Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/2/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California February 2, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene P1inshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 1981: Chairman Mickelson called attention to corrections and changes to be made i n the minutes. Page 2, next to the 1 ast paragraph : typographi cal error "veni ng" to be corrected to read, "evening". Page 6, last paragraph: ...to be completely prepared to give a review to the City Traffic Engineer..." should be changed to read: "...to be completely prepared to give a presentation to the City Counci 1 on the parking study . " Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes of January 19, 1981, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED ITEMS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-773 - SADDLE BACK ASSOCIATES: Request to allow a 24 lot industrial subdivision on the west side of Batavia Street, north of Taft Avenue. (Continued from meeting of January 19, 1981.) Jere Murphy presented the revised plans in this application, pointing out to the Commission the second generati on plan at the top of the display board. He reviewed for the Commission that the Staff had brought up concerns at the last meeting with regard to the location of overhead loading doors and the immediate location of parking near these doors, with the possibil i ty of blockage of the parking areas, providing problems for those interior parking areas . Most of the 1 ots along the south s i de of that future street had that condition, except for a couple of lots where the overhead doors are actually a part of the parking stall and not part of the driveway. He explained that there are a couple of lots on the north side of the project that contain the same thing. He then pointed out to the Commission that the revised plan shows the relocation of these bui 1 di ngs from the original 1 ocati on along the north edge of the property to allow better circulation across the north edge of the property and down to the public street, via the cul-de-sac, as well as the drive which he pointed out. He explained that the Staff feels that this is an improvement in the overall circulation pattern. The applicant has also shown the el imi nati on of parking spaces opposite the bay doors i n various locations. He pointed out, however, that the Staff feels that some of these areas can s ti 11 present problems, even with the el imi nati on Planning Commission Minutes February 2 , 1981 Page Two of parking, with any vehicles parked adjacent to the buildings at these locations, the interior of the parking lot could still be limited in use. Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff had suggested to the applicant that they widen these driveways to 33 feet wherever this condition occurs, which would allow vehicles to park immediately adjacent to the bui 1 di ngs . He stated that the Commission has the same basic alternatives which they had at the 1 as t meeti ng, that of recommendi ng denial to th e City Council because of the problems brought up by the Staff, a continuance to look forther at resolving the problems, or a recommendation for approval, with the conditions as listed in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. He pointed out that the only change i n the condi ti ons would be i n Condi ti on #6 , i n whi ch 1 ots wi th reciprocal access are modi fi ed slightly because of changes i n locations of buildings. Commissioner Master asked that Staff elaborate on the widening of the driveways. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff's suggestion is that any place a condition exists, such as on parcel #4, which he pointed out on the plot plan, that the driveway rather than bei ng 25 feet, be widened to 33 feet, which would allow a vehicle to be parked adjacent to the building and still allow for complete cir- culation in that driveway. Commissioner Ault wondered if those driveways were blocked off, i s there not adequate parking around the buil di ng to take care of parking needs. Mr. Murphy replied that there may or may not be, dependi ng on the use of that particular building. Some of the uses that Staff sees taking place could be warehousing storage uses and that does not require as much parking space as some other industrial uses. The understanding is that these will be sold to individual buyers . Chairman Mickelson commented further on the general layout of the project with respect to the various overhead loading doors and there was further discussion among the Commissioners. Chairman Mickelson questioned Mr. Johnson with regard to Condition #7, wonderi ng i f thi s is the Grove Avenue behi nd the boundary 1 i nes . Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative, stating that the road has been dedicated in basically two phases. He pointed out that this project proposes and supposes that the right-of-way would be abandoned and the Staff is in favor of that. However, if it isn't, there is a corridor that will be created and the project would not be accomplished as it is envisioned. Chairman Mickelson then asked if that dedication was made by this property owner so that abandon- ment would revert to this property owner. Mr. Johnson explained that half of the property was dedicated by this property owner and half was made by a property owner to the west and north of this property. The proponents of this development have indicated that they have come to terms with the property owner to acquire the property i n question. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. George Bernharth, Thiebord Engineering Company, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He pointed out that the charges which have been made on the plan are threefold: (1) the fl oppi ng over of those bui 1 di ngs along the former Grove Avenue; (2) amelioration of doors which created some problems; and (3) elimination of parki ng behind 1 oadi ng doors . He quoted the Staff as saying that the big concern and problem was that some people might side 1 oad at these doors and park next to the buil di ng, i n whi ch case people parked behind them could not back out. They Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Three ~. have eliminated this problem, He expressed concern over the fact that now the Staff is aski ng about back 1 oading. He explained that with a driveway of 25 feet, any truck that would be back loading would take up the entire driveway. He further explained that there is no effective way to take care of this situation if someone wants to deliberately break the rules - they woul d cause a problem. In order to mitigate some of these problems they offered to come up with CC&Rs prohibiting these practices and provide for some other amenities. This would give some assistance to enforcing parking regulati ons . Mr. Bernharth felt that an owner wi 11 try to enforce the parking rules in order that his parking lot will stay cleared. He also commented that they have eliminated the front loading doors and kept the back loading doors because this will probably not block anyone. He commented on the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet with regard to Grove Avenue and stated that they are satisfied with Condition #7. In fact, they have no objection to any of the conditions . Chairman Mickelson suggested that if the Commission decides favorably, that an additional Condition #9 be added, and that is that the CC&Rs which had been suggested be prepared and approved by the City Attorney's office, to which applicant had no objection. Commissioner Master asked Mr. Minshew if the city has any obligation with regard to CC&Rs, to which Mr. Minshew replied that the CC&Rs would be handled among the individuals owners in the industrial park, not by the city. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that this could be difficult be- cause of the multiple ownership in the industrial park. Mr. Minshew replied that this would be a private situation. The city would not be involved. The park would be policed by the indivi- dual owners. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart asked the other Commission members what his position shoul d be regardi ng voti ng on this application, since he had been absent at the last meeting where the project had been discussed i n depth . Mr. Mi nshew explained to him that thi s was his personal decision. If he (Mr. Hart) had reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting and felt confident that he was familiar with the facts surrounding the appl i cati on, he coul d vote. Commissioner Ault commented that the applicant has tried to comply with what the city has asked and he did not believe there should have to be any CC&Rs . He thought they could police thi s by themselves. He felt the changes have been beneficial. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to - recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 80-773, subject to the eight conditions outlined i n the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, plus a ninth condi tion that CC&Rs be prepared and approved by the Ci ty Attorney's office, addressing the three issues as discussed earlier, namely: (1) Prohibit blocking of driveways; (2) prohibit outdoor storage except as permitted by the Orange Municipal Code; and (3) enforcement of uniform landscaping and proper maintenance of same. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart Master NOES: Commissioners none ~ ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Four .~ .J IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1081 - BUS CH: Request to allow construction of a detached two-story, two-uni t residential structure on the east side of Clark Street, south of Chapman Avenue (157 South Clark Street) . ( Note: This project is exempt from environmental review.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that the applicant requests approval of Conditional Use Permit 1081 to allow the constructi on of a detached, two-story dwelling at the rear of his property. This property contains .15 acre of land located on the east side of Clark Street, approximately 385 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue. The property i s zoned R-M-7 (RCD) and contains a si ngl e family residence. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that two 2-bedroom units will be located partially over a 4-car garage. An additional open parking space wil l be provided to the south of the existing residence. Access will be taken from the existing driveway on Clark Street. This driveway will be widened and an existing garage removed. The proposed dwel 1 i ng i s 25.5 feet high to the top of the pitched roof. The residence at the front of the property is single story as are most other structures in the neighborhood. There is one two-story unit at the rear of the property across the street and several single story second units in the immediate area. The applicant proposes to use elements of the architectural style of the front bui 1 di ng, such as the pitched roof, asphal t shingles, and window trim, on the rear units. Overlooks to adjacent properties will be limited by windowboxes and removal of any windows not necessary for meeting Building Code requirements . Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the Staff finds the proposal technically acceptable and although the proposed dwelling will change the profi 1 e of thi s nei ghborhood somewhat, they feel that i t wi 11 not significantly change its established harmony, character, or scale. It i s to be noted that the trend for the area i s towards multiple family development and that two-story construction would be compatible with this trend. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of this application with the ten conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson asked if a two-story project had been approved on Almond and Mr. Soo-Hoo gave an explanation of that project. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. George Wiemer, representing the applicant, Mr. Busch, explained that Mr. Busch is the owner of the property and is doing his own contracting of the proposed dwellings . He stated that he woul d be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. Rodger Busch, 630 E. Washington Ave., Orange, the applicant, ex- plained that this is a stepping stone for him and his wife. They purchased the property five years ago and it is now time to improve it. He stated that he accepts the Staff's conditions. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the chairman clo:~ed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Conditional Use Permi t 1081 , subject to the ten conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Five AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 938, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1085 - WRIGHT: Request to change zoning from R-1-6 to 0-P and conversion of an existing residence to office on the east side of Waverly Street, south of Chapman Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 668 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that the applicant is requesti ng approval of a zone change to Office-Professional and a conditional use permit to convert an existing residence to office use. The applicant proposes to provide 13 off-street parking spaces for the 3200 square feet of office space as required by code. Most of these will be located at the front of the property with access taken via an existing driveway. The property contains .45 acre of land located on the east side of Waverly Street, south of Chapman Avenue. It is zoned R-1-6 and contains a single family residence. Mr. Murphy went on to point out that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general area for Office-Professional and low density residential development. Mr. Murphy stated that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds the site plan technically acceptable with two changes (1) that the driveway be widened to 24 feet; and (2) that the one parking stall be moved from the rear to the front which can be achieved with the use of th ree compact s tal 1 s . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 668. Mr. Murphy further explained that the Office-Professional zone extends along Chapman Avenue east of the Plaza. East of the Civic Center area i t primari ly i nvol ves properties fronting on Chapman Avenue, al though i n several cases includes one or two 1 ots behind as well . The Staff has mixed feelings about the proposed conversi on. H e pointed out that the subject zone change and conditional use permi t request i s the first proposed office use of property i n this area which would front only on a local street and not on Chapman Avenue. As such, it must be considered in light of the precedent i t wi 11 set. As 1 and values continue to rise, other similar requests can be anticipated. Two primary concerns raised by thi s request are : (1) the use of residential s treets by commercial traffic; and (2) the encroachment of the 0-P zone into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Mr. Murphy explained that commercial traffic is usually considered undesirable in residential neighborhoods because of increased hazards, noise and congestion. In addition, the Police Department finds that commercial use of a street brings increased exposure to criminal activity. However, many of the corner 1 ots i n the 0-P zone have access from their parking 1 ots to 1 ocal streets at the present time. In addition, there are many situations where one or two i nteri or 1 ots are used for parking as allowed i n the P-1 zone or as a transitional use in residential zones. At least five existing ihterior lots in the 0-P zone do not have frontage on Chapman Avenue although they are not now used for offices . In spite of the undesirable effects of commercial traffic on the residential streets of this area, circulation is also benefited by routing via Almond Avenue to those local streets which have lights for making 1 eft turns onto Chapman Avenue. Planning Commission Mi nutes February 2, 1981 Page Six The Office-Professional zone should not be allowed to continue to gradually encroach further and further into the residential neighbor- hoods which abut it. This housing stock is valuable for its loca- ti on and character which is unique to thi s part of Orange. In addition, commercial use of some properties in a neighborhood does result in the impacts of signage, lighting, noise and increased numbers of people. Mr. Murphy pointed out that, as he had mentioned earlier, this property is not the only anticipated encroachment into the residential areas which abut the 0-P zone. Other residences are already zoned which have yet to be converted and many parking 1 ots extend one or two 1 ots i nward. The boundary of the 0-P zone on the west side of Waverly Street extends 243 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue. An office building fronts on Chapman Avenue and a vacant lot which is partially paved for parking lies directly across the street from the northerly hal f of thi s property. To the rear of the property i s an office bui 1 di ng and the equi peent storage yard for an Orange County Fire Station. Mr. Murphy pointed out that because the large-lot character of this particular property is unique to this street and because of the nature of surrounding development, Staff feels that this property can be included in the Office-Professional zone and the house converted to office use without seriously impacting the rest of the neighborhood or encouraging further encroachment of the zone to the south. Staff does feel that this lot should be the last one to be converted to office use on the east side of Waverly since the balance of the street is made of smaller, more difficult to convert lots that are part of a homogeneous neighborhood, Staff therefore recommends approval of Zone Change 938 and Condi- ti onal Use Permit 1085 with the twelve conditions as outl i ned i n the Staff Report, eight of which are regular conditions and four being special conditions. The four special conditions are: (1) That the existing hedge which abuts the front property line be retained to screen the parking area; (2) that the driveway be widened to 24 feet; (3) that one parking space be relocated from the rear of the property to the front to provide greater maneuver- abi 1 i ty; and (9) that a 6 foot view obscuring masonry wal l as measured from the high grade side of the property line, be constructed along the south property lines, said wall to be reduced to 42 inch es within any required setback areas . Commissioner Ault asked what was meant by "commercial traffic". Mr. Murphy explained that thi s woul d include service vehicles , as well as the office traffic generated by the people who would either be visiting offices or working within the offices, as opposed to residential traffic -- commercial in a general sense. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that there was already a wall on the south side of the property. Mr. Murphy explained that a 6 ft. wall was a standard requirement. There was further discussion among the commissioners in this regard. Commissioner Hart asked for clarification on the plot plan, where Staff is asking for a parking space to be moved from the rear to the front. Commissioner Mickelson suggested a revision to that condition i n the event that the Commission were to find this application favorable. He suggested adding, ..or that the parking plan be revised subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services." He thought it might be desirable to turn those three spaces 90° and perhaps pick up an additional parking space in the rear. Mr. Murphy explained that he thought that the Traffic Engineer had found a way to provide that additional space in the front. He pointed out where next to space #10 might be a place for this to be done. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Seven Cecil Wright, 133 S. Waverly, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that they generally approve the recommendations of the Planning Staff. However, he addressed Condition #2, the 24 ft. driveway. They do not object to this, but they would like clarification as to how deep into the lot this must go. Mr. Murphy explained that the intent is to obtain 24 feet as access to the property. It can narrow down as i t goes toward the house. Mr. Wright explained further that there is a block wall on the south side of the property, back to the side back. It effectively screens the residential unit to the south. He pointed out that this house had originally been owned by Commissioner Hart's mother. He stated that they are moving from the house and, because of the intrusion of commercial in that area, the house is not marketable anymore as a residence. Commissioner Ault asked if this applicant replied that it would category. would be a 1 awyer's office. The probably be something in that Commissioner Coontz thought from the looks of the property that you could get three parki ng spaces i n the rear. Mr. Wright thought that it would be impossible to get parking space in th:e rear. The house will probably not accommodate more than 7 or 8 small offices. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master questioned the comment made by Staff with regard to thei r feeling that this should be the last 1 of to be converted to 0-P. H e wondered how they could adhere to this . Mr. Murphy replied that the Staff had done an extensi ve review of thi s area and the enti re East Chapman Avenue properti es and those properties related to East Chapman. They felt that, at this point i n time, unless circumstances change, that there is no justification in converting the homes to the south of this location, because they make up a fairly homogeneous neighborhood area. There are other lots and streets that might fit the need for conversion to a much higher degree than going into a fairly uniform neighborhood and beginning to eat away at that neighborhood and the housing which that nei ghborhood provides . Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the most applicable statement to this application is the paragraph concerning the large lot in this case. Commissioner Master further discussed this matter and then Mr. Murphy pointed out that the point the Staff is trying to make is that thi s 1 of appears to be a natural breaking point between commercial and residential in that area. Staff is suggesting that the Commission can establish some criteria if they so wish. Commissioner Coontz moved, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 668. ^i AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Ei gh t ~-. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to recommend approval of Zone Change 938 and Conditional Use Permit 1038, subject to the 12 conditions as outlined by the Staff, with modification to the parking condition that the parking plan be assessed by the Traffic Engineer as being acceptable; the reasons for recommending approval being the large size of the lot and its uniqueness to the street, and the surrounding develop- ments which have encroached. It was also recommended that the wording of Condition #2 be reworded to "driveway approach". AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED TENTATIVE TRACT 11369 - AMWEST: Request to allow conversion of an existing 1.06 unit apartment complex to condominiums at the terminus of Serenado Street, south of Chapman Avenue. (Note: This project is categorically exempt from envi ronmental review. ) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that the applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to convert the apartment complex to 1.06 condominium units with the recreation area to be Tocated on a separate lot. (Although the recreation area would function conventionally, applicant's attorney has advised them to create separate lots.) The property contains 4.82 acres and is located at the terminus of Serenado Street approximately 315 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue. The property is zoned RM-7 and presently con- tains a 106 unit apartment complex. It was pointed out that Serenado Street is a cul-de-sac which generally serves the property exclusively. Mr. Murphy explained that the complex consists of 86 one-bedroom units and 20 two-bedroom units, with 106 covered parking spaces and 55 open spaces. Mr. Murphy stated that the major issue consistently voiced relating to condominium conversions in the recent past, centers around the forced rel ocati on of existing tenants as well as the general reduction of the rental housing supply within the city. However, these units are occupied solely by adults . Therefore, there woul d not be the problem of relocating fami 1 i es . Staff has reviewed the proposal and indicated that should off-street parking be of concern,opportunities to gain additional spaces exist at the southern portion of the site. Mr. Murphy explained that a review of the characteristics of this particular project indicates that relocation may not present as great a hardship as with many previous projects. Specifically, in this case 81% of the complex is made up of one-bedroom units; over 77% of the units are occupied by singles; and the complex is totally adult occupied. Staff agrees with the applicant that tenants who reside in this project would have a less difficult time in securing alternative housing. For this reason, Staff does not express the concerns regarding forced relocation of tenants which have been voiced in reaction to previous proposals. Staff, however, is concerned about the on-site parking deficiency which exists, particularly in light of the Police Department's report tha t Serenado Street (cul-de-sac) is presently overparked in the evening hours. An obvious solution which is available in this case is the provision of additional parking at the southern portion of the property. This should not pose an undue burden since the Fire Department has i ndi Gated the necessi ty for reconstruction of the emergency driveway at that location, construction of additional Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Nine parking spaces could be accomplished with that work. Staff feels that compliance with the apartment standard would be reasonable (25 additional spaces) . Staff calculates that this would reduce the open area at this location by approximately 70 %. Due to the tenant profile and characteristics of these units, which are predominately one-bedroom, Staff feels that the request is acceptable with provision of off-street parking to meet the apartment standard. Concurrently, Staff wishes to reiterate its position that a shortage of available rental housing does exist as evidenced by a Staff finding that the vacancy rate is under 1% and that this shortage is particularly acute for family units. Staff recommends approval with the 23 conditions, two of these conditions relating to the matter of circulation and parking which are of great concern to the Staff. These conditions are #1 and a new one - #23. #1 states that the existing fire lane at the south of the site shall be solidly paved per the requirements of the Fire Department. #23 suggests that 25 additional parking spaces be developed along the south edge driveway, thereby bringing the total number of parking spaces to 186, which is the present parking standard. The ratio is approximately 1.5 parking spaces per unit at the present time. The other 21 conditions speak to the upgrading of the project and these have been requested by the Police and Fire Departments. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the applicant is aware of all of these conditions . Condi ti on #23 i s the only new one added this eveni ng. Staff feels that if this conversion is approved, it will provide an upgrading of the project, with very little, if any, relocation problems . Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Steve Swanson, Amwest, Inc., 17731 Irvine Blvd., Suite 207, Tustin, addressed the Commission, representing the applicant. He explained that they plan a substantial amount. of project renovation. Aside from the typical interior and exterior refur- bishment, such as paint and checking the roofs, mechanical systems,. plumbing, new carpet, new flooring, they also wi 11 work with Mr. Ramm of the Police Department, who has made several recommenda- tions with which th ey concur. These additional recommendati ons wi 11 i ncrease and health the health and safety factors on the project. He further stated that they concur with the additional parking requirements. There are only two exceptions which are in regard to electrical requirements and glazing. He explained that he met with Mr. Odgaard on Friday and he indicated that this would be in concurrence with the current codes . He disagrees with the wording of Conditions #20 and #21. What they discussed was that the glazing and electrical requirements would be in concurrence with the codes when they were built. Any modification would be to the current code. They have checked the electrical systems and they are in good con- di t~ on right now. Mr. Swanson explained that they have met with the tenants on two occasions and basically explained what the condominium conversion is and what they propose to do. They also explained what the benefi is are that they can expect to receive as tenants in the event that they choose to purchase a unit and also what they are entitled to i n the event that they do not choose to purchase a unit. They also told them what the purchase agreement would be. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Ten ~` He pointed out that the 120 day intention to extended to 180 days and the 60 day exclusive has been extended to 90 days. They intend to aspects of the new 1 aw. convert has been right to purchase comply with all He then submitted a list of 19 potential buyers for the proposed condominium conversions and explained that these potential buyers will be given the 90 day exclusive right to purchase. They will be provided with a 5% discount of the purchase price and they will also receive the opportunity to purchase their particular unit as is, without any interior decorating, which will allow them to get into the project at a lower price. Mr. Swanson stated that they plan to process the project through the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation for the purpose of receiving approval. If approved, they will be in a position to offer 95% financing. They hope to provide as attractive a package as possibl e to the tenants for purchase. For those tenants who el ect not to purchase or are unable to purchase thei r unit, they will provide on-site relocation services to assist them in securing new rental housing, the three special cases will receive the pay- ments set forth in the ordinance, plus a $300 moving allowance to assist them in their moving. Non-special case households will receive the payment set forth i n the ordi Hance plus, i f they stay through the conversion of the project and this could extend into next year, upon their recei pt of a 30 day notice to vacate, they will be paid an additional month's rent plus any deposits on account. Mr. Swanson stated that under normal conditions they should anticipate selling at a rate of 10 or 12 units per month . He also submitted a document which is a petition signed by 16 tenants, supporting the conversion. Mr. Swanson then pointed out that one of the findings the Commission must make is what kind of an impact this conversion will make on the community. This project is still experiencing very high rates of turnover. It has always enjoyed a high rate of turnover. He explained that the rents are comparable for the area. Based on their belief that 90% of the project will be purchased by former tenants, they do not see the project impacti ng the rental market i n the city of Orange. He explained further that they have surveyed 12 projects and found that they do have a 4% turnover. He then explained how he got to this figure. Mr. Swanson stated that he had checked with the Orange County Director of the Rental Association and he i ndi Gated that th ey were realistic in their turnover rates. He then showed the Commission a report that stated that garden type apartments in this area realize a 55% turnover a year or 4.6% per month . Commissioner Master wondered whet~rer the turnover figures really measure the type of impact the project will have on the city. Mr. Swanson replied that he thought that the vacancy figure is a valid measure of the degree of the problem. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master commented that he found that the actual conversion of this unit and with the conditions applied to i t to be acceptable. However, he could not substantiate the i nformation and figures provided by the applicant as being appropriate to address the vacancies. He felt that the report is incomplete. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Eleven ~' Commissioner Coontz commented with regard to the vacancy factor that she felt uncomfortable making a negative decision on the basis of the vacancy factor, when she feels that the ci ty doesn't have an aggressive plan for apartment development. What the Commission would be doing is taking another negative action. She felt that too many negative actions have been taken. This is how she looks at the report, compared to the application that is before the Commission tonight. Unless they do something aggressive to enhance the climate for more apartment development, whether it be by accepting more density (she felt they have not accepted the top density that i s avai 1 abl e i n the ci ty of Orange - they have turned it down over a number of years) . Perhaps they have more parcels of land available for apartment development. Commissioner Master felt that attention needs to be drawn to this situation, as he feels that the city has a problem. Commissioner Coontz was not too sure that a negative decision on the condominium conversion solves the problem. Commissioner Master stated that he would continue to pursue negative decisions in order to get attention for the problems the city faces. Commissioner Ault agreed with Commissioner Coontz that they are trying to cure a broken arm with a band aid. A negative decision does not solve the problem. They must change their methods and encourage apartment projects being built. He brought up some of the conditions which he thought were unfair to the .applicant. Commissioner Hart felt that not enough has been said about the fact that in the conversion not one living unit has been lost. He pointed out that the people who move into these conversions come from somewhere - they have been living somewhere else. There- fore nothing is lost. Commissioner Master felt that Commissioner Hart's statement does not ring true with the facts that are present. He fel t that thi s had been brought out in the applicant's report. The population of Orange does not have to add one member to create a greater demand for housing - the demand is already there. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Murphy a question regarding the ordinance and a finding which the Commission must make in this case. Mr. Murphy read that section of the ordinance dealing with the finding. He also read several items in the ordinance that would deal signi- ficantly with what was being discussed in this application. Moved by Commissioner Ault, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Tentative Tract 11369, with the finding that the appl i cati on meets the intent and purpose of the condominium conv~ersinnordi Hance, based on the i nformati on submitted by the applicant and the Staff that mandatory findings can be met; subject to the 22 Condi ti ons as outlined by Staff, but deleting Conditions #3 and #16, and adding Condition #23, stati ng 25 additional parking spaces shall be provided along the south edge of the project; Conditions #20 and 21 to have added "i n effect at the time of construction. Any modifications shall be made according to present code requi rements ." AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master stated that he wished to make known his reason for voting no on this application, that reason being the concerns he voiced earlier this evening of his concern for the low vacancy rate in the city and the lack of available rental housing. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Twelve CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1086 - MC NEIL: Request to allow a Kung Fu school in the industrial zone on the west side of Glass ell Street, south of Taft Avenue. (Note: Negative Declaration 669 has been prepared in lieu of an environ- mental impact report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow the operation of a Kung Fu school in an existing multi-tenant industrial building. The property contains 1.48 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Glassell Street. It is zoned M-1 and contains a multi-tenant industrial building. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant will be using only one suite in the building. The composition of the floor plan shall be a smal 1 office i n the front of the building with the warehouse area remaining open as the instructional area . The applicant has submitted a letter to the Planning Staff stating that the building in which he wishes to open his Kung Fu school will be empty except for his office. He will be open week nights only, between 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM and he does not expect to have over ten students per class. He explained in his letter that he has over 14 years of experience in Kung Fu. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the site has 46 parking spaces provided on-site. Required spaces total 45 under the manufacturing formula of one space for each 500 square feet of floor area. The suite he expects to occupy contains approximately 1000 square feet of floor which will allow occupancy of up to 20 persons total for this particular use. The code states that parking fora commercial school use shall be provided at the ratio of one space for each one and one-half students of the maximum room capacity. In this par- ticular case, thirteen spaces must be provided. Currently, the parking allocation for this suite with an industrial use would be two or three spaces. However, as was noted in the applicant's letter, the hours of operation are offset from the normal 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM workday and this permi is the applicant use of al l 46 spaces . The Staff has reviewed this project and found i t compatibl e with the existi ng 1 and use and zoning due to the offset hours of operation. Staff therefore recommends approval of this application with the two conditions outl i ned i n the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. The applicant, James McNeil, 120 E. Palmdale, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Mickel son expressed concern for informal signing related to this use and asked whether signs would be painted on the buil di ng or windows i n this i nstance. He pointed out that the city has a si gn ordi nance. The applicant replied that he has one sign, but it would not be painted on the building. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Ault, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 669. Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 Page Thirteen AYES NOES: ABSENT: AYES NOES ABSENT: I N RE: n Commissioners Mick elson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioners none h10TION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1086, subject to the two conditions as outlined i n the Staff Report. Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master Commissioners none Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Afl,l(11 IRNA9FNT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to reconvene on Wednesday, February 18, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. u STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS OF ADJOURNMENT Jere P, Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Ci ty of Orange was held on February 2, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on February 3, 1981 , at the hour of 2:00 p.m. , I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeti ng of February 2, 1981 was held, ^~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chai rman Mi ckelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Ault, Hart, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Ault that this meeting adjourn at 9:15 p.m, on Monday, February 2, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m, on Wednesday, February 18, 1981 at the Civic Center Counci 1 Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Pl anni ng Commission held on Monday, February 2, 1981 . Dated this 3rd day of February, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. Jer~ P. Murphy, City, Pl anne and Secretary to the Pl ar'im ng Co mission of the City of Orange.