Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/6/1984 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' __ City of Orange Orange, California February 6, 1984 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The. regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:32 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; and Maryann Brown, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes of January 16, 1984, as transmitted. Commissioner Vasquez stated he would like the minutes corrected to read as follows:. "On page 2 of the January 16, 1984. minutes, where reference is made to the route alignment study, the date of June, 198.4 should be corrected to read, 'June, 1985' in the appropriate locations in the minutes." Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek to approve the minutes of January 16, 1984, as amended. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez. NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-83, ITEM "A" AND ZONE CHANGE 1008 - CITY OF ORANGE AND CONROCK: The project area consists of two (2) parcels totalling 110 acres. Parcel "A" consists of 10 acres bounded by Walnut Avenue on the north, and Santiago Creek on the east. Proposed is a redesignation of the Land Use Element from Low Density Residential (2-6 du/ac) to Medium Density .. Planning Commission ..Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Two Residential (6-15 du/ac), and a zone change from:R-1-6 to R-M-7. Parcel "B" consists of approximately 100 -acres generally bounded. by Collins-on the north, Santiago Creek on the west, Spring on the south,. and Prospect on: the east. Proposed is a redesgnation of the Land Use Element and Open .Space/Conservation Element from Park to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and~.a zone change from S-G (Sand and Gravel) to R-1-6, R-M-7, and MH (Mobile Home). NOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 861 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant as well as two residents of the area had requested a continuance for two weeks, in order for the applicant to complete additional negotiations with the Orange County Water District with regard to possible acquisition by the Water District of certain Conrock proFerties. The residents of the area have reuested the two-week: continuance in order to allow further review of the proposal by the Conrock Company. Chairman Hart asked if anyone in the audience had objections or questions regarding the request for continuance. Hearing an affirmative response, he opened the public hearing. Mr. Henry Russ, 464 N. Fern, Orange,- questioned the Commissioners on the status of the park promised the residents of the area, Mr. Russ stated the area dnder discussion was partly parkland, according to City figures,. and through the years, the residents have read on several occasions of plans for a park in that general vicinity. He questioned whether this park plan had been dropped and would park discussion be included in this issue. Chairman Hart indicated the issue at hand was whether to continue the hearing for two weeks on the basis of several requests which had been received. Mr. Russ indicated he would like the matter to be heard tonight. Mr. Charlie Campbell, 3401 E. Bond,. Orange, stated. the number of concerned .citizens present believe that. the area under discussion was going to-become a park. He stated that a representative from Conrock was at his home five years ago, and the whole sand and gravel. area was going. to be turned into a park; rather than continue the hearing and have everyone return in two weeks., he would like to hear tonight what is being. proposed.. He stated the flyers he received do not have enough information. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984- Page.Three Marlene Smith, 2837 E. Oakmont, Orange, stated-:ahe was in favor of postponing the hearing for two weeks because the people in her area were completely unaware of this addition going in; and, two, is it possible to get a copy of the Impact Report. She also stated that s.he, like the gentleman who. spoke previously, had 'been told a park would be put in the area. She. stated that;.over twenty years a park was supposed to be in the area and every time we turn around,. there are houses going up in the area. Chairman Hart indicated it was possible to get a copy of the Impact Report. Mr. John Martinez, 3345 E-. Vine ..Avenue, Orange, stated that about 17 years ago, we moved into-this area bein~. discussed and, in that time, in the same location, we ve had the noisy Conrock there; we've had trucks; we've had pollution; we've had death and damage on the street, on those streets; and all this time and in the last five years it was promised that that land would. resort to a park area which I had previously heard when I had talked to Conrock when they wanted to dig some holes iri there about seven or eight years ago. At that time, he stated, the County had come to ....I believe the statement was, "As these lands become played out or not used any longer, they would resort to the County or public. agency, if you will, and become lakes and parks.....", and things of this nature. Several years ago, Mr. Martinez stated' he was informed that this was finally coming to pass and thought that that :was a good thing. He further commented that now the City, for some unknown reason, has decided to turn around on this and go into residential, and so on. He stated he did not believe this was fair to the citizens of the area, an:d if the City does not-:know about these other situations, it certainly should have made itself aware of this... Other citizens in this room have apparently contacted Conrock people, and he said he had gone to County meetings .where these situations of land resorting to County parkland was spoken of. Chairman Hart stated that po sibly the Conrock representative could answer the questions about the park,. but he repeated that. this portion of the hearing was to determine whether the hearing be held now or postponed for two weeks which had been requested both by Conrock and several other interested residents of the area_who want to study the proposals further, He then invited the Conrock representative to address the Commission. 0 Planning Commission. Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Four Gene Block, Vice-President of Conrock addressed the Commission. He referred to the letter before ahe Commission requesting a continuance, and stated that, in ad'di`tion, there are several other requests from residents of the area. He stated he proposed a continuance so that.Canrock could meet with residents of the area to explain their proposal and hopefully,. in two weeks, come back to a hearing before the Commission. Mr. Block stated Conrock has no interest in proceeding to push something through that has not been hear.d:. ~He stated he spoke to one Iady this evening, over the telephone, and she had informed him that his call to her over the-weekend was the first she had heard about the hearing. Conrock has been attempting to contact people and would hope to-use the-intervening two weeks to completely explain their proposal in the neighborhood. Commissioner Master asked. Mr. Block if the negotiations currently going on involved the- entire property or portions of it. Mr. Block responded that as of about the middle of October, the Orange Country Water Di rid. acquired' all of the:~~Conrock property except one parcel easterly'of Collins and Pro~~pect. The Orange County .Water District went to court and acquired it by obtaining an order of immediate possession, which he, Mr. Block believed, was the correct term. He further stated that about the year, the water district had also filed a condemnation notice on a portion of this, property; not all of it; just a portion, and. Conrock has been negotiating with them on that issue, and as of tonight, there has been no resolution of that matter. He stated that within the next two weeks Conrock attorneys would be negotiating with water district attorneys, and when the matter is finally presented, it: will be clear as to what the water district interest is in the area. Chaffrman:Hart' asked if he was correct in understanding that. the water district had filed "Eminent Domain". Mr. Block responded affirmatively; .that the portion of property north of Walnut was involved, and indicated the area on the exhibit map displayed. Chairman Hart, referring to the exhibit, stated that the property in question would be the colored portion north of Walnut up to Collins. Mr. Block confirmed this to be correct,. and stated he did not know whether the water district would proceed with the condemnation or drop their request for that. portion, but felt that issue should be clarified before proceeding with the hearing before the Commission. He stated it was not Conrock's desire to put either the Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Five Commission or the City in an untenable position. Chairman Hart stated for clarification purposes that the Orange County Water District had filed an "Eminent Domain" proceedings on the 60 acres which generally lies north of Walnut and the water district has,.. in the past, purchased abandoned gravel pits to make lakes. out of ahem, and although that may be what is .occurring with this. site,. the Commission did not know because such situations were a County func ion. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason that the matter on General Flan Amendment 3-83, Item j'A" and Zone Change.1008, be continued for a period of two weeks as requested. Commissioner Master stated for purposes of clarification that he hoped it was understood by all present that what is occurring at the County level is that there is County interest in the water district, a least, in acquiring the land for perhaps a charging area or storage area and so a hearing this evening on this application might not be appropriate two weeks from now. He stated it would be appropriate that everyone interested would come back in two week's because the plan the Commission would-look at a that hearing might be subs antially different-.that. the one being looked at tonight.. He stated, therefore, that he would vote in favor of the motion. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Ma on, Greek, Vasquez. NOES: .None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart asked what night thaw hearing would be held. Mr. Murphy responded February 22; not Monday, but Wednesday, the 22nd. Chairman Hart stated that due to the Monday holiday, the Commission would. meet on thee. 22nd. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: VARIANCE 173 8- GOEDEN COMPANY: Request to reduce setbacks on 27 lots within the tract southeast of Santiago Boulevard and. Nohl Ranch Road. NOTE: Negative Declaration 886 has been. prepared for this item. Mr. Jack McGee. gave the taff presentation,, and directed the Commission's attention to the series of maps displayed behind Commissioners Master and Masan which reflected the entire tract in that area. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Six ~` r Mr. McGee pointed ma desi t d b out a number of house l r hi h shapes on .the h p gna e y an or~;nge co o w c are t e,hous.es for which-the variance is requested.. He stated there are a total of 28 lots; 27 of thase rega rd rear-lot areas; one is for a front.-yard area, and each of the setbacks requesting variance application is marked in the color brown.. He continued that seven of the parcels which are involved in the variance request are currently developed; the houses are already on the lots. The permits were issued erroneously some time ago; apparently someone overlooked the fact that the structures were two-story rather than one story, and rear yard setbacks are different for different height structures. These units, which had been issued previously, are primarily on the western part of the map. He further stated Ghat 15 of the 28 items are termed administrative adjustments; minor adjustments to .the setbacks. Individually, they could be done by staff without a public hearing, however,, because of the number of items involved in this mat-ter, staff has included them in the full package. He continued that the separation between the units or lots for which the variances are requested and the neighboring lots ranges between 33' and 80', which is quite substantial; however, because of the hillside type of topography--most of these are on upslope side of grade elevations; therefore the lot lines are on the top of the slope. This places the smaller rear yard area on the .lots which need variances. Mr. McGee stated that many of the lots in question approach the 10' rear yard minimum which is required for patio covers and patio structures; we do not allow patios closer than 10 to a rear yard property Line. This applies not only to these, but to many of the other houses within the tract. One of our largest concerns is that there will be very limited, or in some cases, no opportunities for construction of shade structures:, for .example, or patio covers in rear yard areas. Shade structures are a common request to shade rear windows., and many of these rear yards face to the west which, when the sun is setting, can become quite warm. The one front yard setback is 192' from where the house is situated.,.. as oppgsed to 20'. Our recommendation is that the Commission accept the findings of the Environ- mental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 886. On the variance itself, staff is recommending approval of all lots except for the five identified on the map by a red star asterisk and. numbered 16, 97, 99, 111, and 154. None of those lots are currently developed; they are vacant. It is staff's feelings that house Planning, Commission M~.nutes February 6, 198 Page Seven designs currently within the tract could be substituted for these particular-.lots and would meet the standard setbacks with no problems. Staff is recommending two conditions with the approval; one, that the developer of the tract, upon sale of any unit within the tract, provide a unique site. plan for each property owner to show where on he lot structures can be built and where they can't be built to emphasize the fact that some of these do approach very closely the minimum setbacks already. Commissioner Greek expressed confusion regarding the lot numbers., stating that his map showed lot 112 which was not included on staff's list. Mr. McGee stated the developer had circled certain lots on the map he had provided staff artd it was determined that same of those circled did not require variance. Some lots not circled did require a variance, and agreed with Commissioner Greek that lots 112 and 106 were correct.. Mr. McGee also stated he a one or two additional lots which were not identified by yellow circles on the daps presented the Commissioners, but _ which were on staff's list for requiring variances. Commissioner Greek commented that. he found lot 132. Commissioner.Ma.son asked. if any of the houses staff was recommending not be approved already built. Staff responded that that was not the case. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Mr. John Mancini., Director of Fionr Goeden Company, addressed the Commi he had received a copy of the staff and concurred with staff's findings the conditions of approval, and was to questions by the Commission.. Planning ~and,_'Desgn, ssion. He stated .report last week and agreed with -ready to respond Mr. LarryLedoux, 2222 Valley Glen, Orange, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was disturbed by the fact that°someone missed. the fact that the permits were issued in the first place and wanted to know who was responsible. Chairman Hart responded that apparently an error in the plan check area did not coordinate-with the engineering; and staff did approve the structures to go on the lot in error and. they were built. Height of the structure determines setback and this was approved in error. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Eight '' Mr.Ledoux asked if this occurred within our administration. Chairman Hart replied affirmatively. Mr.Ledoux stated that, as a taxpayer, he was concerned about that and- asked if the gentlemen and lady on the Commission were also concerned. Chairman Hart indicated there is always concern about errors made. in government. Mr.Ledoux asked if he could be kindly provided with a letter as to "whatckind ofaction you gentlemen: and miss" may suggest. in the future to prevent this from happening. As a taxpayer who lives in Valley Glen, Mr. Ledoux stated he was concerned about it and was also present to repre- sent the homeowners in Noh1 Ranch. Chairman Hart indicated such action was not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission; that it was within the jurisdiction of the City Council and that Mr. ~.edoux .could avail himself of that option.. Mr. Ledoux-- stated he did not feel he should have to take the matter to the City Council;-what he was asking was that the Commission respond to him by letter. He stated that the Commission had his phone number and his address and that his zip code was 92.667,. and that he would look forward to hearing from them. Mr. tedoux stated his second comment related to the fact .that the Goeden Company had an opportunity. to look at this a long time ago; to recognize the topography and hillside problems. He stated that now they are coming back and saying, ''Ladies and Gentlemen,. we have made a mistake, or somewhere along the line,. something fell through the crack. .Please rescue us again from one of our errors." Mr. ~Ledoux -- stated that. he was a businessman and. did not earn a livin by making a mistake. He questioned how often do "we~ have to sit back and come back and allow people, once they made an error, "we" have to come back and correct it. He said he lived there, he .was not happy with the homes, his view has been obstructed, the elevation of those homes are higher then they were supposed to be, and he hated to dreg up things that took place two and three years ago in long fights with the Council. He stated he was not happy; he represented the Nohl Ranch Homeowners' Association and this was their ~~~~~;~~,~~.~- ~ie~ suggested the Council vote ''NO" on the entire Variance 1738. - Planning Commission Minutes. February 6, 1984 Page Nine Hearing no further comments, Chairman Hart closed the public .hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to accept the findings of the. Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 886. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None MOTLON CARRIED Commissioner Greek stated he was upset by the statements made regarding someone making a mistake.. In his opinion, he felt there was an oversight on the existing buildings, and he could vote in favor of that variance,. He further believed that regarding something that has not been deaeloped, there is no need for a variance because those plans could be redesigned to fit the lots. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez., to approve the variance for lots 46, 47, 64, 66, 68, 80, and 86 and deny the variance for the other lots. Chairman .Hart reaffirmed that these variances cover the homes that were already constructed.; all others were not included. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy stated this would be a final decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days. IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1329- BURNETT-EHLINE/DAUBERMAN- MONTGOMERY: Request to establish a CPA school within an existing industrial park on the south side of Katella Avenue, west of Glassell Street.. NOTE: Negative Declaration. 885 has. been prepared for this projecct. Chairman Hart. opened the public hearing.. Mark Bundy, Director of Marketing, Burnett-EhLin'.e Company, addressed the Commission... He stated that Mr. Dauberman was also pre~e~t; they were in full agreement with the staff report and would be happy to answer questions the Commission might have. _ Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Ten °~ Commissioner Greek asked if it was applicant's ir'r intention to use the rear entrance to `the building on the night .school was. in session since, in the application, it was indicated that parking would be behind the building and parking spaces have been provided. in the back. Mr. Bundy stated that back door of the unit would be used in conjunction with the front entrance to the unit itself. Commissioner Mason -asked if applicant had held the meeting referred to as the February 1 meeting with other owners in the area. Mr. Bundy stated that was a 1985 meeting date should a longer period of time been involved; but that applicant had met with the present people and they are all in agreement with the project. Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Hart declared the hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 885. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek., Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1329 for the reasons so stated by staff, including all conditions, both standard and special, as listed. AYES: Commissioners Hart., Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN:RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1330 - FRANK DIMSTER/SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH: Request to establish an accessory church use within an R-1-6 zone on the south side of Palmyra Avenue,. west of Batavia Street. NOTE: This project is exempt fromEnvironmental Review. .Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Eleven Mr. Jack McGee gave the staff presen ation and referred to the exhibits displayed behind Chairman Hart in the form of a front elevation rendering, a plot plan-,~. and some side elevations. He stated the zoning on the. property is R-1-6, single family residential, and is developed with two single- family: residences on two separate lots. The basic proposal is the attachment of the two houses together to house nine sisters of the Sisters of St. Joseph.i Existing residences are approximately 1000 sq.ft. in size and the ultimate building would have approximately 3600 sq.ft. within it. The original plan submitted to staff included a circular drive at the front of the property, together with a wall on the front of the property which was desired by the applicant. Through a process of meetings with the home- owners and property owners in the area, those two features have been deleted. Mr. McGee continued that. parking is to be provided in the existing Sisters of St. Joseph parking lot which takes access off of Batavia, to the south of the property under discussion; access would be 'directly through the back of the existing faci ity and primary access would be off Batavia; not Pa hyra Avenue. 0 Staff continued that the item is exempt from Environmental Review; staff has filed the proper exemption, and recommends approval of this item. Staff has listed eight conditions and a supplemental report, deleting the circular U-shaped driveway as a condition of approval. In the original conditions, staff had requested a parcel map be filed which would, in effect, consolidate the two parcels and Brace the property line between-the two parcels. .Upon further consideration by staff, it was determined that in the interests of future reversion of these units to single-family residences, should the Sisters of St. Joseph no longer own or operate the residences, staff would make use of a lot-tie agreement. This agreement between-the City and the landowner would tie the two parcels together for as Long as the Sisters would occupy the structure and it would be operating as it presently is. The conditions, as amended are included in the staff report addendum and are seven in number, rather than eight. Commissioner Greek stated r interpreting the plot plan, exhibits and. described for and planned structures. e was having difficulty and Mr. McGee approached the the Commission the existing • Planning Commission Minutes .February 6,-1984 Page Twelve Commissioner Greek asked about garages depicted in the exhibit which wire scheduled to be demolished, property lines, and front yard setbacks. Commissioner Master also questioned front entry. access as it related to parking. Mr. McGee responded to the Commissioners' questions and deferred to applicant the question regarding the front door entry. Elinor Brewer, 3045 E. Craig, Orange, addressed the Commission. Ms. Brewer stated she was acting as representative for the Sisters of St. Joseph before this Commission. Chairman Hart asked if Ms. Brewer could respond to the questions regarding the existing doorways. Ms. Brewer stated with the exception of the main back-door entry and the one front-door entry, all other doors would be closed off. The. Sisters would use the back door as their primary entrance, and the front door would be used for guests. Commissioner Vasquez raised the question of a Master Plan being developed for the facilities. involved in the area of St. Joseph's Hospital. Ms. Brewer stated that the Sisters of St. Joseph Congre- gation had not, but she could not speak for St. Joseph's Hospital. Commissioner Master echoed Commissioner Vasquez's concern that additional facilities involves additional parking facilities, and a Master Plan would deal with these concerns. Ms. Brewer stated that novices would be housed in this facility; they are not allowed. to have cars, and the cars that are utilized from time to time are parked at the Mother house. Commissioner Vasquez again commented on the need for serious consideration of a Master Plan in the area under question since it appears that the area is expanding, parking could become a major problem, and although at the present, both St. Joseph's Hospital an,d the Sisters of St. Joseph co-exit rather well, a:Master Plan study could alleviate possible future problems. Ms. Brewer stated she understood the Commissioners' concern. She further commented that informal meetings with residents in the neighborhood led- to certain Planning Commission Minutes ' February 6, 1984 Page Thirteen revisions on the plan.. She referred to staff report, specifically page 2, #6, which requested a driveway des-ign review. Ms. Brewer stated since the driveway had been deleted, she didn't believe a driveway review would be required. Further, she had agreed with_the neighbors that construction would. be done from the back of .the property as one of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Greek commented on the lack of information provided by the plans submitted: on the project, stating he was unable to correlate the plan with his on-site visit to the.. project area. Ms. Brewer apologized, stating she obviously did not submit enough of the plan information at her disposal. Commissioner Vasquez asked whether the Police Department had looked at the rather unique des-ign of the this specific project, anal whe her-that department had signed off on the project. Staff responded the Police Department was aware of the project, but had not,~formally signed off on the plans, ~ yea:... Mr. Blomquist, 299 S. Citrus, Orange, addressed the Commission. He stated he was one of the neighboring residents who had been- working with Ms. Brewer on the changes she had. made on the project. Mr. Blomquist stated he would like it recorded in the minutes of the meeting that the construction work would be conducted in the back of the facility. He further. stated that since the future facility will house the novices' bedrooms., and since the adjacent neighbors are two elderly women, that the fence which previously had separated the properties had been blown down by the wind and should be reconstructed to avoid future problems should the adjacent property change hands. Mr. Blomquist further stated that in the staff report on page 3, reference was made to the lack of'a master plan of the area. He continued that he and six other original residents of the area would support a master plan study to allow the residents. to know what the future plans for the area are a He also referred to an ivy-covered chain link fence which backs all the properties on Palmyra, stating that the ivy is infested with rats and opossum and the residents would like to see that fence cleaned up. He suggested construction of a block wall which would also eliminate some of the glare from the ' parking lot lights into the residents windows at night. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Fourteen ~ Mr. Blomquist objections to like to work Chairman Hart Sister of St. concluded, stating. the neighbors. hid no the Conditional Use Permit 1330, `but would with the sisters to get the problemsisolved. asked Ms. Brewer, the representative for the Joseph, to address the fence issue. Ms. Brewer commented that the fence in question has been on the property since 1954, that Mr. Blomquis 's concerns were, no doubt, valid, but that she had no authority to address a solution to the problem. Commissioner Vasquez asked Ms. Brewer what her official capacity was in connection with the Sisters'of St. Joseph. Ms. Brewer stated she was a volunteer. who was .volunteering her time to assistr~hem with the house project, and would forward the concerns of the Commission to the appropriate people. Commissioner Vasquez stated he was concerned about the fence issue from the standpoint of community relations, and did not desire to condition approval on construction of a wall which would have capital expense ramifications. Ms. Brewer stated that in informal agreements with Mr. Heimlein, property owner on the west side, something would be done as mutual homeowners. Chairman Hart suggested Ms. Brewer discuss the fence issue with the proper authorities. Commissioner Greek commented that a fence could be reasonably required because of a change. in the land use from. single family to a form of apartment complex. Commissioners discussed the fence setbacks, and Mr-. Blomquist stated that there was a survey conducted on the property prior to the homes being constructed, and after construction another survey was conducted. Between the two surveys, a foot of ground was lost somewhere on several of the houses. He stated the setback was only four feet and this. construction took place in 1950. Mr. Blomquist, in response to Commissioner Vasquez's question, stated that a Santa Ana wind blew 9/10's of the existing fence down. Chairman Hart declared the hearing closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez that the application be approved with-the deletion of condition #5; that any vehicle parking should be entitled to use the street and requiring to park behind the property is an unreason- able condition; and adding condition #9 that a masonry wall be constructed on the west and east property boundaries, 6' high according to City standards. Planning Commission Minutes • February 6, 1984 Page Fifteen Discussion was held on the conditions originally presented by staff related to the addendum of conditions.. Commissioner Greek changed his motion to state: "changing #5, adding #8, and #6 is in error and should be deleted". Commissioner Master seconded the changed motion. Discussion on the mot-ion resulted in some confusion as to the location and need far a fence or block wall on the property in question. Commissioner Greek stated he felt the plans submitted were inadequate to clarify the fence problem, and withdrew his motion, with approval of the second. Moved by Cammis.s;oner Vasquez, seconded by Commis~i-over Greek, to continue the issue of Conditional Use Permit 1330 for two weeks to February 22 in order to clarify the issues that the Commission has expressed, and to allow an opportunity for further elaboration on the maps presented. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Master, Mason, Greek, Vasquez. NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1331., TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-751 - JOE CAMPOBASSO: Request to cxeate 4 lots without direct access to a public street, located north of the intersection of Colorado Lane and Villa Vista Way. NOTE: Negative Declaration 888 has been prepared for this project. Chairman Hart stated !that in view of the fact that ahe Commissioners had received a letter of protest regarding the project, a staff presentation would be in order. Jack McGee stated that prior to giving the staff report, he would like to comment that there has been a great deal of confusion related to this property, both now and-in the past., regarding the exact zoning of the parcels. I,n the week preceding this hearing, staff conducted intensive research into the zoning question, and has located written documentation that a zone change occurred in 19:58, desig- nating the property to a R-1-D zone. Further,s~taff uncovered information as to when the ordinance was adopted creating that zone and describing same. R-1-D was a 20,000 sq.ft. zone and was applied to the property in 1958. He further stated the confusion arose when the City's zoning map series was created in 1966 and adopted by ordinance, this property was designated to R-1-6 zone,. 6,'000 sq.ft. lots, as were the other properties on Colorado Lane. The R-1-6 zoning was placed on the maps in error. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Sixteen Staff, in discussions with the City Attorney's office, determined that although the .original map was.c.reated by virtue of an ordinance, the City does have a srup~rseding ordinance establishing precise zoning on this .property. A copy of the: City's zoning maps was indicated as an exhibit on the wall behind Mr. Minshew, and staff has changed the zoning on the official zoning map, indicating the zone is R-1-20 and it is hoped that this will prevent future confusion. Mr. McGee continued that applicant had adjusted the property lines on the tentative map to indicate°that there are 20,000 sq.ft. in each of the lots; that fad: apparently based on applicant's .engineer's calculations. ':In relation to City zoning standards, the lots do meet City~a tandards as to lot area, lot frontage standards of 125' frontage, and lot depth standards, and is compatible with the City zoning ordinance. Mr. McGee presented the staff report. Applicant has: requested to create 4 lots on what is presently one lot, and a Conditional Use Permit is required as there is not direct acces to a public street from those lots.. There are easements acrass .lots to provide access to the others. Similar zones exist in the surrounding area to the south.and west,. both in the cities of Orange and Villa Park, i.e., 20,000 sq.ft. lots. To the north and east, smaller lot sizes, R-1-6, exist in the City of Orange. Past history concerning Conditional Use Permits and Parcel Maps applied for on this particular property include a 1978 application .for a Conditional Use Permit. that would create three lots on this piece, but at that time, the parcel was larger and ano~.her lot was included on Villa Real Drive. That action was approved on appeal by the City Council to create the lot on Villa Real and two lots on this property. That action was never completed; the map was never recorded, and ultimately, was. voided out. He continued that in 1982 the parcel on. Villa Real was divided off and is no longer a part of this pending consider- ation. The access to the lots proposed is prov~.ded by a 20 ft. wide driveway; slopes exist on the driv~ways.of up to 15%. Based on the slope and access length,. he Fire Department is requesting that the two northerly lots be sprinklered for fire protection. The elevations on the lot range from 360 ft. at the lowest elevation to about-.430 ft. at the highest, and steep grades are involved within this property. Q Staff continued that other parcels on Colorado Lane are approximately 3/4 acre in size. The tentative parcel map conditional use permit are contingent upon each other, and have no value one without the other. Planning Commission Minutes February 6,.1984 Page Seventeen Staff recommends that the Commission approve the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Neg.atv'e Declaration 888., and are recommending .denial of Conditional_L~se Permit 1331 and Tentative Parcel Map 84-751,. primarily because of the past discussions and actions which have occurred relative to this property by the Planning Commission and->Ci..ty Council. Mr. McGee stated should the Planning Cammissone~rs decide to approve this application, staff has outlihed eight conditions on Page 4 of the staff report regarding-the Tentativ~,Parcel Map and three conditions applying to the Condit-ional Use~Permit. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Ray Salmi, Architect and P anner of the project, 148 West Main Street, Tustin, 926.80, addressed the Commission. Mr. Salmi stated that staff represented thecharac er. of the site properly, and he would accept all the conditions staff recommended except the one which refers to the, lesser number of lots on the project. Mr. Salmi continued that he believed the foux lots were apprppriately designed to meet-all. the City requ~rern:ents and to meet the intent of the CC&R's recorded ,on the property adjacent to this piece and also on this piece of property. Mr. Salmi stated his design. incorporated the use'a~ split- level homes which increased the usability of the property, stating the property is a very unique site in th~t:it has a terrific view from the. entire area, and of the fear sites shown, he felt it important to capitalize on the beauty of the view. He continued that he had brought sketches of the planned homes and would discuss them with the Commission. He stated that when applicant became initially :involved with the-property, the view and all aspects were looked at. When"application on the site was originally made, there was a retaining wall on the site which applicant .hoped to incorporate into the design but meant that the top or upper site was shy about 1200 sq.ft. if the retaining wall direction was followed. Since that time, planners realigned the site in conjunction with. the property lines so it i°s now 20,000 sq.ft. and the question of a sub-standard site is eliminated. Mr. Salmi stated he has discussed the site with the Fire Department and adjacent neighbors, however, he did not touch base with the people on Villa Vista because it w.as:.felt there was no direct impact on the Villa Vista people. He did say, however, that he has since learned that a number of questions regarding the site have been generated by that group. He said he is ready to walk through the project anal the site with any people who are concerned about the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Eighteen Chairman Hart commented that, in reference to Mr. Salmi's statements regarding CC&R's and a reference made by a Mr. ~:nd Mrs. 'C lark, he would request the City At'torn:ey to render an opinion as to how the CC&R's would affect zoning. Mr. Minshew stated that the City imposes zoning requirements and the Planning Commission acts in terms of the land use requirements of the City and of the. State. In the cage of CC&R's and deed restrictions, those are put on' by owners for various reasons, often arising out of contractual agreements to agree to use land in a certain w:ay. In actuality, the City has its land-use requirements and once an applicant has satisfied those requirements, he still. must s~;tisfy the requirements on the property itself.. Applicant may ignore requirements such as CC&R's on the property if. no one debates it or decides to bring suit. Someone who benefits by having those restrictions put on the property must prove such is the case in order to bring. suit. Mr. Minshew continued that the City could take i action, but possibly the developer could still not build because of certain CC&R's,!deed restrictions, or liens, etc. Chairman. Hart clarified that the zoning action was separate from the CC&R's and CC&R's were not an argument and had no jurisdiction over the zoning. Chairman Hart asked if anyone present had questions or was in opposition to Conditional Use Permit 1331, Tentative Parcel Map 84-751. Mr. David Clark, 2831 Colorado Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives in the second house over from the property under discussion; that he end his .neighbors are tired of the mess. that has been there for the last seven or eight-years, and the appearance is no better now with the present owners, in fact, it may be worse than: it had been. Mr. Clark offered photographs of the site for the Commission's viewing, stating everyone in the area is sick of the trashy conditions that existed when Mr. Benton owned the property, and were frightened by the vandalism and graffiti. that has taken place, and everyone in the area would like to see some building put on the property. He did state, however, that the property owners were not willing to allow a breakdown in the CC&R's intent as to the type of homes allowed. Mr. Clark then enumerated three items in the CC&R's which he felt the proposed project violated,. since this projec t was quite different in conformation from the rest of the homes in the area. First, in the last paragraph of clause 3 of the CC&R's states: "That each lot should have a frontage 0 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Nineteen of not less than 100 feet." He stated. that only two of the proposed homes have 100' frontage on Colorado Lane. Paragraph 4 of :clause 5 states, "That each residence must face the street", and according to Mr. Clark, on:1y two of the proposed houses face the .street; the other two, are behind them, on a separate road.. Regarding the 20,0.00 sq.ft., Mr. Clark stated it was h~:sbelief that Colorado Lane was .included as part of the hou e site,. and it was not tine intent of the CC&R's to include -the street as part of the ~quar>e:footage. He continued that the GC&R's specifically refer to building sites not less than 20,.000 sq.ft.; it was not intended to include the street in front. Mr. Clark stated, in his opinion, three houses instead of one, placed along the crest of the hill and facing Colorado Lane with separate driveways to the main street would be :in con- firmation with the CC&R's and also would fit the-City zoning laws. He commented that the zoning laws do require 125 foot frontage per house and he could not understand. how 125 foot frontage could be gotten from the plan as proposed; that frontage was fronted on ,the street, and. the project does. not-fit the zoning for an R-1-20. Mr. Clark stated his: recommendation would be to construct three houses and the neighbors would be quite happy about the project. Commissioner Greek stated to Mr. Clark that the City Attorney had attempted to clarify the function. of the _Planning Commission and to explain that adherence to CC&R's did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission.:Comrnissioner Greek indicated the position of some of the existing homes, relative to frontage, and stated the architect and engineer had a diff~~ult.job in designing a project and it was the Commission's job t,o.enforce the zoning, not the CC&R's.- He pointed out that Mr.-Clark's home appeared to face the stree , but the house farahest-west on the street, and the next house easterly, which is designed in a north-south direction, did not apparently face the street. Mr. Clark questioned the 125' frontage and the R-1-20 zoning. Commissioner Greek stated that issue was being handled by the Conditional Use Permit application, staffing that the-applicant essentially did have the foo~tage;~that the question was frontage and what houses on that street did have the-frontage.... Mr. Greek stated he believed the Commission had a diffic>ult decision to make that would not be harmful to the existing homeowners and still be reasonable for a difficult piece of property. He commented that Mr. Clark probably should have contacted the Fire Department to complain about the clean-up progr.a~m, since the area is messy, and the proper avenue would have been to have the Fire Department enforce their rules to clean up rubbish. 0 Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty Commissioner Master posed the question to staff whether the permit applied for was based on less than 20,000 sq.ft., and did that footage include the street. Staff responded that the 20,000 sq.ft. shown on the map included the easements and access roads. Mrs. Barbara Clark, 2831 Colorado Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that her question referred to the question asked by Commissioner Master. She stated the ~ota~l property size is less than two acres and if footage was taken out for the street, which she believed was customary, she did not feel it was. possible to have a remainder of 20,000 sq..:ft-. She requested the builder give a square foot breakdown of each of the lots, stating she had not seen that information. Chairman Hart asked the architect-planner to answer the square footage question. Mr. Salmi stated that three of the- sites were 2O,,fl00 feet; that the top lot was 20,000 feet; the two lower lots were 20,000 feet, and the second from the top iot is 21,,000 square feet, and stated these footages did include the road. He continued that in the area there are lots in the vicinity that are 18.8 and less than 20,000 square feet in an R-1-20 zone. He stated it was his understanding that the property of 20,.000 sq.ft. could have easements on it without. impacting its effectiveness as a 20,000 sq.ft. lot. Mr. Salmi continued that the property is unique because of the fact it is such a steep site, thereby giving thy.designers an opportunity to develop real view lots, and :using the split- level design lends itselfs to a usable lot on boah~the lower and the upper level.'Improvement costs on these types of lots are very substantial and the planners attempted to get the highest and best use from the property to offse the costs. He continued that a security system has been developed for the eight lots in the area which has been accepted by the homeowners and which has been worked aut with the City. Discussions have been held with adjacent owners regarding grading and fencing, and stated he believed that many Colorado Lane ho~eowners who support the project were present. He indicated that every effort had been made to communicate with the. neighboring property owners to explain the design of the project. Mr. Salmi felt he should comment on the fact that the former owner of the site, a Mr. Betten, has caused great concern because of past actions. He commented that he has never dealt with a piece of property that had so much ill-wil;l::attached to it, and gave examples of some past problems. He stated the property also has an easement across a neighbor's patio which, if utilized, would negate the easement past. the second to the top lot. He described the easement as planned in the project as being utilized in the best design interests. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty-One Commissioner Greek discussed his concern regarding the easements and lot square footage, asking Mr. Salmi to outline the lot square footage immediately west of this proposed site, on the private street. He speci-fically asked if those. lots were in excess of 20,000 sq.ft. Mr. Salmi stated he believed that lot, west of his property, was 40,000 feet. Commissioner Greek then asked if one would deduct-the roadway from that lot, they would still have in excess of 20,000 feet. Mr. Salmi stated all of the lots on Colorado Lane are larger lots; about 30:,0.00;. the adjacent lot to his site was 40,000 feet,`but stated that many of those lots included an arroyo which rendered the lot undevelopable without filling it all in. Commissioner Master stated he believed the record should show that his residence is located at 2532 Villa Vista Way; that he is also covered by the same CC&R's, and it would be appropriate that he abstain from voting on the issue.. He stated he did not mention this fact ,earlier because he wanted to pose questions for clarification purposes. Ms. Kathy Barasch, 9392 Villa-Vista Way;, Vi;11a Park, addressed the Commission, stating that several of the people .present live directly below this proposed development and 'one of her neighbors live directly under>it, on the triangle, and .that none of them had been contacted by the architect; that it was the City of Orange who had contacted those ho~zeowners regarding the application... She stated that she and others walked to the site, felt that something should be done because of the abandoned swimming pool which created a danger to the children in the area. She state.d;!.she hoped the City would .take a look at that situation, and questioned the Commission regarding the slopes and drainage problem which could be created for the Villa Vista Way residents as a result of this project. She also questio'~ied the grading changes that might occur if the new homeowner decided to put in a swimming pool, and what guarantee the existing homeowners would have in the event of run-off. ~Lr~ City Engineer Gary Johnson indicated that drainage patterns would not change; the drainage would go as it had in the past, probably out Colorado Lane, and may be concentrated in the drives that serve the four lots.. Although a c.omp~lete fine- grading plan had not been prepared, the idea of creating a drai~age~.problem by the grading of that project-would be taken care of, and would not become a problem. It is anti- cipated that the drainage would go out through the drives. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty-Two Ms. Barasch commented on the preservation of the beautiful old pepper trees. which created a special atmosphere for one neighbor and an .overall feeling for the nine homes in the cul-de-sac, and asked whether they could be saved should this project be approved. She questioned whether some stipulation referring to the trees, the grading, and drainage could be included prior to approval of the project, stating she, personally preferred the idea of three homes, rather than four, to maintain compatibility with the area. Mr. Salmi stated it was not applicant"s intent to ignore anybody in the area, and would be willing to-meet with the people to ensure understanding of the project. He stated that some work has been done on the property, but until the grading is permitted, some problems cannot be cleared up. Chairman Hart closed the public hearing, and stated that Commissioner Master, because of his.res.dence location, would<abstain from voting on the issue, to avoid a possible conflict of interest situation. Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the findings of the Environmental Review Board .be accepted to file Negative Declaration 888. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek stated he was in favor of the 4-lot development, but questioned whether approval of less than 20,000 sq.ft. lots was proper. procedurally, i.f the City had a 20,000 sq.ft. zoning, and the Commission was being asked to approve something less than that. H.e stated he believed the 20,000 sq.ft. was a net acre figure, and requested clarification of policy. Mr. Murphy stated the City did not have a formal or adopted policy; the staff attempts to use the. policy informally, eliminating common drives or easements that are developed for common interest in the neighborhood in the. net lot' area. Chairman Hart asked if the basis for denial recommended by staff hinged on the net acreage requirement of 20,000 sq.ft. Mr. Murphy confirmed this, stating that the findings on the property that the zoning is R-1-20, rather than R-~-6, is the additional reason. for the recommendations. made by staff. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty-Three Commissioner Greek stated he was in favor of the project, but had difficulty with the fact that it was in-violation with the City's zoning ordinances. Mr. Murphy commented that it is not an ordinance but a staff policy that the common areas are eliminated from the net acreage areas. Commissioner Mason stated she would like the architect's comments if the Conditional Use Permit 1331 and Tentative Parcel Map 84-751 would be approved .with three lots, rather than four. Chairman Hart indicated that could not be done without the maps being redrawn. Upon comment from Mr. Salmi in the audience, Chairman Hart indicated that the public hearing was closed and no more testimony would be forthcoming. At this point., Commissioner Greek responded to Mr. Salmi's comments, and discussion centered on the fact that all the ' information relating to neighboring lots gross or net acreage requirements was. not covered in the hearing. Chairman Hart indicated the hearing could be postponed rather than a decision being made. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to postpone Conditional Use Permit 1331 and Tentative Parcel Map 84-751 for two weeks, until Commission has an opportunity to view a presentation on th.e adjacent properties since, if there are properties in the area with a different zoning, he would like to be aware of it. The motion was restated: Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to move for a continuance of this issue for two weeks. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mason, Greek, Vasquez NOES: None ABSTAIN.: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart requested validation from the applicant regarding '" the exceptions in the area, and requested net acreage figures ~r omitting the easements. Commissioner Greek stated that until this evening it was understood by the Commission that the property in question was zoned R-1-6; the fact that it i , in fact, zoned R-1-20 was related to the Commission for the first 'time this evening, which created an entirely different picture than earlier believed. Commissioner Greek stated that part of the problem with developments of this nature is that joint easements are deducted from the properties; it is net property; and is a County-wide policy. Chairman Hart indicated the Commission would take a brief recess at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Hart reopened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. IN RE: GENERAL PLAN-AMENDMENT - LAND USE ELEMENT 2-83A, ZONE. CHANGE 1009 - MR. JESS FROST: Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty-Four Mr. Salmi also commented on the understanding of the requirements of the R-1-20 zone, relative to easements, and influence of CC&R's. G C C A proposal to change land use designations from Open Space and Low Density Residential (2-6 units per acre). to High Density Residential (15-24 units per acre) and rezone from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential, 7,000 square food minimum lot), FP-1 and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts to RM-7 (Residential Multiple Family) and FP-2 (Flood Plain Combining) Districts to accommodate an estimated 420 unit apartment complex on 26± acres located on the west side of Tustin Street at LaVeta Avenue (580 South Tustin Street). NOTE: Draft Environmental Impact Report 838 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Murphy stated<i.that the public hearing. on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change was continued by the City Council from January 10 until February 14 to allow the Planning Gommission an ©pportunity~to;~~eview a revised plan at this meeting and to make a recommendation back to the City Council. The reason for the five-week continuance by the Council was to allow time for the applicant to present a revised plan to the homeowners' association prior to tonight's meeting. The revised plan before the Commission tonight is composed of 214 dwelling units; 188 of which are to be condominiums; 26 are proposed as single-family detached homes, located on-the north and south edges of the property. The center of the development encompasses the 188 dwelling units and the westerly third, approximately 7 acres, is proposed to be used for recreational purposes. Mr. Murphy reiterated information contained in the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated February 2, 1984, and stated the three alternatives available to the Commission at this meeting, which are: 1. Recommend denial with reasons and apprgpriate comments; 2. Continue for further refinement of the plan by the applicant. City Council hearing must also be continued an appropriate time period; 3. Recommend approval with comments and .stipulations relating to number of units, density, or other aspects of the conceptual plans. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984. Page Twenty-Five Chairman Hart indicated that the informal hearing would be conducted using the same format as a formal hearing; i.e., applicant would give his presentation; the Commission would hear audience comment; applicant would be allowed a rebuttal period. Chairman Hart then asked the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Jess Frost, 26851 Mission Hills Drive, San Juan Capistrano, applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Frost stated that Frank Elf end, who prepared the Environmental Impact statement and who had worked closely with neighborhood groups involved, and Gil Martinez, who had done all of the site planning on the project, were also present at the hearing. Mr. Frost suggested that Mr. Elf end speak to the history of the project and he, Mr. Frost, would then give his presentation. Frank Elf end, Elfend Associates, 3857 Birch Street, Newport Beach, 92660,. addressed the Commission, stating he. would like to report on the meeting alluded to by Mr. Murphy, regarding homeowners' comments on the plan that was presented, and the status based on the last discussion held with a member of the Homeowners` Association. E He stated that on January 25, a meeting was he d with the homeowners at which a plan, similar to the one on display at this hearing, was presented. The difference between that earlier plan and tonight's plan is that there were 238 units rather than 214 now proposed. The significance of that is that it is down from the 350 units proposed prior to that homeowners' meeting. He continued that the major aspects, or differences in the plan from that previously pro~osed was that the applicant had proposed an "own-your-own' home ownership project rather than a rental project-; this was a major factor in the project. The single-family detached lots initially proposed along. the perimeter were 4500 sq.ft.; the plan currently being proposed has 7000 sq.ft.; the lot size changes came about as a result of some of the homeowners' comments made during the January 25 meeting. At the conclusion of the homeowners' meeting, Mr. Elf end stated he believed he had received a series of positive comments, whereas prior homeowner meetings had resulted '"~ in, quite frankly., very negative response. At this last fir' meeting, the homeowners responded more positively, stating they liked the perimeter homes; the home ownership; and the reduced density. The gross density of the entire property as presented earlier was 8.7 acres; net density was-10.8. Those numbers have changed, and Mr. Elfend stated. that Mr. Martinez will provide the new density figures in his presentation. Planning Commission Minutes .February 6, 1984 Page Twenty-Six Other concerns expressed by the homeowners to Mr. Elf end were the lot sizes, which have been changed to 7',-000 sq.ft.; setbacks, in that some people felt that there was no adeggate setback since a lot of the homes were constructedwith golf. course exposure, and much concern was expressed in this area. Mr. Elf end stated that the applicant, Jess Frost, indicated that the units that face those single-family homes would be designed with additional window exposure anal with what we would like to think is an atrium effect, to reduce some of that visual concern. Other comments were generated. regarding hydrology,. pricing of the units,. etc., and at the end of the meeting,. Mr, Elf end stated he indicated a desire .to meet again with the homeowner group.. He stated that a number of .people who spoke with him and other representative of the project indicated a liking for the prior plan. Although the prior plan had 350 units, these people liked the setbacks; the apartment complex with the setbacks. Mr. Elfen:d stated this was the first meeting at which a positive exchange of ideas took place. At the conclusion of the.ho.meowners' meetings., Mr. Elf end stated he had indicated to Ralph Massick, .a m~emb.er of their board, and who is not present tonight, that he, Elf end, would like to get together with the group before the Planning Commission meeting to discuss and fine-tune ;the plan. Mr. Elf end stated that he believed that since this was the positive meeting held, he believed the groups 'could. meet again, to narrow the differences still. existing, and then come to the Planning Commission with a plan that had been worked out. Mr. Elf end stated that Ralph Massick indicated that he (Ralph) was away, but would get together with Mr. Elfend upon his return. Mr. Elf end stated he did not know what the exact process involved, but that apparently it was decided not to have any additional meetings between the association and Mr. Elf end, Maxtinez, or Frost, since it was the feeling of the people that Ralph spoke with that they would like to see the golf course there without any development. Mr. Elf end did state, however, that Mr. Massick had commented that the plan being proposed this evening was the plan most of the people would choose should a golf course no longer be feasible. Mr. Elf end concluded by stating he infoxmed Mr. Massick he was available for further discussion at any time, and stated he desired some direction from the P arming Commission re- garding the plan being proposed this evening. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Elf end if he .(Elf end) was prepared to discuss the creek bed, since it appeared a-change in Q configuration had taken place; that it was no longer a concrete channel, but would be rip.-rapped. Mr. Elf end confirmed this fact, and Chairman Hart indicated such a change. would cause a number of changes; and stated he would like to put: the issue of the flow of water at rest; that when the project is presented Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty%S even Chairman Hart indicated that he would like to have the fact established, at least in his own mind, that upon completion ~r of the proposed project, the creek will be :able to withstand a 500 or 100 year flood, if necessary. Mr. Gil Martinez, Florian-Martinez Associates, addressed the Commission, pointing out some of the difference between the present and previous proposal. He stated one of the major items in the project was the treatment of how the property would be protected in the event of major flooding. He stated one of the previous plans proposed was a 55' wide channel, 50' deep, concretelined, and was from an engineering standpoint, a sound way of handling a flood situation.. Another alternative was' 100' width similar in treatment to that in Hart Park. The plan currently proposed calls for a 200' wide, soft-bottomed, rip-rap sides,. with other. engineering aspects which would allow the flood waters to travel through the property. In all alternatives, the flood waters would accommodate a 500-year flood through the pro:per'ty. Although, Mr. Martinez stated, this is a change., it-must be understood that the more the flow is constricted, the more improvements most be made to the edges and bottom.. In all cases.,. it had been proposed that a technique be used that :would dissipate the energy of the water, anal transfer the water out of the property toward the flood control property along Cambridge. Mr. Martinez stated that another element of the plan is the edge treatment, primarily single-family detached homes around the edge of the property where a multi-family types of develop- ment is contiguous. Basically, 26 single-family detached homes are next to existing single-family detached home. He stated a version of this plan was presented a couple of weeks ago to the homeowners, at which time the lots were smaller., and comments by homeowners generated the increase in the lot size to conform with those in existence. The setbacks we presented were minimum 15', but the citizens wanted minimum 20', even though some are presently less than 20'. An enlargement of the edge situation was indicated as one of the applicant's exhibits and contained a sketch of one of the lots. The homes would-be situated on lots, approximately 60' x 116'; some bigger, and the homes would. he oriented more towards applicant's. development rather than `neighboring or existing development; the windows would be carefully placed to avoid opening in that direction, and we are proposing an internal orientation to the home, in terms of an atrium, to have more outside activities centered around that. Mr. Martinez stated these steps were proposed to ensure o e land-use's compatibility with another land-use. He stated that in terms of physical treatment, it was left up to the adjacent homeowners to determine what kind of treatment they desired, and this question can b.e addressed Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Twenty-Eight at a later date. If the consensus is a 6' block wall, decorative, that''s what it would be. If it was to be open, that's what it would be; whatever the existing-homeowners want at the edge, we are flexible at this point,. In terms of land use comp~bibility, we want to be flexible and compatible with adjacent land owners. Mr. Martinez continued that if we put the 2.00' channel in the middle, and single family homes around the~,~perimeter, what's left over is another type of land us,e that we are proposing--condominium type units. Staff raised the question of compatibility of single-family detached, units with condo- miniums. Mr. Martinez stated he had worked on a number of planned communities throughout the country and in Orange County that have this same environment; i.e., Anaheim Hills, Bauer Ranch, currently being development, ar~d projects in Irvine, that have that relationship. It does raise a concern, but it's how the edges and certain screening techniques are handled that make it a very compatible environment with each other. In a sense, this is a PUD approach. Mr. Martinez repeated the numbers-.of units that. would be included in .this project. .From the circulation standpoint, he pointed out that some of circulation plan before the Commission tonight arose out. of staff comments and concerns, as well as access to the back portions of the property in event of emergency, and access to the creek bottom for flood control: maintenance purposes. Jogging trails are included to allow for regional systems to travel through at a later date. He continued that statistically, they were pr4~+osing a density of 9.7 units/acre; 214 units on 22 acres. Mr. Martinez stated he was willing to answer any questions at this point. Commissioner Mason commented that a specific statement was made as a recommendation at a prior meeting that the undeveloped area should have been developed, and asked Mr. Martinez to respond. Mr. Martinez stated the undeveloped area is being developed into an open space area; landscaped, 'irrigated, picnic areas with barbeques; a free-play area, and ten parking spaces for people who live in the development itself to drive to for picnic areas. Mr. Frost addressed the Commission. He described the 188 condominiums as flat over flat, and also studio-type townhouses averaging 1000' each; the single family homes would be approxi- mately 1500' each and-would be within a selling price range of $1.30,000. The condos would range in price from $80-95,000. The single-family homes, if a problem, would be considered part of the homeowners' association and subject to the same rules.as the condominiums. Development of the west end, he Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 19.84 Page Twenty-Nine stated, was not economically feasible. The cost of doing any improvements to the river to allow construction on the west end would preclude the development of it--only a net three to four acres would result,. at a substantia expense. Mr. Frost continued that the issue of flood control would be handled by rip-rapping the river and maintaining a soft bottom which would have to comply with all of_the County Flood Control ordinances, those of the Army Corps of Engineers, and would be designed in a safe manner. He continued that regarding the traffic question, he .spent time at the County Environmental Management Agency and found that single-family dwellings produce 12 trips a day and condominiums produce 7 trips a day per unit. Calculated out, if it was all single family- under. the present zoning, compared to his proposal, there would be very little difference in the traffic count. This also holds true for the. .population count. Occupancy of about three people per single-family unit and only two for condominium, which seems to be the average, results in very little difference should the entire project be developed as single-family. ' Mr. Frost stated that with the small restaurant and golf. course, a certain amount of traffic is already generated on the site, and felt his proposal would cause little problem to the traffic flow. He continued that his project would correct the flood condition. would provide signalization of La Veta with traffic signals, Tustin Boulevard would be improved, and contribute to the future cost of the widening of the bridge. He stated that for discussion, to impose the widening of a major arterial bridge should not be placed on one piece of property, but he would propose to contribute to that widening, should this project be approved. He stated the price ranges of his homes would bring a wider range of homes to the buying public in the City of Orange. Mr. Frost concluded by asking guidance and questions regarding the zoning of the area, relative to his proposal. He stated that if the net acreage only was included, eliminating the total river, the total west end, he would not have enough acreage under an R-D-6 zoning to accommodate 2.14 units, as proposed. He stated he needed to know how much acreage was included in arriving at the net acreage figures and asked if the zoning under discussion was R-D-6, R-M-M-6, stating he needed that information before a specific plan, conditional use permit and full zone change could be applied for, in the event the Commission approves a General Plan Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes February 6,1.984 ` Page Thirty. Commissioner Greek asked if the 32' wide street was curb to curb. City Engineer Johnson stated that the street in question was the main entrance. 32' would be the standard road with parking on one side; the other two road , adjacent to the channel, are 25'. Chairman Hart indicated he would like to hear. .from anyone having questions regarding the project or were in-opposition to the project. Mr. Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, Orange,. addressed the Commission. Mr. Spring. stated he was concerned that one bridge appeared to give access, and in the event of a major flood, people would be gapped. He was then informed that the plan appeared to show another roadway out to Tustin. He asked what was the maximum height of the two-story buildings and was told 32'. Mr. Spring questioned the term "economic feasibility" in relation to the project, stating Yte believed this was a zoning issue and whether the property can support the structures and the cost to build, market value,. and free enterprise, in his opinion, should not enter into the issue. His. concern was the property, the environment, and the homes in the area. He stated he and his neighbors lived in 7000 sq.ft. lots and they expected the. Commission to .ensure this project adhered to that criteria. He said this project would add something different to the environment, to chan~e it, by adding a new set of buildings, and since."we are ~oing to have to live in that neighborhood for many years, we" don't want this type of environment in our single-family dwelling areas. He said send them out to Tustin, or Irvine ~r some other area, we don't Giant it. He stated that's the _ foundation of every one of their arguments; .these elderly people are here, late at night, at every one of these meetings to tell you the same thing over and over again; tae don't want multiple-family homes in our neighborhood. If they want to put in .single-family, R-7000 throughout the whole thing of the useful property, we have no heartburn with that because it's in the same keeping with our neighborhood, but when you bring in multiple-stories, parking lot environ- ments right behind people's homes, it just compensurable with what the neighbors want. Mr. Spring stated he could argue many points of the project but the Commissioners have heard it all before, are intelligent people, and probably know more about it than he did. He thanked the Commission for listening. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 ' Page Thirty-one Mr. David Clements, 1521 Fairway Drive, Orange, stated he wanted to commend Mr. Spring for the speech he made because, by and large, it explains the desires of all 150 homeowners in the area. He felt that further discussion on the matter would be academic; as he pointed aut in the minutes of the meeting held in November of last year, he urged the Commission to try to consider retaining the open space that. they had planned since the early sixties, and to try to consider this as a greenbelt as originally planned by the County. Mr. Clements stated his personal concern was that once we lose the greenbelt, we will never regain it again; that if we can retain some of these jewels around us, that we should, at all costs. He stated that there should be exhaustive efforts made. to find some public agency or some private individual who would want to acquire this property and retain it as a golf course .because there are thousands of people who do entertain themselves in this sport. If we get apartments up there, we will never see the greenbelt again. He stated he realized there are technicalities and financial requirements that have to be met, but it didn't seem logical to take a beautiful greenbelt that we have here, which is in the middle of a terrific flood plain which we have seen in years past, and develop it into a multiple-family situation. Please consider these points. Mr. Elmo North, 1218 E. Chalynn, Orange, stated his primary conern with this particular piece of property is the flooding. He stated all have seen the flooding in the past few years which came within a foot of the way that goes through Hart Park. In 1968-69, when he moved in, the water was within a foot of the retaining wall in the back of his property, and he didn't know whether it was a 100 or a 5.00-year flood, but if the water ever gets that high again, everything proposed is going to'be under it. He stated the homeowners would be stuck with this situation, and believed we have a responsibility to consider first, is the project safe, and then see whether something could be done with it. Mabel Harwood, 1301 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that the area where the applicant has proposed a parking lot was all under water when we had the flood. She also asked where all the water was going to go when it hit the narrow stretch as proposed in the plan. She said it was going to flood the area out, which would be gruesome for all concerned. Mr. John Holmes, stated he lived up in the corner where the land ends,. (indicating the exhibit map). He stated_he noticed that they have three times as much area from where the property intends to build down there. At this point, Mr. Holmes moved to the exhibit map, indicating there is three times as much creek area in one end than in the other. He asked why did they expect three times as much water up and only a little at the other end. He stated his home was right here (pointing Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Two to the map) and this area...the Santiago Creek used to come this way....and if that man washes my home away, he's going to have a suit on his hands, he never heard of before. He continued that the water down here (pointing to the map) drops 30' below his property; up here (again indicating) it only drops 10'; coming down this way it means it only drops 20' in six blocks, and will create such a velocity all this (indicating map) is going to go the first time we have any kind of run-off like we had in '69. He added that most of this ground here (indicating west end) is so loose that the last part of January, we had three trees fall on my neighbor's back yard, and Santa Ana Electric, or SCE and the telephone companies had thirty men out there repairing the lines. He stated if a homeowner had to pay to have those trees removed, it would be a financial hardship. He stated that Dr. Carlson told him that he (Carlson) had spent X500 to take out two trees., and all the trees. in the area had been undermined by gophers and water erosion, and the area was unstable. He stated the force would be located at the west end and it didn't matter what was put up at the other end to slow it down. Mr. Ralph Milton, 1407 Fairway Drive, Orange, stated he was one of the people at the City Council meeting who felt that a meeting should be held with Mr. Frost, so that some of the homeowners' desires could be voiced. He stated that some of us were at a scoping meeting and we proposed .what we thought was a pretty nice project, based on our main concern that the homes had such small backyards. He felt we had retained the open space, and. the five or six people who agreed with him realized that the golf course was going to be closed and to avoid a worse problem, i.e., every biker in Orange using the area, we felt a meeting was in order to work out an equitable solution. Mr. Milton felt past meetings had been totally negative, but believed this hearing should be con inued to allow .more meetings of a positive nature, because he did not believe that Mr. Frost had heard everyone's comments. Mr. Robert Mease, 1102 Rosewood Avenue, Orange, stated that all the houses on the periphery of the golf course were designed to overlook the course; now we are being asked to substitute our views for garages and roads, and he believed the crux of the problem is that the cosmetics should be considered. He felt that if the people were going to lose their view, they should have something that is a substitute so that they don't sit in the livingrooms and overlook garages. He felt the periphery issue has never been treated; that they had grass and trees, which they already had. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Three He directed the Commission's attention to an article in ~ "Popular Science" regarding the National Weather Service Flood Alert, January issue. The article states 'that "as you build, you create more of a flood problem because the water can't soak into the ground, it has to run off into a stream...." He suggested we use caution in increasing the problem of flooding, and requested some detail on the cosmetics surrounding this study. Chairman Hart pointed out the plot plan under review was not necessarily the plot plan that would be built.. Mr. Murphy .affirmed that this plot plan is general in nature, and a more specific plan would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Chairman Hart stated this evening's discussion is about an idea that may or may not be acceptable, but specifically, this is not necessarily what would occur....the issue here is density. Mr. Mease asked the square footage of the lot and was told 7000 feet. He stated his people were practically cut off the the Orange Mall now; more traffic would make it more advantageous to go to Costa Mesa or the City, and asked when "they" intended to widen Tustin Boulevard. Chairman Hart indicated that "they" is the City of Orange, and stated that if funds were available, the City would widen Tustin. Mr. Mease felt this project would hurt the Orange Mall unless something was done with the traffic. He then asked the question regarding sewerage. Mr. Johnson, City Engineer, stated that there may be require- ments to construct off-site facilities to upgrade existing facilities; it depends on what facilities they drain into. The question of whether the development would put in a gravity or a pumping system has a large bearing. on where the off-site sewers would have to be built.. The area can be served if the money is available, and it will be accommodated. Mr. Mease brought up adequate .power, referring to rolling blackouts during summer months if air-conditioning units are used too much. He also wanted to know if some kind of insurance policy would be affordable, since he was turned down for flood insurance by Allstate, stating the City had not acted to give us a reasonable flood insurance. Mr. Mease commented again on his concern about flooding. C Planning Commission February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Four Minutes Chairman Hart indicated that if nothing is done in the area, the same problems exist as existed. at the time of the prior flooding. Commissioner Greek stated that everyone should realize that improvement of the channel would improve the flooding condition; that the water would be moved. through faster. He stated that whatever the development in the area, the land between the existing homes and the channel would probably have to be developed at a greater height than those existing which would create a barrier between the existing homes and the channel.. Flooding is a legitimate concern and is a problem, but. whoever builds the channel, be it developers, the County of .Orange, or the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal government money, County money, City money; the sooner the channel is built the better. The configuration in the portion we are discussing is a legitimate concern because applicant is confining the channel to a smaller area and they are opening it up wider. That design will have to be approved by the City Engineer and the County, so the development of the property will ensure that good design for. flooding will be provided. Commissioner Greek reiterated the point that any improvement to the channel will give the homeowners a better situation than presently exists; and development will have it improved sooner than by other means. Mr. Johnson stated the number of questions concerning the channel, flooding, drainage, and now, a different concept of treating the channel, might be clarified if he could come to the exhibit and make some explanations. He stated while indicating on the exhibit, that upstream from the piece of property, there is a development of condominiums which put in improvements and provided similar channel flow improvements as provided for in this downstream flow discussion... The compatibility of the channel will be continued on down to this point. The question was "Why is this so narrow and this so wide?", (indicating the configuration on the. map). Mr. Johnson stated the answer to that is that it is conceptual; that his interpretation is that this condition exists in low-flow periods and when the high flows come along, the area irr question becomes a flood plain. The rip-rap improvements will have to be carried through the throat and there are already rip-rapped conditions on one t i hi n s po side. He continued that once the water reaches t it can spread out and be a different. type of channel, no longer confined to 150' or 170' channel. The 200' includes two-access roadways; one on either side, but the main channel is 150' to 170'. He said that at one point the channel will widen out and some regrading will be necessary that will accommodate that. By the time the flow gets to the tract boundaries, if the velocities have been increased over what Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Five they are at the present time, they will have to provide some means of reducing velocities, changing flow characteristics, to return. it to natural flow conditions ~ at .the tract boundary. He stated that is the City Engineer's view and the applicant will have to undertake the necessary design to accomplish that view. Mr. Johnson stated he did not see the area remaining the same; that in-order to accommodate the same types of flows expected in one area, something would have to be done in the other area; possibly not rip-rap, but a wider channel, flatter, and the erosion question, for which rip-rap is provided in-one area, would not be required in this other area. Mr. Johnson stated that when the tentative tract map is submitted, those specific details would be worked out. Mr. Holmes asked from the audience if Mr. Johnson was taking into consideration the 20' drop in elevation from Tustin to where his (Mr. Holmes) home was located. Mr. Johnson indicated there was a drop and anticipated that the channel would be deepened from what presently exists and at the point where it leaves the improved channel, it will be flattened out, the velocity reduced to a point where the erosion factor will be taken care. Velocities and capacities will have to be looked at since no off site work can be done to improve the situation. He believed the planners should be able to take the flows back to a natural condition. Mr. Holmes stated the golf course people were, right now, dumping dirt in that area because they expect it to widen out as a results of rains. Mr. Arnold Pelman, 1337 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, stated he had been listening to two types of issues; one the factual issue of how you protect the area from flooding, whether there is sufficient lighting,. and whether there are other numerics involved. He stated he has heard opinions, but no real facts. The other situation is the aesthetics. He stated he would like to recommend the decision be continued so that the issues could be handled; a meeting with Mr. Frost to discuss the aesthetics of the homes that are adjacent to to golf course, and that some proper numerical engineering numbers be obtained regarding the flooding--not just opinions. He suggested continuance to deal with the two separate issues. Commissioner Vasquez made the observation that it may be the expectation. of some people present that this Commission was reaching the threshhold of the project being quashed, and that threshhold cannot be legally crossed that would preclude development and retain the golf course:. The issues of discussing further aesthetic changes and further negotiations apparently are meeting with contrary reaction on the part of some who feel the ultimate should be t a off course. He stated he would .hope the people involved wo~~~ ma~n~ain an open- minded approach, because the Commission may never reach the point of saying "No" to development plans; that the area would Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Six ~ remain a golf course. Commissioner Vasquez offered his comments in view of the statements of two speakers who ~, suggested the Commission retain the golf course as a continued action. Mr. Vic Calagna, 1135 E. Culver, Orange, stated he was not speaking in opposition and that he did not live very far from the property, He stated he was speaking in favor of the property and did not understand how. the applicant could present anything unless he gets the zoning. Based on what he has seen at the Planning Commission and the Council meetings, that by just giving the zoning and density does not mean the j applicant can put anything he wants on the property. Mr. Calagna stated he had faith in the Council that if the man gets the zoning and density, it will be a very nice project because it wouldn't get past the Council if it isn't. In the meantime, he stated, he did. not see how anything could progress if the applicant left without a zoning or density, how can people look at a plan and give comments on it. Mr. Calagna recommended that the zone change and density be approved so that the other issues could be addressed in a more specific manner. Chairman Hart asked if the applicant would like to rebut some of the arguments presented. Betty Beldon, 13002 Wheeler, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission. She stated she did not live in Gainesborough as one commentor remarked, and she has been very active in Orange. She stated she attends St. John's, has been for many years; her children went to school in Orange, and she apologized for not living in proper Orange. She would have liked to live on the golf course, .but could not have possibly stood watching people run up and down it. She stated her mother and father-in-law did that until the death of her mother-in-law, but she is interested in the fact that so many are interested about the flooding when she is the person who rebuilt that course four times. She stated she knew exactly where everyone lived, at one time she borrowed a neighbor's hose to save the green; but she saw no problem to any of the existing homes, but that she could just not continue. She referred to comments made by the preceding speaker that it was to the advantage of the existing homeowners to have development in the area, because she would never be able to put in the proper flood controls in the area. She stated she had to let her top greenskeeper go, Vince Larrimer, and I'm practically down to a skeleton crew and .that's why some tree trimming trash in on four. She stated she gets a call once a week, requesting a tree to be trimmed, another neighbor wanted her to replace his roof because golf balls keep hitting it; and as far as the gopher problem is concerned; she didn't Planning Commission . February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Seven Minutes have any gopher problem until all the homes-were built. She stated she paid a young man from Minnesota $500 because he guaranteed he would get rid. of gophers, and she still has gophers. She stated that she, personally, would very much like to keep the area a golf course, and if it was feasible, her son, who accompanied her this evening, would be in it. She stated there is no way she could keep it a golf course; she is tired of people telling her to raise her prices; I have seniors; and she stated as she looked around the audience, there were five present who even bother. to play it. She stated that 35 seniors on Mondays and Wednesdays at $3..00 apiece does not pay a $3-.5000 water bill a month, every other month, and that is just one bill. That figure does not include fertilizer or anything else.. She apologized for .the fact she could not keep it a golf course; she had kept it for twenty-six years and she has to do something with it. She further stated that if this. does .not pass, if it is not developed, it might become a driving range, or weeds, part of it anyway. She further stated that because of developmen along the creek she has a lot of run-off when it rains, and in '69, she believes there would .not have been as much rouble if there was better handling of the dams. She stated she is now informed if water is to be released, but she has lost so many bridges and there is no way she can keep. rebuilding bridges. Mr. Wa~pe=~Sp~in~'addressed the Commission once again, stating he had been a member of the homeowners' association since its formation. He stated he wanted to go on record as stating that he had never heard one person say anything derogatory about this lady. Chairman Hart interrupted, stating, that he personally at this meetin~, had heard a number of people commenting on Mrs. Beldon s alleged wealth, etc., and stated that he would name names, if necessary. Mr. Spring~apoiogized once again, stating that at any meetings he attended of the homeowners' association, this lady's / reputation had not been besmirched by anybody, and he would go on record as stating that he would condemn anyone openly who said anything. against her regardless of this. He stated they had no quarrel with her as a person, as a nice lady; her financial status is her business. The issue under discussion is the development of her property and let's all ~: try not to draw this into the situation other than the financial situation and the development of her property. i Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Thirty-Eight ~ Commissioner Vasquez stated he would not normally respond to something like that, but he felt extremely compelled to do so, concurring wholeheartedly with Chairman Hart that that may be the theme that was desired.. He stated unfortunately that that will not be the theme that will be adhered to, because with all due respect to everyone here, Ms. Beldon's name and reputation and references, again, he neutrally observed, that she has been brought to the forefront in terms of personal aspects and dimensions, and for the record, he, Commissioner Vasquez, have personally witnessed at these meetings that the desired theme has not always been adhered to. Mr. Spring.; in the audience, turned and stated, "Mrs. Beldon, on behalf of the homeowners' association and any persons referred to, I apologize myself for them." Mr. Martinez stated he believed applicant could respond to a lot of the questions received, but felt the flooding situation and aesthetic comments were clarified. Mr. Martinez stated he agreed that a plan in concept was being discussed; there were areas of flexibility contained in that plan, and he requested to be allowed to continue ,, with the process., so they could come back to the homeowners with all of the data and information that they need. He commented that it takes time and money to generate the. pictures and maps that the homeowners have asked to see, and without a go-ahead nod, the applicant could not proceed much further. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Martinez if he felt more meetings would be productive. Mr. Martinez stated applicant's preference .would be to be allowed to continue; that they have gone through a number of meetings, and would be going through more as they moved through the project. He stated they did not intend to not do that; would like to go to the next step, to the Council, and possibly meet with the citizens in the interim. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Martinez if his desire was to have the Commission pass this project on to the Council, stating if that was the case, the Commission needed to make such a recommendation now. Mr. Martinez stated that is what applicant desired. Mr. Jess Frost also stated that he would like the General Plan Amendment approved, some guidance on the zoning needed to build the project, a resolution that this general concept is acceptable, and felt that enough time would be allowed during the Conditional Use Permit process to get the specifics on floor plans, elevations, specific plot plans, etc. He stated he needed to know whether the general concept, and number of dwelling units is acceptable. to know which way to Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 .Page Thirty-Nine go with the next drawing. He stated that everytime he comes back, it costs another $5000 for a picture, and he really needs some guidance before continuing. Commissioner Vasquez asked if Mr. Spring was representing the homeowners' association at this meeting. Upon hearing an affirmative response, he asked Mr. Spring that, if given the opportunity to continue the dialogue. and to negotiate, for lack of another term, did he, Mr. Spring, believe the association would see any benefit to doing that. Mr. Spring stated he believed there was always benefits to dialogue since if you cut out dialogue, you stop thinking. He felt that the homeowners' association was not beyond continuing the dialogue; they had aims and goals just as these people have. We know, he stated, what we want; he did not want to appear a protagonist, but they did wish to seek out what they believed were their best interests, and if these gentlemen could come up with something that would meet on grounds that were acceptable, the association would be willing to consider it. He stated the association would be tough negotiators, and wanted a good project for the City of Orange. Mr. Spring stated he was sorry it could not remain a golf course and a greenbelt; but there were lmitations~and the line had to be drawn somewhere. He said they were not trying to be totally unreasonable, although it may seem that way. Mr. Milton stated that the applicant should get the zone change since any project he proposes-has to be approved beyond that. The applicant should get a zone change so he can come to the homeowners with plans on what he plans to build. He has no idea what to bring to us, if he doesn't know what he can build there. Chairman Hart stated that the Commission had several options; they could recommend denial; they could continue for further discussions; or they could recommend for approval. Commissioner Mason asked if the General Plan Amendment would be handled first, and Chairman Hart stated yes. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that we recommend denial on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Commissioner Greek stated he did not want Mr. Frost to feel the Commission has been unfair to him; he, Commissioner Greek, is in favor of development of the property,. but for some reason the point he is trying to make never gets across. He stated his first point is that the unused property should not be included in the density; the river should not be Planning Commission .Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Forty r included; and he could easily support twelve units per net acre. He stated that he has said that before and will say it again, and didn't want Mr. Frost to walk away, saying you don't understand what we feel is reasonable. Secondly, Commissioner Greek felt the perimeter homes are of really bad design; it's a, mix that ~ust won't fit. 60' deep lots if you look at the street we re talking about; the proposal is a garage five feet away from a curb. Most of us live with some kind of a parkway system, and there is no sidewalk and I don't believe you could turn into the garage that. these houses wi1T be fronting on. I feel that that mix is unreasonable. Commissioner Greek stated these are his primary reasons, giving them to you as straight as he can, because it doesn't seem to be sinking in. He stated he would like to see it developed, but following ..this criteria. Mr. Frost asked what specifics have to do with a General Plan change; general plan change to a medium density would be fine. At that medium density, we have 12 per acre. He stated he was looking for guidelines; if you want 12 units using 10 acres, we get 120 units. Commissioner Greek stated the unused property should not be included in the density calculations; the river should not be included, so if you are using 7-10 acres to the west and you're not going to develop that, he, (Greek) could not support counting that in density calculations. Mr. Frost stated that that would be fine, but why couldn't he have an affirmative General Plan change to medium density and then say, "Okay, we only recognize 15 acres of land." Mr. Frost said that if he had the plan change, then he would only count the land that was physically being built on; he would only count 12 per acre for 15 acres, if that what the usable land is, but he, Mr. Frost, needs the General Plan change to do that. Commissioner Greek stated that the Commission had informed Mr. Frost of that once, and it wasn't believed; that his position was he was in favor of development, but he didn't want any harm to the people surrounding it. He felt the property should be developed and this is a reasonable compromise in the density on the net acreage. It seems that this plan is really a tough plan, building single family units around a perimeter that are totally not usable; that are houses fronting on garages. In a 32' street, if one car is parked, there is no 25' turning radius to get in the garage, and the garages proposed on the north side of the street are directly on the curb line.. There are really bad gaps in it, and if this is proposed as a good plan, he felt the concerns previously stated by him were valid. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Forty-One Commissioner Greek stated further that he could not, in good conscience, include property that is not being developed, because it doesn't give us the intention of the density, which is to spread the units over the area. Mr. Frost stated that could be taken care of in the Conditional Use Permit, but if he was given a medium-density designation, he would come with a plan with 150 units on it, if that's what they have for physically usable ground. He also stated the single-family homes could be put together to make duplexes; the turning radius would be solved by having more ground to play with; all of these are technical details which could be worked out under the Conditional Use Permit. He reiterated the need £or a medium-density zoning now, or the project would fall apart. Commissioner Vasquez commented that .the concerns he has in the overall plan in terms of compatibility of the two types of uses is the circulation, and in doing some footwork, he discovered that the Police Departmenfi had expressed some concerns about the circulation sys-tem. Commissioner Vasquez further stated there was some reasonable concern about the use of the west side development that's going to be open space in terms of its potential problems as a law enforcement issue in the future, i.e., how do you control access, loitering and the use of the property by people other than those that live in the development, and these were concerns expressed today. Commissioner Mason stated we appear to be going around in circles on this issue, and it was her feeling that the developer is not being unreasonable by just asking us for a general plan amendment to medium density over the low density. If he had that, all these other mitigating things can be handled afterwards; after they can come up with a plan. It appears that developer is grasping and it has come to a point where we need to make a recommendation to the Council and get this moving. Commissioner Hart stated we have a motion to deny. He asked staff what the ramifications, project-wise, a flat denial vote would mein. Mr. Murphy responded that he assumed the Commission was making a recommendation to the City Council, so it would be the City Council that would have to make the final decision. He continued, that if it was a Council decision, it would be one year before the same project could be brought back; if it were a different project, Mr. Murphy believed it could be brought back anytime. Chairman Hart stated that right now we are talking about a land use element; not this site .plan. Mr. Murphy stated there was no limit on the general plan amendment; the zone change would be the. only limiting factor. The zone change, if denied, would preclude an identical zone change being brought back for one year. A different zone Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1984 Page Forty-Two 1'.., change could be brought back at any point in time. ,e ""~ Commissioner Greek stated this was his concern, because the last time this issue was before us, this was his recommendation; that it be without prejudice, and the applicant could prepare a revised plan and bring it back to us. He felt the one most compelling problem was the lack of utilization of the far westerly portion of the property, and if that's totally ignored, he could not see any point in saying, come back in two weeks and try again, leaving that property vacant again. He stated this is a firm statement of his position, which hasn't changed from the beginning. He believed. a certain density can be done and if the property isn't utilized, to make a wishy-washy type of motion would bring us back either in two weeks or two months because the point isn't getting across. Chairman Hart called for the vote, stating that the motion and second is to deny. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners Master, Mason MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master stated his reason for the "No" vote was that he was in sympathy with the points made by Commissioner Mason in that he believed the Commission could give direction regarding-the type of zoning and expected density when the project came back with a more specific plan. He stated he was in concert with Commissioner Greek regarding his concerns, but would like to see the project carried forward so it would come back at some later time, conditioned by us, to some lower density; a particular density number with all conditions called out. Chairman Hart closed the hearing at 11:00 p.m. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Wednesday, February 22, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. G