Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/18/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California February 18, 1981 Wednesday, 8:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 8:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Hart STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Lon Cahi 11 , Fire Prevention Bureau; Dori s Ofsthun, Recordi ng Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAN CE TO THE FLAG. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 19$1: Commissioner Coontz called attention to corrections and changes to be made in the minutes. Page 7, paragraph 4, instead of "...could get three parking spaces ...", it should read, "...could not get three parking spaces...". Page 11, paragraph 1 , the last sentence reading, "Perhaps they have more parcels of land available for apartment development." should be stricken from the minutes, instead to read: "The city should consider some rezoni ng to accommodate multiple uni is be- cause of the apartment shortage." Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the minutes of February 2, 1981, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1087, VARIANCE 1616 - AGUIRRE: Request to allow construction of a second story unit iro the RCD overlay district with modification of setback areas and provision of a carport i n 1 i eu of a garage parking space on the west side of Grand Street, south of Culver Avenue (.430 South Grand Street) . (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review. Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, explaining that this is a request to allow the construction of a second s tory dwel 1 i ng above an existing garage. A condi ti onal use permit i s required to co ns truct a two-story structure i n the RCD overlay. A variance is required to allow a 2-foot encroach- ment into the required side yard setback; a 1-foot encroachment into the required rear yard setback; a 5-foot encroachment into the required side yard setback by an existing patio cover; and the use of a carport in lieu of one garage space. Thi s property contains .145 acres of 1 and 1 ocated on the west side of Grand Street, approximately 180 feet south of the centerline of Culver Avenue. It is zoned R-D-6 (RCD) and contains a single family residence. The proposed 434 square foot unit includes a bedroom, living room, bathroom and kitchen. There is no minimum dwelling unit size required i n the R-D-6 zone. L~J Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Two Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the existing garage was issued bui 1 di ng permits i n 1960. I t has an interior dimension of 16 feet deep by 23 feet wide, whereas the present code requires 20 feet by 20 feet for atwo-car garage. As a detached accessory structure, the 3 foot side setback and 4 foot rear setback were adequate. The required setbacks for the proposed dwelling uni t as a primary structure are 5 feet on the side and 5 feet on the rear. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that four parking spaces .are required for the two units, three in an enclosed garage. One open parking space is proposed in the driveway at the front of the property. In addition to the two-car garage, the applicant proposes to use an existing carport. R-D-6 zone speci fi es garages rather than carports to fulfill the enclosed parking requirement. It was pointed out that the turning radius presently required for turning into this garage would be 25 feet. Although only 16 feet are provided for the existing garage and carport, it was also pointed out that they appear to be currently in use. Mr. Soo-Hoo went on to explain that a patio cover on the property connects the existing residence and garage. A five foot sideyard setback is required for this structure, in addition to five foo t side and rear yard setbacks for the existi ng garage, since i t i s no longer a detached building. It was also poi nted out that the proposed unit is 21 .5 feet high. The existi ng residence has a hi gh pi tch ed roof which allows for second story rooms . Several other dwel 1 i ngs i n the immediate area are two-story and many others have high pitched roofs . Windows on the rpoposed uni t have been 1 imi ted to the front and rear elevations . Mr. Soo-Hoo told the Commission that Condi tional Use Permit 1073 was approved on January 5, 1981, allowing the construction of a two-story second unit at the southwest corner of Grand Street and Culver Avenue, the third lot north of the subject property. 1 Mr. Soo-Hoo stated that the granting of this variance to allow the use of existing setbacks and parki ng faci 1 i ti es for the pro- posed second unit i s viewed by Staff as being justi fi ed i n 1 i ght of the smaller cars being dri ven today and the benefit of lower cost housing which this residence wil T provide. A hardship would be incurred i n the replacement of the .existing carport and garage in order to comply with development standards for the new dwelling unit. Staff also recommends approval on the setback variances for the existi ng patio cover. Because of the other two-story residences, the addition of a second story unit on this property is not expected to change the profile or character of this neighborhood. Staff therefore recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1087 wi th the condition that bui 1 di ng permits be obtained for the existing patio cover. Staff also recommends approval of Variance 1616 wi th the six Condi tions set forth in the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson questioned the use of the garage. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that it is being used at the present time to park compact cars . Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. n Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Three The applicant, Jose Aguirre, 430 S. Grand Street, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that the unit he is proposing to build is just for his family. There will be no rental involved. It is needed for his family use. He also stated that he is in agreement with the conditions set forth i n the Staff Report. 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 Coontz, to approve Condi ti onal Use Permit 1087 and Vari ance 161.6, with the 7 Condi tions as set forth i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Hart MOTION CARRIED VARIANCE 1615 - LU: Request to allow use of compact parking spaces for motel on the west side of Glassell Street, south of Katella Avenue. (Note: Negati ve Declaration 670 has been prepared i n 1 i eu of an Environmental Impact Report.) S tan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to allow the use of compact car parking stalls by a motel. The property contains .63 acre of land located on the west side of G1 ass el l Street, approximately 215 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. The property is zoned C-1 and is vacant. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that the applicant proposes to construct a two-story 40-unit motel. 41 parking spaces have been provided as required. The applicant requests approval of Variance 1615 to allow 29 percent of these stalls to be compact car size. A maximum of 20 percent compact car stalls is allowed by code to be used only for long-term employee parking. Motel parking is not thought to qualify for this category. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.78.070 F) requi res that a minimum of ten percent of the parki ng lot area shall be landscaped. This parking lot area of 13,580 square feet would require 1358 square feet of landscapi ng. Wi th- out the compact car stall s included i n thi s proposal only 884 square feet would be available for landscaping. With the compact stalls 1412 square feet of landscaping can be provided. He went on to explain that the cities of Irvine, Garden Grove, Costa Mesa and Buena Park presently allow the use of compact car stalls for motels. As compact car stalls are still a relatively new phenomena, regulations for their use are under continuing study and revision. The Inter-Departmental Staff has reviewed the proposal and has commented that the compact car stalls should be 8 feet wide, not 7 feet as shown. They have also recommended that wheel stops or curbing in the stall is to be placed so as to allow a two-foot overhang, not three feet as shown. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission. accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to fi 1 e Negative Decl arati on 670. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that changes to the compact car ordinances are under study at this time with an i ncrease i n the percentage of compact stalls having already been approved in several cases. It can be expected that people driving compact cars will stay at this motel and that since there are possibilities to administer the assignment of spaces with the assignment of rooms, motel use of compact stalls is probably workable. The traffic engineer finds adequate on-street parking spaces for any possible overflow at Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Four this location and therefore Staff feels that this is an appropriate 1 ocati on i n which to permit such a deviation. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Variance 1615 with the 15 conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, two of which he pointed out as being rather unique: 1. The parking spaces be administered in such away as to ensure proper use of the compact car stalls. 2. That the use of compact car stalls at this motel be reviewed by Staff at 6 month i nterval s to ensure the proper administration of their use and to assess their future use for similar developments. Commissioner Master commented on page two, item 9 of the Staff's recommendation, wherein he questioned the fact that compact car s tal 1 s should be 8 ft. wide rather than 7 ft. wide. He wondered if this is workable. Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that i t is workabl e. Commissioner Mickelson wondered if any of the motel units would have kitchens and Mr. Soo-Hoo replied that the code specifies that a certain maximum number of kitchens can be supplied in the motel. However, he did not know exactly what the number of kit- chens supplied in the motel would be. Commissioner Mickelson then wondered if the Design Review Board would review the motel plans. Mr, Murphy replied that this is a standard condition. The Board sees all plans. Commissioner Mickelson expressed concern about the look of the back side of the roofs which would be very visible from the street, since they would be gravel built up composition roofs, while the rest of it is shingle. He thought that this fact should be pointed out to the Design Review Board and perhaps an alternative could be suggested . Commissioner Coontz wondered if it would be possible to review the parking si tuati on on a six-month basis admi nistratively, as is proposed i n the Staff conditions . The reply was i n the affirmative. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. George Lu, the applicant and John Reed, architect for the applicant, approached the Commission, with Mr. Reed, who resides t 1546 S. Egress Drive, Los Angeles , speaking on behal f of the applicant. He explained that the applicant concurred with the condi ti ons of maki ng the compact car spaces be 8 ft. instead of 7 ft. He explained that there are no cars being developed any more that are very large. Mostly compact cars are being manu- factured. He questioned the curb standard of a two foot overhang rather than three feet. He explained that he had measured this on his way in to the meeting tonight. H e drives a 240-Z and his car extends beyond the wheel 34 inch es . He also pointed out a staff car parked out in front, which is a compact car, which he thought was perhaps a 50 ft. car, that has a 24 inch overhang, and he also pointed out a Cadillac out in front which had a 34 inch overhang. He thought that if they put a 36 inch overhang, it would mean that they would project 12 inches into a minimal walkway. He explained that i t can be done but i t would mean that they have a walkway 4 feet wide instead of 5 feet wide i n front of the unit. He pointed out that in a motel use very seldom is a car there all day long. Therefore, it might be an appropriate thing to change this rule. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Five ~ Mr. Reed also explained that they have agreed to develop side yards to the satisfaction of the city. He didn't see this as a problem. They can cope with all conditions, but feel that the 24" car stop is a hardship. Chairman Mickel son asked the Staff i f they allowed 3 ft. instead of a 2 ft. overhang, could this be handled administratively or would it be required action by the Commission? Mr. Reed explained that they wanted to run a col umn down on the face of the building and he is worried about this column. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the column might be in jeopardy, regardless of what the overhang is because people will do whatever they wish to do with their cars. Mr. Reed explained that if they hold the two foot setback that the city has and a car has 3 ft. extension, it could hit the column. But if they hold the bumper back 3 ft., they don't have the problem. They could set the columns back, but then they reduce the walking surface to the rooms to 4 ft., or a 3'8" minimum. Legally they can do i t, but he was concerned wi th regard to the esthetic value. He explained that the architecture is Spanish throughout. Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff, i n i ni tial ly reviewing these plans, recognized that the intensity of use here was reducing the landscaping to a bare minimum and the Design Review Board has already expressed a concern. By allowing for an additional over- hang, that area would be minimal low landscaping, which is low enough to get underneath a car, with oil drippings, etc. Staff has found that i n these instances this ki nd of 1 andscapi ng has not been able to be maintained properly. He felt that the 2 ft. maximum overhang is needed here. Chairman Mickelson asked what would happen if they made all spaces 82 ft. wi de instead of some 8 and some 9. The applicant had no objections to this. Chairman Mickelson explained why he had asked this question. He explained to Staff that his feeling of motel use is that you drive in and park, go to your room, and basically leave your car, it stays there all night and you get up i n the morning and 1 eave. It's not 1 ike a shoppi ng center or an office. He felt that the hassle of fi ndi ng out what kind of car is driven by the person registering at the motel would not be worthwhile. He thought that perhaps a standard dimension of 82 ft. would be desirable. Commissioner Coontz wondered if any market research had been done on the location. Applicant answered that it had been done and that a chain was interested in the location. Unfortunately, they had demanded too many restrictions. Chairman Mickelson asked what size the rooms were. The answer was 182 ft. across by 14 ft. Per the Orange code, 10% will have ki tchens . There would also be a manager's apartment with an extra car parked for that apartment. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff had no problems with compact car stalls laid out the way they were in the parking lot. Chairman Mickelson felt uneasy about this motel because of the fact that it is packed in very tight. On the other hand, he has always been supportive of changing the city's ordinance to allow more compact cars, because he felt that the city of Orange i s behind the times in this area. C7 Planning Commission h1inutes February 18, 1981 Page Six Commissioner Master concurred with Chairman Mickelson, saying that he felt that Staff has indicated that there is a study going on regarding compact cars and he felt they are not too far off in this application with what is ty pically being done with regard to compact car parking. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the fi ndi ngs of the Environmental Revi ew Board to fi 1 e Negati ve Declaration 670 . AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Aul t, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Variance 1615 for the reasons so stated by Staff and subject to the 15 condi ti ons set forth i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Hart MOTION CARRIED ~' ZONE CHANGE 939 - CENTURY-AMERICAN CORPORATION Request to rezone property from zone at the northeast corner of (Note: Negati ve Declarati on 671 an Environmental Impact Report.) the R-1-7 zone to the 0-P Katella Avenue and Wanda Street. has been prepared in lieu of Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, explaining that this is a request to allow a zone change to 0-P (Office- Professional) District i n order to construct two single-story office buildings. The property contains approximately 2.12 acres of land and is located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Wanda Street. It is presently vacant and is zoned R-1-7. Mr. Murphy stated that General Plan Amendment (Land Use Element) 3-80 Item "A" was approved on December 9, 1980 which amended the land use designation of the site from Low Density Residential to Office Professional. At that time it was stipulated that the issues of height limits and traffic circulation patterns should be addressed with consideration of rezoning. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant i s reques ti.ng approval of Zone Change 939 to rezone the property from R-1-7 to 0-P. A pre- 1 iminary site plan has been submi tted wi th the request which shows two one-story b ui 1 di ngs proposed for the site which total 26,000 square feet of gross floor area. 104 off-street parking spaces are shown which exactly meets the parking requirement for such a building (but do not allow for medical or dental offices which require addi ti onal parking) . Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Staff has reviewed the proposal and fi nds that the proposed site plan is generally acceptable. The Staff feels that the two areas of concern previously expressed relating to this project, traffic and building height, have been adequately addressed and therefore recommends that Negative Declaration 671 be accepted. After revi ewi ng the applicant's proposal , as wel 1 as the traffi c report which was prepared for the project, Staff feels that re- zoning to 0-P is appropriate. Because of the expressed desire by the City Council to 1 imi t building hei ght, as wel 1 as to ensure residentially compatible architecture, however, approval of this request subject to the intent to rezone procedure i s suggested. Approval is recommended for the reasons that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan; and that the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding land use and zoni ng. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Seven ~_ Commissioner Mickelson asked whether there was discussion at the City Council 1 evel with regard to the pros and cons of parking behind the bui 1 di ng, or with the bui 1 di ng behind the parking. Mr. Murphy did not remember specific comments about the site plan in terms of the relationship of the buildings to the residential, other than the building height concern that the buildings be one story. The only other discussion was with regard to a possible bank, which proposal has since been dropped by the appl i cant. Commissioner Master pointed out that the site plan as it now stands is similar to the approach across the street. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. J.R. Mauro, representing the applicant, Century-American Corpora- tion, 1440 E. Chapman, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that i n December of 1980 the General Plan for this site was amended to Office-Professional. At the time of this amendment by the City Counci 1 , there were two areas of concern which have been mentioned by the Staff - the building height and traffic circulation. H e explained tha t Century-American has committed to build a single-story residential style building and also hired a traffic consultant to do a traffic study. The traffic report has been given to the Commission. Mr. Mauro explained that the proposed development will have in- significant impact on the existing traffic controls or street systems. The minimal peak hour volumes will not introduce undue vehicle/pedestri an conflict. He feel s that i n this way they have taken care of the concerns of Council and the neighboring residents. He then pointed out that since the Staff Report came out there were four items listed. Since that time their site plan has been revised. There was not sufficient time before this meeting to have the Staff review the revised site plan. He explained that he has the plan here to night for the Commission to review. One of the items he addressed was a planter area in the center of the driveway. Staff felt this would be a problem. This has been removed. The second item was a wider area which the Staff wanted to see i n the drive entry, with removal of one space and the turning of the trash enclosures, which he pointed out has been taken care of. They have also gained one more parking space, which gives them 105 parking spaces now. With regard to the corners being rounded for greater turning radius, this also has been taken care of. There is also a corner cut which is now shown in the revised plan. He pointed out that they now meet all concerns of Staff. The last item Mr. Mauro addressed was the intent to rezone pro- cedure. They feel that an important item was that they had provided an el evation plan showing that thi s bui 1 di ng was si ngl e story residential in nature. They would request 0-P zoning without intent to rezone. Having checked with the residents, he feels they like the elevations. Century-American would not be opposed to a suffix which would limit this to a single story plan. He pointed out that to date they have attended 9 public meetings and they must still appear before the Design Review Board. If they must go through the intent to rezone procedure, they would attend a total of 11 public meeti ngs . They do not feel that thi s i s the answer. They have taken the local residents into consideration when making their plans. He brought up Commissioner Coontz's u Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Eight ~'` questi on about the parki ng being an elective place as to where they placed it, one of the things they had taken into considera- tion was the concern of the residents. If the buildings were placed to the back of the property line, which would actually be the east property line, this would infringe on the peace and quiet of the residents behind this property. They have placed a planter along that property line. They have decided against a bank and are sticking strictly to 0-P use. Therefore, they request that the intent to rezone procedure be left out of the 0-P zoni ng. Commissioner Coontz wondered if a suffix could be placed on this. She also wondered about the fact that on occasions applications go before the Design Review Board and the applicants work out the problems with the Board. She wondered what the policy of the Planning Department was i n thi s regard. Mr. Mauro explained that they have talked to Staff as to thei r being opposed to their request. Their understandi ng is that Staff does not oppose leaving off the intent to rezone. Mr. Murphy explained that "A" suffix is not such as to be used with this zoning in the city at the present time. It only applies to the residential zones and only to multi-family and RD zones. Regarding the other question, the reason for Staff's recommendation on intent to rezone is that it is a recommendation that the Staff has consistently proposed on this project, because the possible change of hands in the property may require addressing of the issues of the type of building at a future point in time. It is appropriate that the Planning Commission and Council review the plans to ensure for compati bi 1 i ty with the original decision rather than asking the Design Review Board to make those type of decisions . Mr. Murphy further explained to the Commission that there is no way of administratively handling the type of concerns addressed at both the Planning Commission and City Council public heari ngs . Mr. Mauro pointed out that he had talked to the residents and be- t ieves that Century-American Corporati on has tried to deal with all problems that have come before the Commission. The intent to rezone is almost punitive in nature. In terms of possibility of changing hands, this is leased land and they have been in negoti ation with the Southern Paci fi c Rai 1 road for four years . Because of the 1 ength of time i t has taken to develop the property, they do not intend to give i t up. They have worked diligently and long to get to this point. Chairman Mickelson explained that they are not concerned about Century-American. However, they would be foolish not to sell the property if a good price were offered. Perhaps the next buyer would not stay wi th a si ngle story plan. Mr. Mauro explained that i t i s thei r intent at this point to keep this property. They have hired landscape architects, etc. They have spent considerable amounts of money and i t i s thei r intent to begin construction in May or June if this is approved. Marilyn Allen, 1480 Kathleen Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she was a little confused about the terms being used this eveni ng. 0 Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Nine Chairman Mickelson explained what the intent to rezone means. This comes out of an interpretation of state law that has said through various legal counsels that you cannot condition zoning. I n other words , the city wi 11 give the applicant zoni ng, i f they promise to make it one-story. They must accept each other's word. He felt that they could accept Century-American's word. He stated that what they are doing is using a tactic whereby they are saying that they will change the zone, but they will not read the final ordi Hance, which i s a 1 egal term for the final act that the City Counci 1 takes to change the 1 aw, unti 1 they have approved the applicant's plan. This is a roundabout way of conditioning the zoni ng. They have used i t, as many other ci ti es have. He poi nted out that there has been a strong assurance by the Ci ty Council that they want to assure the residents that this will re- main single story in nature. Chairman Mickelson pointed out htat there are other complications involved in these procedures. The Planning Commission on a zone change only makes a recommendation. Then this goes to the Ci ty Council where the final decision will be made. If they use the i ntent to rezone procedure, then they hold the actual fi Hal reading of the ordinance until the applicant's plans are approved. Mrs. Allen stated that as she understands it, she feels that the applicant's plans are about the best they can do with that corner. At this point there was discussion among the Commissioners as to the various procedures they could pursue at this point. Chairman Mickelson stated that he saw three options open to the Commission: 1. To deny the application, but he did not think this is the way they were headi ng. 2. Approve as requested. 3. Recommend approval with recommendation of intent to rezone procedure. He asked Mr. Minshew if he thought it was imperative that public heari ngs be held prior to the City Counci 1 havi ng a fi Hal reading on the ordi Hance. Mr. Mi nshew replied that i f th ey qualify, then they put the ordinance under legal affairs, thereby not requiring a hearing. Chairman Mickelson clarified that his understanding then was that they could make i t cl ear to the Council if they put through the resolution of intent, that the plans would only have to go back to the Council and not to the Commission again -but just to the Counci 1 to make sure that they have a si ngl e story plan. It could be done without a public hearing and notice to the local residents. Mr. Minshew felt that the public hearing for the Ci ty Counci 1 could be the last hearing. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that there could be a fourth option and he wondered if a deed restriction could be recorded limiting this to one s tory. The answer was i n the affi rmati ve. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1981 Page Ten Mr. Mauro then stated that Century-American is not opposed to having the Council have the final say on the plans. He now understood the intent to rezone more clearly and they could accept this condition. Commissioner Master commented that if this went to the City Council on the Consent Calendar, it could be pulled off. Mr. Mi nshew felt that Mr. Master was correct i n this assumption. Commissi oner Coontz felt that i n the best interests of all con- cerned, it would be best not to try a new way. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the findings of the Envi ronmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 671. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Hart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 939, for reasons outlined by Staff, with the inclusion of intent to rezone procedure to allow for review of final plans to insure compati bi 1 i ty with surrounding residential areas. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Fiart MOTION CARRIED oved by Commissioner Mickelson that by separate minute order recommendation be made to City Counci 1 that they review plans on the administrative cal endar, with out further public hearing before the Planning Commission. Motion died for 1 ack of a second. IN RE: Mr. Minshew pointed out that the City Council agreed with the Commission at the general plan hearing regardi ng review of s peci fi c plans . ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to reconvene fora study session on Monday, February 23, 1981 at 5:15 p.m., and then to reconvene on Monday, March 2, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 8:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioners Ault, Hart Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjourn at 9:00 p.m, on Wednesday, February 18, 1981 to recon- vene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, March 2, 1981 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, I, Jere Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Wednesday, February 18, 1981. "' Dated this 19th day of February, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. J e urphy, City ~1 anner ~ Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Orange. r•: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF ORANGE ) OF ADJOURNMENT Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on February 18, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on February 19, 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 meeting of February 18, 1981 was held. r~1 U