nor does i t justify why the setback standards should be waived i n this case though all other property owners along Chapman Avenue must observe it. Staff recommends that this variance request be denied for the reasons that no valid justification has been presented to demonstrate that the subject property possesses characteristics which necessitate variation from development standards; and also that parking requirements cannot be reduced on individual enterprise's represented needs, since future occupancy may be by any retail use. Mr. Soo-Hoo then pointed out that Staff has received a number of telephone calls today from people in the general area, seeking to con- firm what they have heard as a withdrawal of the application. However, the Staff is not aware of any withdrawal of this application. Also, just before the hearing began, a peti ti on was handed to the Staff, signed by the area residents. Mr. Soo-Hoo then handed the peti tion to the Commission for their perusal. Also, a letter from Mr. Ernest Gommel has been received with regard to this application, a copy of which was also given to the Commission. At this time, Commissioner Master arrived at the Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Bill Kibbe, 1631 Chris Avenue, Anaheim, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that this is a single-family owned store that has been operating in the city of Orange for 10 years. He explained that this is a long term business and the only source of income for the family. Two of their sons work full time in the store, one of them having worked there for eight years. They cannot guarantee the perpetuity of the business, however, their plan when they retire or expire i s to pass the store on to their sons. He pointed out that they had considered two oth er nearby parcels of land to purchase in order to move their business. He rejected them both for the lack of off-street parking spaces. The building where they now do business will create parking problems that they or the city could not 1 i ve with . Therefore, they felt i t was wiser to bui 1 d their own building which would satisfy the parking requirements. Mr. Kibbe explained that the larger area of the building will be used for storage and office space. They believe that the Staff Report did not give enough weight to the parking of motorcycles and compact cars. He stated that they have a dream to build a beautiful building to house their family operated store. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Fourteen ~ Harold Sheffield, 122 S. Lime Street, Orange, addressed the Commission i n opposition to this application, stati ng that he 1 fives on the southern border of the property in question. He has lived there for about 15 years. He stated that he was not aware that this was a family owned and operated business. Prior to this time, the people who have occupied this lot have been there about three years. He was not sure how often thi s business would be under the same owner- ship or management. He explained that he is not thrilled over the motorcycle parts and repair which would be at this location, pointing out that there is no parking on Chapman Avenue. He pointed out that there are two parking spaces on this side of Lime. The building is proposed to be right on the property line and he did not know what ventilation they would have. He does not really want that type of situation overlooking his property. Mr. Sheffield explained that he has seen the front elevation of the property and the floor plan and side elevation. With the property at the borderline, there would be responsibi 1 i ty on hi s part to be more careful . People in the past have not been too considerate of his property. The area is not cleaned up too well along the chain link fence. There has been refuse on the property which is never picked up. He has picked up chrome strips along the side of the property. He does not know how much traffic will be coming into that area. But he expects the overflow to go into the local residential area. Commissioner Coontz thought that it should be clarified that this use is accepted in the C-2 zone. But the question is the variance and the setback. Mrs,Robert Law, 164 N. Lime, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. She stated that she was born in Orange in 1910 and has seen many changes in the area since then. She cannot even imagine how bad it will be when such a business comes into this area. There are still eleven children in that residential area. There are so many cars parked on their street now, she cannot imagine what it will do to their area. Mr. Staser, 146 S. Lime, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that the property in question is located between Lime and Pepper on Chapman. There are two businesses on the corner of Chapman and Pepper. He explained that he circulated a petition among the residents of this area and both of those businesses signed the petition, as they said that parking is already bad, The People on pepper were not interested in signing the petition because they did not believe the parking could get any worse. There is a lot of double parking in the area. The people on Lime were more concerned and signed the petition, 62 have signed it. Mr. Staser explained that the people want to see the corner used if they can just keep from making the parking situation any worse than what i t is now. Jordan Brown, respresentative of the National Association of Letter Carriers, stated that they owned the property next door to the property in question. They are concerned that the amount of traffic coming down Chapman would be using their parking lot. There is very little parking on the street and there is none on Chapman Avenue. There have been many near collisions when people have been looking fora particular place along the street. One of the concerns as a business is that during the day they can imagine that a motorcycle repair place will add noise to the area. Also, there wi 11 probably be motorcycl es driven down La Veta in an area where there is a school. 0 Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Fifteen Charley Miles, 1330 Dana Place, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he wished to address the request for over 50% reduction in the amount of parking. He stated that in case this is granted, his heart bleeds for the people on Lime Street and the fact that there is no guarantee that this will remain a motorcycle shop in the future. If a variance is granted, it would be unfair to the people who must meet the requirements of parking. He asked what the requirements are per square foot for par king and was answered that i t was 1 space per 200 square feet. Mr. Kibbe then responded to the comments made i n opposition to hi s application. He explained that he is sensitive to the complaints of some of the neighbors, particularly the person directly behind the bui 1 di ng. The way they proposed the bui 1 di ng, i t would be back across the property line and would be solid. However, it does not have to be there and they can work with him and the city i n this regard. If i t were built back there, i t would have no windows and would be 1 ess of an eyesore than what i s there now. He further explained that thi s i s not a transient business. It is family oriented. He invited the neighbors to come and visit his store and see for themselves. All they sell is parts and accessories - no motor bikes at all and they do not intend to have them. They also do not do motorcycle repair. They wish to improve the area. He then explained why they wish to make this move. A new landlord came in 1977 and doubled the rent in 1978. In 1979 it was doubled again. It went up 15% last year and again this year. He will be paying monthly rent to his landlord equal to what his payments on th i s new bui 1 di ng wi 11 be. He further explained that they are not proposing no parking. They are proposing 17 parking spaces . He has submitted thei r sales from 1979 to now. The average number of daily customers was 59, with an average of 6 customers per hour. He pointed out that per square foot the business which uses the most parking time is a bedroom store and a hairdresser. Theirs is a service store and people are in and out very quickly. He feels that one of the problems on Pepper Street is that there is no parking there. They are proposing 17 parking spaces which they feel is adequate for their current and future needs. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master asked Staff how the parking works out based on maximum variance allowed for compact cars. Mr. Murphy replied that ordinarily they have not allowed compact cars in any commercial areas, other than for employees of large shopping areas and industrial areas. There is no provision for that at this time. Commissioner Master referred to page 4 of the Environmental Impact Report, showing that they checked off "no" for parking. He wondered why. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that this probably should be changed to "yes". Commissioner Mickelson asked if 5400 square feet was the footprint. The answer was yes . He then asked Staff i f the parking which encroaches into the 10 foot setback on Chapman, which was mentioned, is a structural setback or a required landscaping setback. Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that this is a required landscape setback which is along Chapman Avenue in its entirety. Commissioner Ault felt that the difficulty here is the second floor. He pointed out that without the second floor it would become close to complying with the requirements . The bi g penalty i s with putting the second floor on the building. He felt that with an in-and-out service type of operation, people would be in and out of the facility very quickly. It seemed to him that the parking would be adequate. If the second floor is strictly for storing parts, it will not bring more people into the parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 16 , 1981 Page Sixteen Ch airman Mickelson pointed out that i n the future thi s coul d be con- verted to office space, etc. Commissioner Coontz felt that the setback is important to the new development of West Chapman. Therefore, these development standards are necessary. She would 1 ike to see some new bui 1 di ngs out that way, but they should not start a precedent of a continuation of what they have now. She wondered if the applicant could address his feeling about the second floor. Mr. Kibbe replied that it will be for offices and storage space. Commissioner Coontz wondered if he would be willing to design this building with less floor space and achieve abetter parking situation than he has now. Mr. Kibbe replied that they wou7 d be wil 1 i ng to consider this . They would be wi 11 i ng to submit a revised design that would reduce the space on the second floor. He also pointed out that they have dedicated seven feet for a setback. L _I Mr. Murphy asked i f the di recti on to the applicant was only for square footage. Commissioner Coontz felt that this should include the setback also. Commissioner Ault asked if parking spaces include any for motorcycles. The reply was no . He felt that i t woul d be 1 ogi cal to i ncl ude a request for motorcycle and compact car parking spaces. Moved by Commissioner .Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to continue this matter to April 6, 1981, for another look at a redesign of the property to include setback, and a suggestion for allowance of motor- cycle and compact car parking. Commissioner Hart mentioned that much has been said about the use of this property for motorcycle sales and service. He pointed out that this is not the issue. Commissioner P~ickelson pointed out that the use is not in question. The use is permitted in that zone. The building can legally be built right on the south property 1 i ne, as zoning would permit i t. The only question is the variance. Commissioner Coontz explained that the Commission is looking for a significant change or they wouldn't ask fora reduction in square feet. Commissioner Hart stated that he would like to see a second story, but a smaller ground floor. A smaller building, but a two-story one, is acceptable. Mr. Murphy suggested that the applicant address the first floor use and achieve the parking for the first floor, and possibly allow only storage utilization. The first floor use right now would require 27 parking spaces . So they would have to pick up 10 more spaces . Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the continuance is a compromise. Commissioner Mickelson agreed with the Staff that they cannot justify a variance. There are really very few limitations to the site. The problem that the applicant has is that ei ther he doesn't fit the city's zoning code or the zoning code does not fit his use. The applicant really must stay within the regulations. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Seventeen REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE 704, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1092 - TRABUCO: Request to allow a private school, as well as review of a previous zone change proposal for a plant nursery for property located south of the intersection of Orange-Olive Road and Shaffer Street. (Note: Negative Declaration 677 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr, Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to review the change of zone from R-1-8 to C-1 which was previously approved for a plant nursery use, to allow the con- struction of a private school for ages 22 to 12 years. He pointed out that the property contains .82 acres of land located immediately south of the intersection of Orange-Olive Road and Shaffer Street on the east side of Orange-Olive Road, The property is zoned R-1-8 with an intent to rezone C-1 pending review of final plans. A portion of the property contains a single family residence and the remainder is vacant. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that Zone Change 704 was approved by the City Council on May 28, 1974 subject to the intent to rezone procedure. This reclassification from R-1-8 to C-1 was predicated upon the use of the property fora plant and tree nursery. Because of problems felt to be associated with the development of other types of commercial uses at this location, the intent to rezone procedure was used in order to review final plans for the project and to further ensure the nature of the use which would be developed. To further guarantee the nursery use, a separate resolution was also approved at this time, stating that proceedings to return the zoning to R-1-8 might be initiated by the City Council should the plant and tree nursery use cease to exist. The nursery was never developed and the zone change to C-1 never completed. A review of this zone change is therefore required for the school use presently proposed. School s are a permitted use i n either the C-1 or R-1-8 zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the applicant requests approval of Condi tional Use Permit 1092 in order to construct a Montessori school for children ages 22 to 12 years. There will be a maximum of 168 students and 14 facul ty members . Three single-story classroom bui 1 di ngs and a smaller administration building are located around a courtyard at the widest part of the property. 24 parking spaces are provided in two areas to the north and south of the bui 1 di ngs . The southerly parking 1 of takes access via Orange-Olive Road. ~- Students will be dropped off via a driveway which bisects the northerly parking area from Orange-Olive Road to Shaffer Street. A playground, pet and garden area are located at the northerly tip of the property. Movement of students through the parking lot between the classrooms and playground will be supervised. Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., including both morning and afternoon sessions. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and suggested that: a. The parking aisle widths can be reduced from 27 to 25 feet. b. That a trash encl osure needs to be provided i n 1 i eu of the trash storage area shown on the plans. c. That provisions for drainage along the southerly property 1 i ne s hou 1 d be provided as s peci fi ed i n the conditions of approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 677. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Eighteen ~ With regard to Zone Change 704, Mr. Soo-Hoo painted out that this zone change was originally initiated because plant and tree nurseri es are not permitted uses in the R-1-8 zone. The Planning Commission and City Council at that time felt that the nursery was an appropriate us e for this site, but that other types of commercial uses could pose problems of noise, commercial traffic on Shaffer Street, and circula- tion problems at the unique intersection of Orange-Olive Road and Shaffer Street. The intent to rezone procedure was involved in order to carefully monitor the development of the property in light of these circumstances . The current proposal for a private school is felt by Staff to be an appropriate use for this site. Unlike the tree nursery, it is a permitted use in either the R-1-8 or C-1 zones with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff concurs with the previous analysis of possible zoning for the site which pointed out problems with some commercial uses but also the difficulty of developing the site for residential use. The size and shape of the property, as wel 1 as the street frontages on both sides, would hinder residential development. An alternative also pointed out before, which merits consideration by the Commission, is office use of the property. Traffic generation by office projects is less than that for other commercial uses. The Office-Professional zone allows schools with a Conditional Use Permit while limiting commercial use to offices. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that several options are available to the Planning Commission in their recommendation on Zane Change 704: 1. Approval of the Condi tional Use Permit with the intention of rezoning the property to C-1 zone at the time building plans are reviewed. 2. Denial of the zone change and approval of Conditional Use Permit 1092 for the school i n the R-1-8 zone, 3. No acti on on the zone change, thereby retaining R-1-8 zoning on the property and approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the school . Because of the problems posed by its shape and location, Staff does not feel that C-1 zoning is appropriate for this property. Other properties in this area along Orange-Olive Road have recently been granted zone changes from C-1 to R-M-7 for the purpose of building condominiums. Orange-Olive Road is no longer felt by Staff to be a viable retail location. Office development of a neighborhood service nature may sti 11 be feasible. Staff would, therefore, recommend ei ther alternative 2 or 3 to the City Council, depending upon the degree to which the Planning Commission wishes to limit the use of the property. With regard to Conditional Use Permit 1092, Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that two concerns associated with the 1 ocation of school s near residential zones are playground noise and traffic circulation. Staff feels that both of these issues have been addressed on the property in question. The playground is located at the north end of the property, away from adjoining residences to the south and separated by Shaffer Street from residences to the east. Use of the driveway connecting Orange-Olive Road and Shaffer Street as a drop-off area will result in the introduction of more traffic onto Shaffer Street.. It is felt, however, that use of this local street to route traffic back onto Orange-Olive Road at a traffic signal is preferable to a circular drive on the property. Mr. Soo-Hoo further stated that the proposed use seems well suited to the unusual shape of the subject property and would serve as a transi- tion between the industrial uses, railroad tracks and arterial street on the west and the residential uses to the east. Staff, therefore, ~, recommends that an action be taken on the zone change but that the Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Nineteen property be left in the R-1-8 zone and further recommends approval of °- Conditional Use Permit 1092 for the reasons that the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning; and that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Staff recommends approval, subject to the 21 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Leon Shule, 1452 Milbrook, Santa Ana, the project engineer for Trabuco, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that this is a rather difficult site and has a past history of rather difficult concepts. He explained about the Montessori school to be constructed on this property, pointing out that the play- ground i s away from the residential areas . He s tated that the community has been canvassed and agree with this use of the property. He did point out that the applicants desire Alternative #1 of the three alternatives that were recommended by Staff, The other zone would be more desirable for thei r overall use. They request approval of the project as outlined in their application. Commissioner Master expressed concern about parking between the school and the playground. He wondered why the play ground is not fenced with parking nearby. Mr. Shul e again stated that the site i s a rather difficult one to use. They at one time considered a turnaround, However, it was concluded that this is the best use of the site. He did want to remind the Commission that there are two adults with every class of children at all times. Also traffic generated at Montessori School is generally at 8 or 9 a.m. and thereafter there is little or no traffic :in the parking area . Allan Ravage, 2238 N. Shaffer, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he has 1 ived i n thi s area for 9 years. His property extends from Shaffer through to Orange-Olive Road. This school will adjoin his property. The lot in question has been steadily deteriorati ng for a long time. It is a rental property and is rodent infested, with a major flooding problem on the site. He has contacted many departments regarding this property. He feels that this school is ideally suited for this piece of property. It will beautify the neighborhood. He pointed out that this lot serves no useful purpose because of its irregular shape. He would appreciate consideration of the Commission that they grant this application. Alroy Killis, 31341 Pacific Coast Highway, South Laguna, addressed the Commission, stating that his profession is builder and real estate broker. He has been requested to look into financing on the project. H e was asked to look into the zoning in order to get financing. H e was told that the 1 ending people would 1 i ke to see commercial zoni ng on this piece of property. Mickey Solorio, 2240 Shaffer, Orange, addressed the Commission in support of this application, stating that he is very much in favor of the school, as this property has been an eyesore for years. He pointed out that Mr. Sheffield 1 i ves at the 1 ower right hand corner from thi s property. He is concerned about the type of fence that they will use to enclose the play area. Speedsters in the area have knocked out trees, fences, etc. Something must be built to protect the children. It was pointed out that the plan calls for a six-foot wrought iron fence. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Twenty Mr. Solorio stated that he is in favor of this school but he does not know how they can close off Cista del Gaviota at Orange-Olive Road. However, something must be done to protect the children from the speeding cars. Mrs. Solorio then addressed the Commission, stating that in the last five years they have been flooded three times because of the dumping on the property. They need to have something built on this property. She is in favor of the project. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart commented that he knows of the concern and the problem of getting a loan on property that is not properly zoned for the use. This has been handled in the past by intent to rezone. Commissioner Mickelson thought that this currently has an intent to rezone procedure in force. In order to get this before the City Council, Commission can make a recommendation that the intent to rezone procedure be tied into these plans . He further explained how to go about making a motion in this matter. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negati ve Declaration 677. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: j Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master expressed a concern about the children's safety and the traffic circulation. Chairman Mickelson explained that he had spoken with Staff and had hi s fears allay ed. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this review of Zone Change 704 be accepted and the zone changed to C-1 with an intent to rezone procedure, and that Conditional Use Permit 1092 be recommended for approval to the City Counci 1 , subject to the 21 condi tions as set forth i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED MEMO FROM STAFF TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO A LETTER FROM MR. AND MRS. JAMES A. DULEBOHN, REGARDING PROPERTY AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEMON STREET AND COLLINS AVENUE. Mr. Murphy explained that the Dulebohns have been proposing plans for a triplex on this property, but now wish to build three separate condominiums on this property. He further explained that the modifi- cation from a triplex to three condominium units would mean the project is not within PUD density standards. He thought it might be appropriate to address the i ssue with the Planning Commission and then the City Council, rather than having the applicant file a density variance which is not a legally accepted vehicle for the addressing of the density issue. In his memorandum, Mr. Murphy suggested three alternative actions which the Commission might take: 0 Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Twenty-One 1. No action 2. Direct applicant to file whatever applications, including the density variance, are necessary to formally bring this issue before the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Make an appropriate recommendation to City Council regarding condominium density limits based on recent discussion, Staff comments, etc. Staff recommendation is that alternative #3 be acted upon in some form. This issue will not go away, but will continue to reappear in the form of new condominium applications. Mr. Murphy pointed out on Collins for 6 units suit the density of th on Glassell just south uni is to seven units . not the route to go. that Gene Miller, the applicant for the project had dropped his project to five uni is to property. Also, Gus Tyson, who had built of Collins, had dropped hi s plans of nine In both cases, the variance application was Per. Dul ebohn addressed the Commission, stating that they are trying to bui 1 d three separate units which would be individually owned. He stated that he goes on the basis that a good plan will work. He feels that this is a very good plan and he thinks a person would be better off owning something rather than renting i t. He pointed out that he would prefer Staff's recommendation #2. He would like to take his chances before the City Council. This is a moderately proposed home and he thinks it is a good plan. Their price range will be $75,000 to $85,000. It is much more dif- ficult to get apartment house financing than condominium financing. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Murphy under the use permit procedure for planned developments, why can't the Commission vary from density without going through the variance procedure? Mr. Murphy replied that as he understands it, the deviation from density verges on a use variance, which has been found to be illegal by the courts. He thought that perhaps the housing study will help to answer these questi ons . He hoped there would be some answers coming down but thi s might take several months . Mr. Dulebohn stated that they could go ahead and build the building and then go ahead with a conversion. However, they do not prefer to do it this way. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Commission could make a recommenda- ti on to the City Counci 1 that th ere have been a number of queries i n thi s type of situation and applications that have come i n, and there wi 11 probably be many more; the Commission recognizes that the vari ance isn't the proper vehicle and they are concerned with the fact that they probably need more density availability than th ey have now and this should be something the housing analyst should study, or that the Staff can do a study on. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the density be raised for the planned unit developments, and urge the City Council to direct the Staff to prepare an amendment to the PUD ordinance for public hearing, increasing the densities back to where they were originally. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1981 Page Twenty-Two ~ IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 6, 1981 at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. J r EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 16, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Ch airman Mickel son at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: None Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that this meeting adjourn at 11:15 p.m, on Monday, March 16, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m, Monday, April 6, 1981 at the. Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, March 16, 1981, Dated this 17th day of March, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. Jere P. Murphy, G1 t~ NI anner ana _ S cretary to the Planning Co i ssi on the City of Orange. • ~~ J STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS . OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planni ng Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeti ng of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on March 16, 1981 ; said meeti ng was ordered and adjourned to the time and place speci fi ed i n the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on March 17, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeti ng of March 16, 1981 was held. U