Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/22/1984 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange -~ Orange,. California February 22, 1984 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez. ABSENT: None STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; PRESENT: Jac,k~M~Gee, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney. No recording secretary present; meeting taped. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve the minutes of February 6, 1984, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: Mr. Murphy said the staff has received a request from a Mr. Caleb Swanson fora continuance of the informal hearing on his Variance 1737, Tentative Parcel Map 83-770, in the Orange Park. Acres area. Mr. Swanson has been held up in Denver, Colorado, and is not in the area to attend this meeting. The next available meeting date to hear this .item is March 5, 1984. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, that this matter be continued to March 5, 1984. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-83, ITEM "A" AND ZONE CHANGE 1008--CITY OF ORANGE AND CONROCK: The project area consists of two (2) parcels totaling 110 acres. Parcel "A" consists of ten 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 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 Planning Commission Minutes February 22,.1984 Page Two a redesignation 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. This item was continued from the February 6, 1984, meeting. Chairman Hart requested that the City of Orange representative come up as he has a couple of items of correspondence and he understands the representative is also aware of them and they may affect the action taken at this meeting. John Lane, Department of Planning Development Services, stated that it appears .that another continuance might be appropriate on this item. He said the Mayor of Orange has written a letter to the County Board of Supervisers asking that Board fora specific County opinion in relation to the Santiago Creek greenbelt and the implications of that greenbelt as it flow through this property on the County general plan. As you know, it also shows as greenbelt through this area on the City general plan. The City adopted the greenbelt in conjuntion with the action taken by the County; the property was in the County at that time so essentially the City reflected what the County had shown. Mr. Lane does not expect the letter to arrive from the County Board immediately. Additonally there is also a report from the County environmental Management Agency in relation to the Environmental Impact Report, and they have a number of pages of comments in relation to specific environmental concerns as it relates to the draft EIR. In that letter it is suggested for the Commission's consideration that the applicant consider taking his proposal to the County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Commission, and Mr. Lane thinks that the intent of this letter and comment is to firm up a response from the County in :regards to the greenbelt question. He thinks that the Board will probably do the same thing and refer the matter to the County Harbors, .Beaches and Parks Commission, so he is assuming that the EMA people are just trying to move the thing along with that recommendation in the letter which was received this evening. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Lane if the intent then was to offer this property to the County as a greenbelt/park site first before we take action on it. Mr. Lane responded that that is the essence of the Mayor's. request to the County, and he said that he quite frankly doubts that will happen, but it certainly is a courtesy that he thinks should be extended to them since they do have an adopted plan for the area and they are the agency that is responsble for a ® regional park program in the county and this certainly would be a regional facility. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Three Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Lane to elaborate on the comment he made regarding serious doubts about the County's action. Mr. Lane says he has doubts that the County will want to acquire the property in this immediate area for greenbelt purposes as it relates to this specific plan. He said he understands that a number of people have asked this question already and the response seems to be that the County is "overparked" in terms of the amount of money that it has to acquire parklands and to maintain them right now in the regional park system. He said that obviously that is the County's decision to make, but he feels it is a reasonably fair guess in terms of this particular property. Commissioner Vasquez said he would just supplement Mr. Lane's presentation by indicating that in checking with the Environmental Management Agency this afternoon, he knows that the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission has agendized this matter for consideration at its meeting on March 28. So, for whatever it is worth in terms of evaluating the timetable, or whether the Commission wants to make it indefinite, pending its decision, and then those recommendations will go to the Board of Supervisers, and then a position will be adopted on that specific location. Chairman Hart asked the Conrock representative if he has anything to add. Gene Block, Vice President of Conrock Company, said that this is a matter that has been of particular importance to the surrounding residents. He said Con roc has no objection to this and he knows the County has to make a decision one way or the other on the matter. If the decision of the County is negative, he hopes he can come back to the Commission and the Commission can hear the proposal on its .merits at that time. Mr. Lane asked if it is necessary that a request be made to delay or withdraw the application until that takes place. Cha irman Hart responded that, as Commissioner Vasquez said, it is going to be on the agenda on March 28, and probably the proper thing for the Commission to do is have a 60-day postponement to give them time to get back to the Board. Mr. Lane asked Chairman Hart if that would be satisfactory to the Commission; Chairman Hart said he wasn't exactly happy with that but would accept it. Commissioner Vasquez clarified that the March 28 date is for the Commission hearing, not the Board hearing, and said the time between ® the Commission hearing and the Board hearing. is uncertain, which is what makes it a little bit difficult. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Four Commissioner Master asked staff if there are any timing problems as such in having to fit in with the schedule for land u!se amendments. Is there any scheduled conflict that would occur because of that extended period of time. Mr. Murphy answered that there would not be any conflict on a general plan amendment or a zone change, only on a tentative map would there be~a statutory limitation where the applicant would have to request the extension. He said the Commission could do that on this item as it's a zone change and general plan amendment. He said that theoretic- ally the general plan can be amended only four times a year but this is one general plan amendment package and if it's put off it will retain the same number. Chairman Hari said Commissioner Vasquez seems to be more in tune with the scheduling of what the Board of Supervisers might be doing and asked if 60 days is realistic or not. Commissioner Vasquez answered that he thinks the problem the Commission is going to encounter is that if it stipulates a certain date or a certain time period, if the Board oar the_Commission chooses to continue the item, then wants clarification, wants elaboration, if it goes to the Board and the Board wants to continue the item for discussions, or wants further reports, and so on, it complicates the process. Chairman Hart said he hesitates to schedule a meeting in 60 days and have everyone come back and then not see any action. He asked if it would be possible to have the matter noticed and was told by Mr. Murphy that staff could do that, or the matter could be continued until the first meeting in May, which would be 60 days plus a week. Chairman Hart responded that the Commission would then be bound to hear it, or else continue it again, and he didn't think that would be fair to the people who have to keep coming back. After some more discussion on the timing of the various actions in this matter and a possible date for continuance of this hearing, Chairman Hart opened the hearing to public discussion on the extension. Shirley Grindle, 19051 Glen Erin., Orange, California, asked the Commission to table this matter with an understanding with the County that it will proceed in a reasonable fashion to resolve this issue and get it back to the City in whatever fashion it comes back. She reminded the Commission that the citizens of Orange County and particularly in the City of Orange have waited a number of years ® so she doesn't feel it is too much to ask Con rock~to_wait,another three or four months to get this issue resolved. She said this is a major issue and there have been hundreds of citizens work on Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Five planning this whole greenbelt system for lower Santiago Creek and it's not a small matter, and if it takes the Board several hearings to resolve it, then she feels the citizens should be given the opportunity to fight for this land. She asked that the matter not be rushed through. Chairman Hart said he is not rushing the matter but is just concerned about it falling into a crack and nobody. doing anything about it. Mrs. Grindle said she is sure that Conrock is not go~ung to let that happen and since one of the Commissioners works in a Superviser's office he won't let it happen, and also she is not going to let it happen. .She said she is afraid of what would happen if everyone lets the issue fall through a crack. So, since it is not known how long it will take but have already instigated actone to start hearings, that is a major move and the City is now ready to move out on the matter, and is ready because the land is now available, but no one knows the outcome, it may be all of the land, some of the land or none of the land, and she hopes nothing is done to cause thel~City to get none of it. Commissioner Mason said that since the Mayor has written this letter to one of the County Supervisers, would it be possible to wait at least until he has received a response. Chairman said the problem is that either the Commission set a specific date or leave it open and then re-notice. Chairman Vasquez said he can acknowledge this evening that Mayor Beam's letter to Superviser Weider as Chairman of the Board has been responded to by the Superviser whose district this area is in, and he can generally describe that that letter requests that the Commission continue this item until the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission has had an opportunity to review the matter and the Board of Super- visers has had an opportunity to review the policy. Chairman Hart said that in that case it might be better if the Commission re-notices since it can't come up with any kind of a firm date. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Commission continue indefinitely General Plan Amendment 383, Item "A" and Zone Change 1008, subject to review and comment by the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission and policy or position by the Orange County Board of Supervisers, with. the stipulation that it will be re-noticed and the stipulation that it be subject to determinations at the Commission and Board levels. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES. None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Six IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: 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 exampt from Environmental Review.. This item was continued from the February 6, 1984, meeting. Mr. McGee presented the staff report and said there has been conversa- tion during the past two weeks with the representative of the Sisters of St. Joseph, Eleanor Brewer, and two of .the neighbors. They have had a revised site plan supplied, which is on the wall behind Mr. Greek and Mr. Hart, and that exhibit indicates where the existing structures are, the new portion of the construction, where the existing block wall is on the east side of the property, the neigh- boring garage adjoining that, and the red lines indicate where the new block walls would be constructed. The heights of those walls are also indicated. He said it is his understanding from these conversa- tions that the applicant and the adjacent property owners are in agreement with what is being proposed. The conditions which were submitted to the Commission in the memo dated February 1 are those which the applicant would like to see. This evening one more letter was received from a Marty Erdcamp on South Lyon relating primarily to desire to have a master plan for that .area to know in just what direction things will be-going in the future. Eleanore Brewer, 3045 East Craig, Orange, California, said that she and Mr. Chuck Blomquist, one of the neighbors, had agreed to add an item about parking, which was that it wasn't their intent to make the Sisters- of St. Joseph never park on the street in front of the house and it isn't the intent of the Sisters of St. Joseph to bring all of the mothers and fathers of the novices to park on the street so that they now have a pretty good understanding of the parking, but Mr. Blomquist wanted to make sure it would be mentioned again that the Sisters of St. Joseph do agree to have the majority of the parking in the parking lot. Commissioner Greek asked who was surveyed when the property was surveyed; he is concerned because a five-foot setback is shown, plus a floating foot, but it looks to him like they have four feet instead of five feet., Ms. Brewer responded that it was Jim Brennan and Commissioner Greek said he would speak to Mr. Brennan. Chuck Blomquist, 299 South Citrus, Orange, California, said he would like to thank the Planning Commission and Ms. Brewer for their cooperation in working this out and he doesn't think there will be any problems in the future. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Seven Chairman Hart declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Master said in the previous conditions the Commission had struck out No. 6 regarding the design of .the driveway. He was assured that that has not been changed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that the Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1330 with the conditions as outlined in the February 1 memorandum, minus No. 6. Commissioner Greek said he would also like to delete Condition No. 5 which requires that all the parking be behind the building and some kind of a notice filed because he feels the Sisters of St. Joseph shouldn't be denied the use of the parking in front of their buildings. Chairman Hart asked if the second of the motion accepts that addition; Commissioner Mason said she would accept it. Commissioner Greek said that also No. 7 should be revised because it refers to Condition No. 5 which is now being removed. Commissioner Mason agreed to accept that revision also. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1331, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-751--JOE CAMPOBASSO: Request to create four 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. This item was continued from the February 6, 1984, meeting. Mr. McGee made the staff report and said .that in the last two weeks the staff has had conversation with the applicant. There were two primary areas in which he was going to supply staff with information and he has done so. Behind Mr. Hart there is a site .plan which is slightly revised; some of the lot lines have been removed to reduce the amount of formal access easements on the property but the net lot areas as he is showing them on there are 20,000 square feet for two of the lots and about 18,700 square feet for the other two. The other exhibit to the left which is labeled on the top "Tract No. 3083" indicates the net lot areas within the tract to the south and west of this project. Staff has also received a few letters in opposition to the proposal and the Commission has received copies Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Eight of these letters. The first letter was from David and Barbara Clark, the second was from Jennifer and Andrew Butterbroach, the third from Mr. and Mrs. Steve West, and the fourth from Mr. and Mrs. William Fi l lmer. Ray Salmi, of Salmi Associates, 148 West Main, Tustin, California, representing Mr. Campobasso, said he noticed-that the Commission received some letters in opposition to this but they a1 so had some letters that are in support of it, and asked if the Commission had received copies of those. He was assured that these letters had been received. Mr. Salmi said that at the last meeting he had been informed that the zoning on this property was an R-1-20 instead of an R-1-6. He said that in their planning this does not influence them, the fact that they could have developed R-1-6 lots there; they were looking at developing a project that was in context with the neighborhood and he believes that's what they have done. He thinks that they have conformed to all of the ordinances and the only request that is before the Commission is regarding the fact that they do not have public street frontage, so they are asking that they be granted the same privilege the neighboring four lots have because they don't have public frontage either. Mr. Salmi said that when they developed this project it was fairly natural to put four sites there. They did look at the property and the accessibility to the property. The had an easement from Villa Real to come in but they refused to use that because ghat actua11y abused a piece of property that was there and they didn't think that was an effective way to get to the top lot. So, in combining and designing the property they used split-level houses so they would maximize the usable space but this is a unique piece of ground because of its irregular shape and hillside characteristic. Mr. Salmi said it is not uncommon to ask for variances in this type of development but they are not asking for any variance; all they're asking is to be able to develop this in accordance with the ordinance, that he has been informed by the staff (and Mr. McGee can confirm this) that they have met all of the requirements related to this site and its development. .The only question appears to be that the definition of "20,000 square foot lot" does not say whether it is net or gross. He has indicated on Tract Map 3083 that there is a vehicle access to five of those lots which reduced the size of one of his lots to 18,008. However, he still feels that. they are conforming to the requirement of the zoning and the area. Mr. Salmi said he submitted a letter in which they made several points, but basically the points are that they do conform with the requirements of development in this area. Mr. Salmi said he believes there are two items which have influenced the reaction to this development. One is the previous history-- apparently there wasn't good faith in the way it was dealt with. And Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Nine he thinks the other problem they have confronted was that they were working on a project which has been listed as an R-1-6 project for 18 years on the zoning and so even going into the project they have had to deal with that and he believes it has had an impact on its development. David Clark, 2831 Colorado, Orange, California, said he is opposed to this project, first because the building sites are less than 20,000 square feet. He said if you take Colorado Lane which is a dedicated street according to the County Hall of Records, this road was a legal road easement which was dedicated on June 8, 1914, in Book No. 253, page 258, in the County Hall. of Records, it's described as a strip of land 30 feet wide along the southerly line from east to west of a 4.828 parcel fitting the exact description of all of the Colorado Lane property. He said he would figure that since the total southerly line is 450 feet, multiplying that by 30 that would be 1e,500 square feet. Subtracting that from the total area of their property, there is an average of 16,880 feet left for building site. That is taking away Colorado Lane as a dedicated road which is not any 20,000 square feet. He said he also objects to the plan because the buildings are not in conformity with the rest of the buildings in the whole project and on Colorado Lane since they're situation one above another than parallel to each other as are the rest of the houses. He said he thinks that three buildings side by side with separate driveways onto Colorado Lane, which is actually a dedicated street, would conform with the rest of our houses and to the rest of the tract. Col©r~do Lane is not being given a proper notice of .being a dedicated street which continues along the whole southerly part of their property and I don't know how they can use that as part of their building site. area. Mr. Clark feels they have an average of only 16,880 .feet of building site. Barbara Clark, 2831 Colorado Lane, Orange., California, two houses from the property in question, said that what the developer seems to be talking about is gross. acreage and not net acreage and since his total acreage is only 1.86 and you should take off the road, then there is no way to have 20,000 square feet for building sites. She said she would also like to point out the negative declaration because of the steep terrain, which is why the proposal was turned down by the engineering department. They are in a, high fire risk area and no way is that back house, even with sprinklers, going to be protected, as it would be if the fire department had good access to it. So she objects to this because of the fire risk as well as the fact that it does not conform to the size and type of resi- dences in the area. She would also like to point out that Mr. Salmi said the other residents in the area had animosity toward the former owners of this property; however that is not true. She said they did object to the development .proposal by Mr. Denton, the former owner, but only because it was for four houses, just as this proposal is. She said this is not a problem lot--the only problem Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Ten is to get the owner to honor regulations and build accordingly. Ingeborg Pott, 934Q Villa Vista Way, Orange, also spoke in opposition to the proposal, for-the record, and said several others on her street are against this project. Frieda Kenoshita, 2543 Villa Vista Way, Orange, said she received a letter stating that since these lots were .smaller than the surrounding lots this .would be an opening for any .other homeowner in the future to possibly subdivide a lot, and that alarms her very much. She asked if this could be possible. Chairman Hart asked from whom the letter came; Ms. Kenoshita said it was from the Clarks, and Chairman Hart responded that that was the Clarks' interpretation of the situation. He said that anyone in the City of Orange is privileged. to file an application requesting any- thing they wished; however, whether or not that wish is granted is another story. Ms. Kenoshita asked if this could be an immediate likelihood and Chairman Hart said he couldn't answer that question. Ron Ford, a general partner in Newport Equity Fund Trust No. 337, which happens to be by no choice the owner of this property. He said they were forced to foreclose on Mr. Denton about,. eighteen months ago as a result of his not paying a trust deed on which Newport Equity had lent him a considerable amount of money in 1980. Since this has been an ongoing thing he can sympathize with the homeowners in the area. Newport Equity Trust-has had to hire attorneys and has spent about $12;000 in attorneys' fees. ~~He said Mr. Campobasso was dealing with Mr, Denton originally and was unable to close the deal because Mr; Denton kept changing the price on the property and doing other things to create problems for Mr. Campobasso as well as for everyone e7 se in the neighborhood. Asa result Newport Equity ended up owning .the property. At that point, Mr. Campobasso and Mr. Ford discussed the situation and went over all the planning and put a great deal of effort into trying to put together a viable situation for the Commission to look at. He said they feel they have done that and are not being detrimental to the neighborhood but, in fact, enhancing it through this development. He said he personally does not stand to make a gain on his original investment, plus losing the interest that he would have drawn had the loan been continually paid, which is a considerable sum. There are fifteen other investors who are also part of this limited partnership and it's really a consideration to them to have this project approved. Chairman Hart. interrupted Mr. Ford and said he didn't want to cut him off but he is giving the Commission financial reasons why this project should be approved and the Commission doesn't operate that way. The Commission's action has to be based on something that has to do with the property and not on financial transactions with the former owner, He said this is a zoning issue not a financial issue. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Eleven Mr. Ford said they feel that they have complied with the zoning regulations as required by the City. Mr. Salmi. said he feels they are developing a project within the requirements of the ordinance. He said they met with the fire department and have worked out that two fire hydrants will be put on the property. At the same time they are sprinkling two of the houses because of the fire department`s concern for the grades. He thinks they have satisfied preliminary engineering requirements, but of course have not yet done the final engineering. He said at the time they started this project they had a zoning map that listed this property as R-1-6. They didn't even plan a project based on R-1-6; they planned a project which they felt would fit in with that area. Some of these sites have. not been developed because they are not the easiest sites to develop. But he feels there is room for variance and room for consideration for projects of this character. He said he can understand the community concern but in answer to the question of whether somebody else could divide their lot, he feels that is impossible because the sites around there are only 20,000 square feet, more or less, but not substantially enough more so that they could be divided, so there shouldn't be any concern about that. Three of the owners who live on that street are in support of this project and they are intimately involved in it. In the remainder of the tract area they are not even dealing with a traffic problem, but only three or four houses, so it does not have that kind of impact. He really feels that they have gone to great lengths and steps to design a project, design houses that will work in the project, and take advantage of a hillside situation. A hillside development is unlike a flat land 20000 square foot development. He said he has a sketch of the house if the Commission is interested in seeing how they are developing it to show how they .have developed the area as a usable site because of the hillside. They have spent a lot of time planning that so the houses are nestled in and do have considerable distance between them. They have views and privacy and the property has been stepped up six or seven feet so it has elevation with views beyond. He thinks that all in all they are conforming to the ordinance requirement. It is 20,000 square. feet and even though they have adjusted some lot lines the basic intent has not been changed; the houses still remain the same as they were and they still are designed to take advantage of the site area as it is and the views in that area. He stated again that they are meeting the requirements. Chairman Hart declared the hearing closed and called for discussion from the Commission. He said he thinks the real issue now in a development of this type is whether they count net acreage or gross acreage in the process of determining square footage of lot size. Commissioner Master said he would have to abstain because he is a homeowner there. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Twelve Commissioner Greek asked if there is a copy of the map submitted since he is surprised to find there is an existing roadway but nobody seems to know where it is. Mr. Johnson said he thinks that the shape of the lots would indicate that the road easement is included in the lots so they're talking about gross area. Barbara Clark submitted a parcel map showing the Colorado Lane road dedication; however after some discussion it was impossible to locate the road easement and Commissioner Greek requested. that the owner's engineer enlighten the Commission as to where the road will be. Charles Ault, the engineer for the project, said that yes there is an easement across the bottom but it's not a public easement, it's a road and utility easement and he doesn't believe thati~the easemeht should~~,~be considered as taking away from the property. It`s for the benefit of the eight residents who will live in the area. It`s not like one would have a through traffic going through there and the part on the easterly side of the property is a two-to-one slope so it could not possibly be used as a road anyway. There followed considerable low-key discussion among several Commissioners and others regarding maps, the easement fora road, and the road dedi- cation made in 1914, most of which was not dist~inguishable~on the tape. Apparently after the easement document recorded in 1914, a copy of which was presented by Mr. and Mrs. Clark, was perused by City staff, it was determined that it was not a public easement with the road dedicated to the County or City, but rather an private easement between two parties involved with that property at that time. This was told to Mr, and Mrs..Clark who did not seem to understand the dif~e,rence between a private and public easement and presented some .argument. Chairman Hart said this would be explained to them later. Commissioner Greek said he is upset at the information being given to the Commission because if there is an easement it should be indi- cated on the title report but evidently Mr. Ault is aware of it. He feels the Commission is trying to decide something but is being given only about a third of .the information. Every submittal has different lines on it fora road, he doesn't know who prepared the statement regarding square footages in the area but that wasn't especially correct because it doesn't show the easement going across the whole property, but it does recognize it going across half. He would like to have the staff review this matter and inform the Commission as to the true facts. He can't believe that there are two maps submitted by the applicant with each containing different data on the easement; he pointed this out on the maps. Mr. Ault said the easement goes all the way across the property but Planning Commission .Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Thirteen in utilization of the property the easement going off to the east is probably more considered a utility easement than a road easement. Mr. Salmi explained that the reason the map submitted by Mr. Campo- basso showed only part of that easement is because they wanted to indicate only the part of the easement that would actually be used as a roadway and weren't concerned with the utility easement. This was not done to pull the wool over the eyes of the Commission but primarily to show the Commission that that portion of the easement to the west was what was going to be utilized as a roadway. They are not considering a road easement to the east because of the steep- ness of the terrain. Commissioner asked how they intended to get to Parcel One. Mr. Salmi responded that they planned to put an easement across Parcel-Two, or they could possibly create a flag lot if the easement took away too much of the property in Parcel Two. He said the easement would be used by both property owners and he thinks it is a consideration of the property and again they are talking about an easement for two unique pieces of property and the easement is not going anywhere except to these two homes. He said he thinks this does make a difference. He said that if there is an easement going through the middle of the property that everyone in town can use, then that does make a differ- ence, but these easements will be used primarily for the people who will live there and they are for the benefit of the property and should be considered as part of the property. Mrs. Clark again tried to present a document stating the easement made in 1914 and Chairman Hart again explained that that was an easement made. between two parties who used that property at that time and was a private, not a public, easement. Mrs. Clark continued to press her point, saying that if the end of their road easement was used it would be a hardship on them; however Chairman Hart requested that they not get into debate about that point again, saying that that is the reason the hearing is not:re- opened after it is closed. Chairman Hart said that again the issue he believes essentially is do they allow a roadway to be caused to calculate the usable area of the lot. Commissioner Greek said that in his opinion they do not do that, an easement is deducted from the lot area and he thought that has been the policy around the world forever and he is shocked to find out that it isn't a policy it's an opinion. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Johnson to give the Engineering Department's opinion and past actions where there is the possibility of having less than the net square footage. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Fourteen Mr. Johnson said he thought cases of both could be found in the City from the standpoint of looking at it as being net acreage, minimum acreage minus the road. He said this isn't the noral type of development that is found in the City; no~nmal1y everything fronts on a dedicated street and~~of course, as the applicant indicated, the reason for the CUP is to consider whether these lots should be created without frontage on a dedicated street. He`th~nks that there are cases throughout the City where some lots have gross acreage, some have net, from the standpoint of satisfying the minimum requirements. Generally, it has been looked at as requiring net acreage but he doesn't believe it's been a hard and fast rule. Chairman Hart asked that someone make a motion. He said that approval would indicate that the Commission is going to create a policy of allowing lots to include easements as part of the net acreage and a denial would mean a policy of subtracting the easement and taking the net buildable figure as the criteria. Commissioner Mason moved, Commissioner Greek seconded, that the Commission deny conditional use permit 1331 and tentative parcel map 84-751, the reason being that the previous development proposal for this site has indicated that it was considered that three parcels on this piece of property was much better than four. Commissioner Greek said he is supporting the motion because he is looking at the net area and he feels there should not be a roadway run down the middle of a property and arbitrarily whether an easement exists or doesn't exist, and he.feels the Commission may have to get a preliminary title report when the tentative map is submitted because this particular parcel which has been a hardship on the developer has also been a hardship on the Commission to come to this meeting each night and get new surprises. He feels that the Commission has been totally unprepared even though it feels it knows what it is talking about because the zoning change from R-1-6 to R-1-20 was found, and now the existing easement is found that the Commission had not previously been aware of. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: None ABSTAIN: Master MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart said the request has been recommended for denial and asked Mr. Murphy. to give the appeal process. Mr. Murphy said this will be a final decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days. .Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 Page Fifteen IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: AMENDMENT 1-84--CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed ordinance, creating regulations for garage sales and yard sales in residential districts throughout the City.. NOTE: Negative Declaration 889 has been prepared for this project. Chairman Hart asked if there was anyone in the audience who is here in regard to this amendment. No one answered. Chairman Hart said the Commission has received the staff report and he feels it is not necessary to go over the material. Commissioner Vasquez moved, Commissioner Master seconded, thdt the Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 889. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Vasquez moved, Commissioner Mason seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend Amendment 1-84 to the City Council for approval. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart said that the Commission has a study session jointly with the City Council scheduled for March 12 and that should be estab- lished as a study session meeting by motion. Commissioner Vasquez moved, Commissioner Master seconded, that the March 12 meeting be established as a joint study session with the City Council. Mr. Murphy affirmed the time of this meeting to be 7:00 p.m. and said its purpose was to review the Upper Peters Canyon specific plan. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy said the. Commission may or may not wish to discuss the continued hearing on the Loma Street extension scheduled for March 5. Chairman Hart asked Mr. Johnson if he had some information regarding the possibility of an amendment to the EIR on the Loma Street extension being ready for the March 5 meeting. Mr. Johnson said his office had immediately contacted the County after the hearing of .January 16 regarding the traffic evaluation of that particular proposal--the two alternate alignments as Planning Commission Minute s February 22, 1984 Page Sixteen suggested by Commissioner Vasquez. He said they are still waiting fora traffic evaluation from the County and anticipate receiving it late this week or early next week. Asa result of not having that report they have been unable to evaluate environmentally but have done some studies of that proposal and think they. know what the alignment will be, but since the traffic consideration is an integral part of that study, they have not told their consultant to proceed. He said what they plan to do is present that study and the physical part of the study regarding amount of cut and fill, grades, cost, etc., to the ROAR group next week to show them what has been done by the County and the City, and they would propose as a result of that to come to the Planning Commission on March 5 and give the Commission the same presentation, and at that time the Commission may want to direct them to continue with the environmental assessment of that proposal or the Commission may want them to take a different direction, but they will not have a completed EIR by March 5. Commissioner Greek suggested going ahead with the March 5 meeting and if this cannot be acted upon, then it will have to be that way. He felt the subject could not be postponed again. Mr. Johnson said he believes that in the meeting with ROAR next week they will get an indication from them what their preference is regarding the alternatives. He says his office feels there would be some benefits from one of the two alternatives but won't know until the traffic evaluation is received from the County whether or not they see it the same way. Some discussions have been held with the County and it is hesitant to evaluate the plan based on anything other than their standard approach which is a through street. It may be that additional study will have to be made in order to come up with that so-called independent effort, but his office is prepared to move ahead and if one or both of those alignments are indicated as being feasible, and they appear to be, and have some traffic benefit, then his office feels that the EIR should proceed. We will undoubtedly have an indication from ROAR as to what their thoughts are as a result of meeting with them. Commissioner Greek has a question about street improvements regarding FPM ~~-7Q;~=and also as to-what is net and what is gross, ~_ because it indicates that there is an area along the street that is deducted but when he talked to the engineer about a month ago there was real confusion--the 'engineer was calling net what Commissioner Q Greek was calling gross. Mr Johnson said his office has depended on the engineer's certification on their regular properties to say yes this satisfies and without running traverses and determining areas, they have taken the engineer's word for this, so they will get together with this engineer and work it out before the next meeting. Commissioner Greek said he asked if the five feet in the street had been deducted and the indication he got was that it hadn't. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1984 ~'"'"'+, Page Seventeen ~~ IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, March 19, 1984, at 7:40 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 0 0 C7