HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/1/1982 - Minutes PCCity of Orange
Orange, California
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 1, 1982
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners none
STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission
PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant
City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bill Simpkins, Fire
Department; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1982
Commissioner Coontz asked for a correction to paragraph 7 of page
13, where it reads: "...should be disbursed with exceptions...",
it should read: "...should be disltributed with the corrections...".
Chairman Mickelson asked for corrections to page 12, requesting that
the following be inserted after the first paragraph:
"Mr. Swanson agreed with Mr. Nick's statement that the moving costs
would not exceed $2,000 for single and $3,000 for double and stated
it was an oversight that it was left out of the Plan."
At the end of paragraph 6, he asked that the following be inserted:
"He then requested 5 minutes to write down the precise wording for
the maximum moving costs."
"The Commission agreed by consensus to seta date for the General
Plan Amendment and to discuss the memo from Mr. Yamasaki regarding
the Housing Consultant's 4th Phase Report while Mr. Swanson was
correcting the language in the Relocation Plan."
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to
approve the minutes of February 17, 1982, as corrected.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioners none
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARINGS:
ZONE CHANGE 960, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1189, VARIANCE 1676 - JAMES
A. DAUM:
A request to rezone property from RM-7 to C-2 and to allow the use of
the property for a light manufacturing use with a variance to allow
fewer parking spaces than required by City Code. (Note: Negative
Declaration 753 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact
Report.)
Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that
this item has been before the Commission several times and he would
just touch upon the highlights of the application. He reminded the
Commission that this property contains approximately .17 acres of land
and is located on the west side of Batavia Street, approximately 155±
feet north of the centerline of Chapman Avenue. The applicant originally
processed this proposal as a two car garage through the Building Division,
but was held back when it was determined that he desired industrial
electrical service. It was then found that a light manufacturing use
was proposed. The applicant was advised that various applications and
public hearings were required.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Two
Mr. Murphy explained that on March 16, 1981 the Planning Commission
reviewed a request for approval by this petitioner for a change of
zoning from RM-7 to C-2, a Conditional Use Permit to al 1 ow a machi ne
shop in the C-2 zone and a Variance to allow fewer parking spaces
than required by code. The Commission recommended denial of Zone
Change 940, Conditional Use Permit 1093, Variance 1624, Negative
Declaration 674.
Mr. Murphy went on to tell the Commission that on April 21, 1981 the
City Council, on appeal by the applicant, held a public hearing on
this application. The Council denied Appeal No. 283 and upheld the
Planning Commission's action denying the zone change, CUP and variance
requested .
Mr. Plurphy pointed out that on January 12, 1982 the City Counci 1 re-
viewed General Plan Amendment 3-81 "D" giving approval for the redesigna-
tion of property from low density residential to local commercial to
include only the Daum property at 122 North Batavia. The Council also
di rected that any future zoning requests on th i s property would include
an intent on the part of Counci 1 to consi der buffering on the north
and west sides of the property; to limit the hours of operation; and
to periodically review the application; and instructed Mr. Daum to
proceed with due diligence with Zone Change Request and Condi tional
Use Permit.
The applicant is now requesting approval of a change of zoning from
RM-7 to C-2, a Conditional Use Permit to allow light manufacturing
(i,e. machine shop) in the C-2 zone and a Variance to allow fewer
parking spaces than required by code.
Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes to use an 800 square
foot structure between the existing residential units for light manu-
facturing and a two car garage. An additional one car garage and a
carport presently exist on the site. The applicant's plans propose
8 total parking spaces: 1 carport space and 1 covered garage space on
the west side of the rear residential unit; 2 open spaces along the
north side of the front residential unit; 2 open spaces along the
southeast corner of the property; and 2 covered spaces within the 800
square foot light manufacturing and covered garage area. However,
only 3 proposed parking spaces conform to code requirements.
The Traffic Engineer has stated that the following parking spaces
are unacceptable:
A) The two spaces on the north side of the front residential
unit intrude into the required driveway.
B) The two tandem spaces depicted along the southeastern corner
of the site are not long enough to permit maneuvering to
park and both necessi tate backing on to an arterial street:
Batavia Street. However, one compact space could be located
at the site, retaining the back on condition.
C) The two covered spaces: designated in the light manufacturing
area can only accommodate one 10 x 20 stall using the 12 foot
wide garage door as access.
In summary, only four of the proposed spaces are adequate; the one open
space on the southeast corner, one covered space in the light manu-
facturing area and two spaces near the rear residence; that is, one
covered and one open space. Six spaces are required by code: 3
residential spaces (at 1.5 per one bedroom unit with 1 covered per
dwelling) and 3 commercial spaces (1 per 200 square feet for the 600
square foot commercial space left in the manufacturing area.) The
applicant requests a variance to deviate from the 6 spaces required
by Code .
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Three
The Staff has reviewed the proposal and listed a number of reservations
regarding it. Concerns included:
1) Safety hazards for potential employees or delivery vehicles
when backing onto heavily traveled Batavia Street.
2) The hours of operation of the light manufacturing use and
the enforcement thereof.
3) The number of employees on the property and the ability to
restrict the number.
4) Enforcement, administration and periodic review problems
and costs to the City of Orange .
5) Outdoor storage of manufacturing materials .
6) Noise impacts on neighboring properties.
7) The size of vehicle used to deliver stock and, therefore,
the size of material stock required by the use.
Mr. Murphy explained that on February 10, 1982, for approximately
1 2 hours, the Staff met with the applicant and two owners of adjacent
property to observe the noise impacts and television interference
created by the operating equipment. No television interference was
observed and noise from operating equipment made no perceivable in-
crease in existing traffic noise levels at property boundaries.
The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings
of the Environmental Review Board to file "Mitigated" Negative
Declatation 753 only if adequate mitigating measures restricting the
use of the machine shop are adopted with an approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Variance.
Due to the size, location and orientation of the property and serious
concerns about the compatibility of possible permitted future uses of
the property under the C-2 designation (i,e. auto sales, garages and
general automobile repair, sheet metal shop, etc.) with surrounding
residential uses the Staff must recommend denial of Zone Change 960.
However, the Staff feels that due to the site's proximity to existing
commercial zoning and uses and since a general plan amendment to com-
mercial has been approved, a rezoning to a less intensive commercial
zone (i.e. C-1, C-P, 0-P) would be appropriate at this location. Any
of these possible less intensive commercial zones would create a buffer
between the C-2 properties to the south along Chapman and neighboring
residential properties. These alternative zones would allow uses that
are more compatible with the size, location and orientation of the
subject property. However, these zones will not permit light manu-
facturing as requested by this applicant.
It is the Staff's position that the machine shop equipment proposed is
typically permitted only in the industrial zone and careless operation
of the equipment by the applicant or his successor could produce noise
levels incompatible with adjacent residential uses. In the C-2 zones,
light manufacturing using electrical power is allowed, subject to a
Conditional Use Permit. Even though the proposed use has been deter-
mined by the City Attorney to be consistent with this provision of
the Ordinance as light manufacturing, the major consideration in this
case is the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding properties.
To assure compatible interface between surrounding residences and the
proposed use, a number of conditions would have to be established on:
,~
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Four
A) Hours of operation
B) Number of employees
C) Delivery and storage of materials
D) Fu~~~re expansions of equi~~r:=.=;~t a~~d s~:ope of
operation.
The Staff feels that the costs and time in the enforcement and admin-
istration of these conditions on the operation will be too high to
justify approval. Further factors addressed in the zone change
recommendation indicate the proposed use is inappropriate. The
intensity of the use made of the property permits only 4 possible
parking spaces versus 6 spaces required by City Code. It is the
Staff's opinion that the applicant has presented no evidence of
special circumstances to justify his request for a variance.
However, should the Planning Commission feel a sufficient number of
restrictions could be imposed on the use to permit the approval of
the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance, Mr. Murphy pointed out the
26 conditions which are recommended, reading the special conditions
as follows:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Monday thru Fri day.
a) To coincide with normal City working hours to preclude
overtime for policing the operation.
b) Permit machinery operation during higher traffic and
noise periods.
Commissioner Coontz considered this first condition to be bureaucratic
constipation when a request was made far operating hours of 8:00 A.M.
to 5:00 P.M, and Staff is insisting on 8:30 A.Pi, to 4:30 P.M. She felt
that someone should have been more sensitive to the applicant's needs.
2. That the operation shall be limited to light and small precision
and prototype manufacturing operation with no production or mass
produced work.
3. The equipment used in the operation be limited to those items
described in the Staff Report.
4. That the power equipment be used solely by an individual
proprietor/operator who:
a) Resides on the property.
b) Hires no employees or otherwise rents or permits the
operation of the equipment by non-resident personnel to;
1. Cause the available parking to serve the residential
use and equipment operator use simultaneously,
2. Maintain the present frequency of backing into the
arterial street.
5. That all materials used in the operation be picked up and delivered
by the operator.
6. That no materials used in the oepration be stored outside.
7. That no retail sales be conducted from the property to preclude
the necessity for additional customer parking on the property.
~~
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Five
8. That no advertising or signing be permitted to identify the
use on the site, in order not to direct additional customers
to the property.
9. That the garage door and windows be closed during periods of
equipment oepration, not only to lower noise generated but
to reduce additional visitors to the property.
10. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed annually by the
Planning Commission.
11. That the plot plan be revised to reflect one 8 x 16 parking
stall only at the southeast corner of the property and deletion
of the two open spaces shown on the northeast side of the property.
Mr. h1urphy also pointed .out one standard condition which Staff felt
was very important and should be specifically pointed out:
24. That a 6-foot obscuring masonry wall as measured from the high grade
side of the property line, be constructed along the north and west
property lines, said wall to be reduced to 42 inches within any
~ required setback areas.
Commissioner Coontz pointed out that Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission approve a C-1 zone change, but in the last line
of the Staff Report paragraph concerning zone change, it is stated
that: "...these zones will not permit light manufacturing as requested
by this applicant." She asked if the Staff meant that the Planning
Commi ssion should approve a zone change other than C-2, but that the
other recommended zones would not permit this Conditional Use Permit
application. Mr. Murphy responded that the Staff is not recommending
any particular commercial zoning, other than to indicate that they
have a problem with the C-2 zoning. Staff has indicated that there are
alternatives available to the Commission as far as zoning the property
commercial, since the General Plan Amendment has been approved by the
City Council , which seems to indicate that there i s an interest by th e
Council to change the use on the property. Commissioner Coontz asked
i f i t were not true that these other zones would not hol d the appl i cati on
and was told that this was correct.
Commissioner Piaster asked if the Conditional Use Permit will run with
the property, not with the current operator. Mr. P1inshew answered this
question in the affirmative. Commissioner Master wondered, in that
case, how the conditions placed upon the property could ever be
controlled. Mr. Murphy explained that the only way to monitor this
properly would be by an annual review by the Staff, who would then re-
port back to the Commission and the Council . There would be no way to
review the property on a daily basis, it would have to be a matter of
spot checking and possibly responses from surrounding residents, land
owners, etc. Commissioner Master then asked if these are the mitigating
measures which are particularly being referred to with regard to the
Negative Declaration. Mr. Murphy replied that they could be. It is
up to the Commission to determine whether there are additional mitiga-
tion measures required or if there are too many, as suggested by the
Staff.
Chairman Mickelson asked if there is away that we could require that
something be recorded that a limited Conditional Use Permit has been
granted on this property, assuming that it is granted. He was con-
cerned that some day, if this is approved, Mr. Daum will want to move
out and would sell this piece of property. The new owner might wish
to do something other than what is already being done on the property.
Mr. Minshew pointed out that on at least two separate occasions the
City Council has recorded resolutions that had to do with a specific
use on a piece of property and that the land would be subject to re-
zoning in the event the Council would want to do so.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Si x
Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing.
Dave Daum, 122 N. Batavia, Orange, the applicant, addressed the
Commission i n favor of thi s appl i cati on. He sai d that he has reviewed
the Staff Report and some of the statement in it have upset him. He
pointed out that he is requesti ng a change from RM-7 to C-2, which
would allow him to use the property in a proper and practical way. He
is trying to establish a business to support himself and his family.
This business consists of precision welding,close tolerance machine
work on relatively small products. In the course of operation, he
intends to provide service to such customers as: mechanical engineering
firms which have a need for engineering prototypes; large manufacturing
companies. seeking a quality job shop to which they can send demanding
parts; and products and parts of his own choice.
Mr. Daum went on to explain that the nature of his work does not even
remotely involve noise, smoke, fire or fumes and in no way effects the
s urroundi ng residential nei ghborhood. He pointed out that the widening
of Batavia had taken valuable footage off of his property and this
fact .should be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission when
making their decision. , He explained that they currently have four
parking spaces and their neighbor, Fred Barrera, has offered them three
additional spaces at 100 N. Batavia, for a total of 7 parking spaces.
He also pointed out that catty corner from him is a bicycle shop which
depends solely on Mr. Barrera's land for its parking spaces.
Mr. Daum then addressed the Staff Report, particularly page 4, wherein
the Staff voices its concerns and reservations about the proposed
application. Addressing #1, which states "Safety hazards for potential
employees or delivery vehicles when backing onto heavily traveled
Batavia Street.", he said that all deliveries would be arranged and
scheduled so they do not conflict with heavy traffic flow. Approximately
95% of the materials he uses will be picked up and delivered by him
personally in his truck. The remaining 5% will be delivered by UPS and
he pointed out that UPS drivers are well experienced in driving in heavy
traffic. Addressing #2, he stated that his proposed working hours will
be 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday thru Fri day. It has been well establ fished
that his shop will have no adverse effects on the residential area and,
therefore, he should be allowed the same business hours as any other
business in Orange. Speaking to #3, he said that it is his intention
to operate this business alone. However, if he should have a son, he
would like to reserve the opportunity to employ his son or an apprentice
if needed. He asked the Commission what value does any talent or exper-
ience have i f i t can't be shared and given to others? He felt that he
has learned what he knows from others, as a son, as a student and as an
employee. He thought that this restriction could rob the education and
productivity from someone who needs it. He spoke to Reservation #4,
saying that he believes that th is should be worked out by the Planni ng
Department. He had no comment on this. Regarding #5, he explained
that there wi 11 be no storage outside the shop. With regard to #6
which speaks to noise impacts on neighboring properties, he pointed out
paragraph #15 of the Staff Report, which indicates that they found no
increase in noise or TV interference from his business. Addressing #7,
he pointed out that the size of the property and the additional parking
guaranteed by Mr. Barrera wi 11 el iminate delivery problems. As to the
size of materials delivered, they will be no larger than what will fit
inside of the shop.
Mr. Daum then addressed some of the special conditions listed in the
Staff P.eport. H e felt that most of the items were fair and he could
live with th em. However, addressing Condition #1, he pointed out that
he needed to set his hours to coincide with the hours of his customers.
Regarding Condition #4a, if he were to want to move to another residence
in the future he did not feel it would be appropriate to close his
busi Hess because he does not 1 five at that location. Responding to
Condition #8, he needs a sign to show to his customers that his
business is more than a fly-by-night operation or hobby shop.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Seven
Re Condition #9, he would like to enjoy the opportunity to operate
his business with the doors and windows open, giving his business a
better atmosphere in which to operate. He feels that it has been
established that operati ng with the doors and windows open wi 11 not
adversely affect the nei ghbors .
Chairman Mickelson asked for Mr. Daum's thoughts regarding Condition
#24, dealing with a 6 ft. wall along the north and west side of the
property and Mr. Daum replied that it has been discussed and they
would be happy to install a wall along that perimeter. However, he
feels that it would be a waste of their time and money.
Commissioner Hart spoke with regard to Mr. Barrera's offer of parking
on his property, explaining that the Commission normally requires that
this type of parking must have a legal document filed in this respect.
Mr. Daum agreed to this.
Rhonda Daum, 122 N. Batavia, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor
of this application, stati ng that she is the wife of the applicant.
She explained that three city Staff members, plus two neighbors,
visited their shop and listened to every one of their machines. There
was a test taken i n al l areas nearest the neighboring residences from
their property. She reminded the Commissioners that this noise would
still have to travel through their house, the little house in back and/or
the yard to the neighboring properties. From the back portions of their
property lines, with the loudest machines running, there was no per-
ceivable noise increase. In fact, they had to signal when to take the
tests. All of th ese tests were made with the doors and windows open.
Speaking to Condition #9', that thei r garage doors and windows be closed
during periods of equipment operation, she pointed out that she had asked
Mr. Lanz why this must be done and she was told that people don't hear
what they don't see. She explained that their property faces commercial
property so that residents would not see their operation.
With regard to advertising, she pointed out that any sign they would
have would be small and in good taste and not in view of the neighbors.
They look at many signs from their windows in their house and they get
a lot of noise from Chapman Avenue.
Regarding the zone change, the Staff recommended a change to C-1, C-P
or 0-P. She explained that their property is a buffer between the
neighbors and Chapman Avenue. She did not feel a wall would be necessary.
She also explained that when they plan to have a family it would not be
in that house. They do not want to be restricted in this manner. Re-
garding zoning to C-2 in this area, she felt this would make the General
Plan more i n conformance with what i s already there.
Commissioner Master asked what the reason was for the tests that were
run. Mr. Murphy answered that there had been complaints from the
nei ghbors about noise from this area . Tests were made with the machines
performing their function.
h1rs. Daum spoke with regard to the
i n and making more noise than what
explained that her husband is very
machines with very little noise.
s tatement about someone else coming
is being done at this time. She
qualified and knows how to run the
Brant Berry, 1103 Van Bibber, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor
of this application. He explained that Mr. Daum lived down the street
from him and they grew up together. He also owns a machine shop. He
asked if any of the Commissioners had been in a machine shop and the
Commissioners answered in the affirmative. He explained that he has
a much larger shop than Mr. Daum and he does not feel there is a noise
1 evel such as is being suggested. He felt that there is a big demand
for this type of business and it is needed. H e also explained that it
had been very difficult to find work when he got out of school and he
was fortunate to have his own business. He knew this was also true of
Mr. Daum.
Planning Comr~i ss i on Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Eight
There were nine peopl e i n attendance at this public heari ng, v~ho
were in favor of this application.
Al Mikolajczyk, 702 Elizabeth, Orange, addressed the Commission in
favor of this application, stati ng that i t was Mr. Daum's i ntention
to operate just a small business with himsel f as the sole employee.
He felt that this business would not be a detriment to the neighborhood
as it will be kept on a small level . It is not meant to be a large
business.
There were eight people in attendance at this public hearing, who
were in opposition to this application.
Refugio Sanchez, 131 N. Citrus, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this application, stating that he lives in back of the
property which faces Citrus. They would like to see a solution to
thi s problem. He i s not angry, but they do not see a machi ne shop
i n their area as having a place i n the neighborhood. He feels a
buffer zone should be used to diminish noise, etc. He did not think
that everything Mr. Daum has done with regard to his business as been
1 egal and withi n the law. Thi s situation has caused many of the
neighbors pain and anguish and many sleepless nights. He pointed out
that they are tax payers just as the Daums are. He explained that
he has lived in his home for 19 years and feels he has some rights.
He does not want to see their neighborhood destroyed. He thanked
the Staff and the Commission for their support and elightenment.
Commissioner Master asked Mr. Sanchez about the noise tests which were
made and ~1r. Sanchez replied that during the summer, he heard one of
the saws at about 7:00 in the evening. He explained how the unit in
back of their residence acts as a tunnel and any noise coming from
that area is brought across to him, especially in the evening.
Chairman Mickelson asked exactly where Mr. Sanchez lives in relation
to the Daum property and he explained that his is the second house
from the corner on Citrus.
Betty N uessly, owner of property at 803-815 W. Mapl e, Orange, the
cross street being Batavia, addressed the Commission in opposition
to this application. She stated that she had not been notified of
this meeting and, therefore, she was not prepared. She first ex-
plained that she admires ambition in the young. However, she has tried
to teach her own children to obey laws and rules and she feels that
those business people who can provide a product at a cheaper price be-
cause they are operating in a place that is not legal are not exactly
abiding by the law. She pointed out the statement made by Mr. Daum
that in 1979 he opened his business without complyng_ with the rules
of the city. Zoning is important and the rules must be complied with.
Mrs. Wuessly explained that she lives on Yorba, which is a heavily
traveled street. There are lovely homes there and they still put up
with noise from the traffic. She also pointed out the condominiums
which are being built in the ~dest Chapman area, trying to still maintain
a nice residential area, even though traffic is heavy there. She did
not like to see a precedent established. Mr. Daum has arbitrarily de-
cided,to open this business against all rules and this should be stopped.
This city has many areas where this kind of business would be welcome
and the business does not need to be in that residential area. The
use is totally out of line with the area.
Commissioner Vasquez expressed concern over the statement made by
Mr. Sanchez with regard to a wrong number on his house number. He
suggested that Mr. Sanchez go about having the number of his residence
corrected.
Planning Commission h1inutes
March 1, 1982
Page Nine
Ray Mitchell, 374 N. Maplewood, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this application. He explained that he owns the
residences at 130-132 N. Batavia, next door to the proposed machine
shop. He said that the whole argument here is that these young people
should have a machine shop in order to earn a living, but not in a
residential area. He pointed out that the residents of that area abide
by the zoning laws and they have the right to expect this to remain a
residential area. They have children who are in the business world and
have their problems, but they are operating within the law. This ap-
plication was originally processed as a two-car garage and was it was
brought to the Building Division's attention that they were asking for
commercial wiring. When they had the walkthrough, he asked if he could
take pictures and was given permission to do so. He then presented
these pictures as exhibits. He explained that Exhibit A is a picture
of the electrical system now in service for the machine shop. He
talked to the Building Division and wondered if this system is legal.
He has been told that it is. If they get C-2 zoning they will
probably not have to change anything. This machine shop has been in
operation since last April, out of zoning and illegally.
Mr. Mitchell explained that they have gone through this before with the
Commission and City Council. The City Attorney and Planning Commission
made a decision that because of the lot's insignificant size and be-
cause of this area, it could be an amendment to the General Plan, to
be zoned local commercial. The Commission recommended that the Council
deny recommendation of land use, but stated that 122 N. Batavia could
be considered for rezoning to commercial without a General Plan Amend-
ment, due to its relative insignificant size and close proximity to
existing commercial uses. He pointed out that the Council also directed
that any future zoning requests on this property would include a con-
sideration of buffering on the north and west side of the property, to
limit the hours of operation, and to periodically review the application
and instructed Mr. Daum to proceed with due diligence with a zone change
request and conditional use permit. Mr. Mitchell then asked the Commission
if this is a partial promise to the residents of that area from the
Council of zone protection for north and west properties.
Commissioner Coontz felt that there is a question as to what buffering
is. She did not think that the intention here was that it be an
additional zone, but buffering was obviously, in this case, through the
use of a wall or landscaping.
Mr. Mitchell then pointed out in GPA LUE 3-81, Item D zoning exhibit,
it shows Chapman and Batavia and shows Mr. Barrera's property as C-2
zoning, the adjoining property as C-2 and h1r. Daum's property as RMM-7.
He felt that this appears to be buffering between C-2 and RD-6. He
pointed out that this has occurred in other areas along Chapman. He
thought that this was done this way, perhaps to protect the residential
areas. Mr. Mitchell said that the residents do not feel that they have
any promise of buffering other than a wall and he believe that if there
is a zone change they get the wall based on a city law. He asked if
this was so and Chairman Mickelson replied that technically this is
true. Mr. Murphy pointed out that this would not just be a condition,
it would be a standard. The Commission could deviate from this, but
it will be adhered to unless there is direct action by the Commission.
Mr. Mitchell asked that the wall be put in in order to protect the
neighbors.
He then spoke to the limited parking., stating that he found a whole
parking area south of the proposed machine shop and dwelling loaded
with cars clear out onto the driveway and he presented a photograph
of this. He said that he considers this a dangerous situation.
Pedestrians must walk in the right turn lane to get by those cars.
He also has observed other parking violations.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Ten
Mr. Mitchell then explained about the pictures he took inside of
the machine shop, pointing out that t~1r. Daum has said that he is going
to run this shop in a safe and sane manner. He explained that he has
some knowledge of the use of various gases, since he worked for Union
Oil Research in Brea and learned about gas cylinders and how they are
handled; this is not just explosive gases, but any gases that are found
in cylinders that are under pressure. He said that he had talked to
Bill Simpkins of the Orange Fire Department, who stated that all cylinders
in this machine shop must be secured. He then presented pictures of
illegal storage of cylinders. These pictures showed acetylene and
oxygen cylinders unsecured. He felt that this is an unsafe operation.
Regarding operating hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., wherein Mrs. Coontz
had explained why she had made her objections. He explained that he
has come from St. Joseph Hospital on various occasions at different
hours and has seen lights in the shop at 9:00 p.m, and all hours on
Saturday and Sunday. He did not see how the city could enforce the
rules in this regard. He pointed out that it is too easy, when you
reside where you also have your place of business, to go out into the
shop and work at any hour of the day or night.
He then pointed out that there have been some changes in how you can
rent income property and now you cannot exclude children. They feel
that Batavia is an unsafe place for children to be raised. He does
not see how they will keep children from wandering into the shop unless
the garage door is closed. He felt that if arc welding is going on
it must be screened at all times. Without screens, it could be dangerous
to the neighborhood.
Mr. Mitchell then addressed the tests that were taken on the premises.
He explained that this was just a test and tests have varying boundaries.
This particular test showed levels which were acceptable. However,
what if they were to change the metal on which they were working?
Other metals could be much more noisy. .Machines used in this shop are
mainly saw, lathe, etc. They are capable of much higher levels of
noise. He pointed out that they observed earmuffs on one of the benches
which gave them the impression that there is noise there at times.
He pointed out that this will be a welding shop, an auto shop and a
machine shop. There is to be no light manufacturing. He could not
see how the city can enforce the rule of no additional employees. And
as far as losing part of the front of their property, he has also lost
the front of his property, but is still residing in his house.
He spoke to the statement of destroying the use and value of their
property and granted that every place along Batavia has paid the cost
of noise. However, people still need to live along that street because
of the housing shortage. The house is still livable.
In closing, Mr. Mitchell asked how much Mr. Barrera can give away and
still operate his service station. They are asking the City Attorney/
Planning Commission to reconsider the General Plan from RP1-7 to local
commercial to be limited to C-1 and not C-2 to truly buffer Chapman
Avenue C-2 zone from the rest of Batavia. They all have the right
to make a profit on their property they have all invested in, but he
did not feel that C-2 is the appropriate zone in this regard.
Chairman Mickel son asked Mr. Mitchell when Mr. Daum went through the
neighborhood and asked for people to support the General Plan Amendment
did he support it. Mr. Mitchell replied that he did not.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1 , 1982
Page Eleven
Tom Wells, 1052 Arbor Way, Orange, addressed the Commission in
opposition to this application, stating that he did not think there
is an investor in the community who would not like to pull off the
same kind of zoning the Daums are trying for. He felt that this is
just the beginning of many such requests that they will be seeing on
the west end of Chapman, especially in the west Orange area, with the
new development that is going on. The people on the west end of
Orange are very concerned about these types of businesses coming into
residential. areas and they will fight to keep the zoning compatible
with their neighborhoods and enhancing the west end of Orange. This
is only the second one to come to the Commission and Council asking
for other than stated requirements for parking and for the property.
He stressed the importance of setting the direction in which the city
moves in the development of west Chapman.
Dave Daum then addressed the Commission in rebuttal, addressing the
various areas which were covered by those in opposition. Regarding
illegally operating his business - he did not open in 1979. Only the
intention was there. Mr. Sanchez spoke of hearing him last summer.
However, his equipment was not hooked up at that time. He pointed
out that the welding bottles are empty. There is no way they can go
off. He does not know how he can be criticized for running his
business improperly when he has not been running it yet. He felt that
the neighbors are more concerned about setting precedent than anything
else. This seems to be the major objection. All of the residents on
the north side of Batavia were invited to inspect the premises, but
the people speaking here tonight were not there. (Several of the
people in the audience said that they had not been invited.)
Mrs. Daum then addressed the Commission again, stating that she would
love to live in anyone's home who is here tonight. Their home faces
commercial totally and they do not have a very good environment. The
people on Citrus do not have these problems, Their house is not really
residential at all.
There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Mickelson reviewed what is to be decided by the Commission,
pointing out particularly the Staff's recommendation that the Negative
Declaration be adopted with mitigating measures. There was discussion
in this regard and Mr. Murphy explained that there could be mitigating
measures adopted for the Negative Declaration when taking action on the
other items.
Commissioner Master pointed out that it would depend on the zoning
decided upon as to what mitigating measures would be placed upon the
Negative Declaration.
Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson, to
accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative
Declaration 753, with the understanding that if the application is
approved as presented that they will include mitigating measures.
Commissioner Coontz explained that the Staff has made this conditional.
Therefore, if this is approved, mitigating measures are in order.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioner Master
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1 , 1982
Page Twelve
Commissioner Master made known some concerns he had in this matter. He
explained that he admired the initiative and ambition of Mr. Daum
and knew that people like this often start with a small garage
operation and go on from there. However, if the Commission tries
to mitigate a machine shop operation, with the Conditional Use Permit
running with the property, not with the applicant, how do we control
it during its use and thereafter? It becomes an open C-2, particularly
with the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. He did not think
this operation is appropriate to C-2 zoning. He felt that the condi-
tions along that street should remain the same as long as people
are willing to live there. He did not think this should be considered
for C-2. He did not deny the applicant the right to run a profitable
business but not necessarily at his residence.
Commissioner Coontz questioned the special designation on the Conditional
Use Permit which Chairman Mickelson had asked about. Chairman Mickelson
asked if it was possible to record something on the deed so that if
Mr. Daum sold the property someone else would be on notice that he
could not change the use. to something else. The answer was that this
could be done. Commissioner Coontz explained that she has supported
any improvement on the west end of Chapman fora number of years.
However, she pointed out the unbelievable noise situation at the
corner of Chapman and Batavia, saying that we all know there is
residential use in that area, but how long will this be maintained.
It is almost impossible to hear yourself in that area because of the
noise. She could not see 0-P, as noise and traffic are prime factors.
She thought that a compromise must be made.
Commissioner Master pointed out that 0-P does not necessarily mean a
doctor's office. There are many other uses which could come in under
that zoning. Commissioner Coontz again pointed out the terrific noise
level there and the fact that few businesses could operate under such
a situation.
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
deny Zone Change 960 for the reasons outlined in the Staff Report,
as well as his concerns regarding noise levels and regulation and
administrative problems which are there now and will be in the future.
Parking is also inappropriate.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Mas~~ter, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioner Coontz
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to
recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 1189 and Variance 1676 for
the reasons outlined by Staff and also for. the reasons as stated in
his previous motion.
AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Master, Vasquez
NOES: Commissioner Coontz
ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Coontz commented that the people who spoke on both sides
regarding this application had very good presentations.
Commissioner Master pointed out that it was his understanding that
there is now a truck route committee which was just recently organized
to study this area. He felt that when this committee has some results
on their study, the Commission should look again at streets like Batavia
and start addressing as a routine thing what seems to be an appropriate
land plan use in these areas.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1982
Page Thirteen
r
l
Commissioner Coontz said that we allow truckers into the city of
Orange, thrown out of other cities. The location of the trucking
terminals has something to do with the designation of the streets.
It is not only the street designation, but also the fact that we
have accepted these businesses, who are not bringing much revenue
into the city of Orange.
Lois Barke spoke of the truck route situation, explaining that
north Batavia has not been designated as a truck route. With the
57 Freeway, she assumes that the truck traffic would be less on
Batavia and Main Street. She pointed out that the truck terminals
have been discussed previously and are a detriment in many ways
because they do not give the city much revenue. She realizes that
they are located on Batavia, but they can come from the off-ramp
at Katella. She did not think, at this point, that Batavia was
much different than Collins. Right at this time, the truckers
have the right to use any street in the City of Orange.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m., to be reconvened to a
regular meeting on Monday, March 15, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., at the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California.
.7
~~
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 1, 1982.
The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez
ABSENT: Commissioners none
Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that this
meeting adjourn at 9:30 p.m, on Monday, March 1, 1982 to reconvene at
7:30 p.m. Monday, March 15, 1982 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 1, 1982.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 1982 at 2:00 p.m.
t_ .~
Jere .Murphy, City Planner and
Sec`r~_ ary to the P1 anni ng Commission
of the City of Orange.
^~.
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
Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting
of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on
March 1, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time
and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto;
that on March 2, 1982, 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 March 1, 1982 was held.
~~
J~r`e P. Murphy, Secretary
^~