Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/17/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California February 17, 1982 Wednesday, 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 Pickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bill Simpki.n~, Fire Department; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982 Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to approve the minutes of February 1, 1982, as transmitted. C AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1078 - GERALD WILLMON: Planning Commission consideration of setting a revocation hearing on Conditional Use Permit 1078 approved for property on the north- east corner of Chapman Avenue and Lester Street (1111 W. Chapman Avenue) for failure to comply with conditions. (Continued from the meeting of January 18, 1982 and of February 1, 1982.) Upon the recommendation of the Staff to receive and file the February 8, 7982 correspondence from the applicant with regard to his compliance to the subject conditions, it was moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to receive and file said correspondence. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart,. Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Mr. Murphy then proposed the possibility of voting upon the Lamplighter revised Relocation Assistance Plan under the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Hart felt that since there seems to have been confusion with regard to the various plans presented at the last meeting, that the plan which was finally accepted should be reviewed in greater detail. Commissioner Vasquez thought that, under the circumstances, this should not be delayed any further. It was decided not to treat this matter as a Consent Calendar item and take it in regular order on the agenda. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that even though the repurchase plan was discussed and voted upon during the last meeting, the rest of the relocation plan was left untouched except fora few minor details. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Two IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1176 - HUMDINGER BILLIARD HALL: A request to permit the operation of 10 coin operated amusement devices occupying over 5 percent of the floor area accessible to the public in the C-3 (Commercial) district on the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Columbia Place. (Continued from the meeting of January 18, 1982 and of February 1, 1982.) Jere Murphy presented this item to the Commission, explaining that this had been continued twice and has been the subject of some discussion with the applicant over the past few months . He ex- plained that this is a request to permit the operation of 10 coin operated amusement devices occupying over 5 percent of the floor area accessible to the public. The property contains about .34 acre of land located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Columbia Place and is zoned C-3 (Commercial District). Mr. Murphy then pointed out that the applicant has now been revised to request 14 coin operated devices and, in a 1 otter just received, the applicant has requested that the 6 pool tables in the establishment be removed from the application. The original application included these pool tables. However, there is an issue as to whether these tables are allowed to be removed, which the Commission must decide upon. There is disagreement be- tween the Staff and the applicant as to whether these original pool tables were grandfathered in or not. Mr. Murphy then explained that the Staff has modified the original conditions which were called out in the Staff Report and the appli- cant does not agree entirely to these conditions, as he states in his letter. He felt that the basic differences are in the matter of the review of the application in the future by the Police Department, as well as the requirement for the abandonment of the street along the north edge of the property. The Staff has already required the abandonment of the north half of the street as a part of St. Joseph Hospital's application for zoning on the proposed parking structure which is to be built to the east and, therefore, feels that it is appropriate to require similar action by Flumdinger so that the City ends up with a completely abandoned street frr~m ~fai n Street to the east. He said that Staff does not wish to see the present 180 feet unabandoned, to be left as a deadend public street for that short distance. Commissioner Hart wondered in abandoning the street if it would go back to the property itself. Mr, Murphy replied that as Staff under- stands it, legally the north half of the street would go back to St.Joseph to their ownershi~~p of the lat':on the north :side=Qf thy.street, and the south half would ao to the Humdinger ownership. Commissioner Hart asked if the Humdinger owners were protesting getting that additional property. ~^r. P~urphy responded that they are pro- testing that condition as a requirement of the Conditional Use Permit because of their present discussions with St. Joseph Hospital regarding, not only the abandonment of the street, but the possible acquisition by St. Joseph of the Humdinger property, which is a long term question, which wi 11 probably not be resolved i n the near future. Per. Murphy expl ai nod that the applicant has i ndi Gated i n the past that he v~rishes to delay action by the Commission in order to allow for time to deal with St. Joseph. Hospital prior to Commission action on the Conditional Use Permit. He again referred to the applicant's February 8th letter, where he is requesting the withdrawal of the 6 pool tables from the application and the expansion of the number of electronic games by an additional four machines. Staff is under the impression that discussions with St. Joseph Hospital may take some time to complete and that the action by the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Three would not i nterfere with those discussions with the hospi tal . He pointed out that, if necessary, the Staff may have to become involved more in the abandonment question in order to insure that whatever physical development takes place on the abandoned street meets with City needs . They have not been involved i n those di s- cussions up to the present time. How ever, Staff has had extensive discussions with St. Joseph Hospi tal with regard to conditions re- garding the parking structure, access, traffic circulation, and the issues of abandonment of streets i n the general area, both to the north and to the east of the subject property. Staff recommends approval of the application for the 14 machines on the property, with the 15 conditions as listed i n the original staff report, as modified in the addendum staff report. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the abandonment procedure would take place separately. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative, explaining that there would still have to be a public hearing for the abandonment of the streets. The Staff wishes to encourage the elimination of that short stub street now that the balance has been abandoned for the parking structure. He pointed out that the hearings for the longer section of the street have already been held and that has been approved. What is remaining is approximately 180 feet immediately to the east of Main Street which has not been acted upon. Basically, the applicant does not think that area shoul d be handled under this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Minshew explained that the rest of Columbia Place, the public hearing has been held, the City Council has approved it and the City Clerk has been instructed to hold the matter until notification from the Director of Publi c Works unti 1 al l conditions are met. Therefore, that abandonment has not yet been recorded. Mr. Murphy further explained that the Staff is still working with St. Joseph Hospital with regard to parking in the basic hospital complex so there are still several conditions that the St. Joseph Hospital must meet. Staff is asking them to do substantial things i n terms of providing parking i nformati on to indicate that there i s ampl e parking, both for the present faci 1 i ty and for possible future buildings to be erected in the St. Joseph Hospital complex. There is an ongoing .program in dealing with both St. Joseph and CHOC. Chairman Mickelson did not see a need for the abandonment of the rest of Columbia Place. Mr. Murphy explained that leaving the street as is is a second alternative. However, people might think this street leads to a public place and for some time there would probably be public traffic on the street. Staff .would like to avoid this. He pointed out that the street is only about 200 feet in depth . Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Tom Prenovost, representing the applicant, 2082 Mickelson Drive, Ste. 100, Irvine, addressed the Commission in favor of this applica- tion. H e explained the reasons for the two continuances on this application. He pointed out that the applicant is in agreement with the Staff i n that they are seeking approval , but the pool tables have been in since 1969 and are not electronically operated. They are coin operated. In 1959 a vending machine ordinance was passed which was revised in 1978 wherein a vending machine was defined. The only requirement then was that you have a business license. Mr. Prenovost explained that they are prepared to pay the business license for 1979, 1980 and 1981 which, as he understands it, would bring them i n compl iance with the ordinance. He di d not see where a Conditional Use Permit is required for these pool tables . Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Four With regard to the abandonment issue, Mr. Prenovost gave some background in this respect, explaining that the owner is in negotiation at this time with St. Joseph Hospital. At the time he began his negotiations he was told that the four coin operated machines in his hall were not in conformance and he needed a Conditional Use Permit. The owner is very concerned about the city being involved in the negotiations with St. Joseph Hospital. They also do not feel there is a need to discuss the pool tables at the meeting tonight. Regarding abandonment, they read the Conditional Use Permit as being passed on whether or not the abandonment proceedings go through. He does not feel that it is the intention of the city to give St. Joseph Hospital a club to hold over the applicant's head. Therefore, he would ask that Condition #2 be deleted. Regarding Condition #6, which says: "that this Conditional Use Permit, if granted, shall be reviewed periodically by the Police Department to assure no increase in police services are required by the approval of this Conditional Use Permit." He understands the Police Department's concern regarding increased gambling, fights, truancy, etc. However, this again gives the powers that be a club to hold over the applicant's head and perhaps take away his livelihood. They would be willing to have the permit reviewed once a year. Commissioner Coontz asked if Mr. Prenovost were in opposition to the wording regarding including 14 video games. He replied that if the pool tables were not included, he is in agreement with this wording. He would be satisfied with the existing six games and adding another eight if adding 14 additional games would make them an arcade. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Minshew if the Commission were to accept. the argument that the 6 pool tables were approved in 1969 by CUP and can therefore continue, is the new ordinance clear that these six tables would be counted in the maximum number when deciding whether they are an arcade. Mr. Minshew replied that the applicant is planning them to be there by a legal right. If this were a non-conforming use they would have to insist on counting them. He did not think the ordinance is that clear on this point. He also pointed out that the ordinance does not talk about electronic, but coin operated. These pool tables are coin operated. The ordinance did not require that they be coin operated but it had to be defined and it was the concern of the city that they know where these devices were. Chairman Mickelson then asked a question. with regard to the request to expand the application from ten coin operated amusement devices up to fourteen, asking if the city's legal advertisement is so specific that they would be i n troubl e by adding to the number of units over what was advertised for the permit application. Mr. Mi nshew did not think there woul d be a problem here. Commissioner Hart agreed that the six pool tables approved of in 1969 were legally approved. He did not think it made a lot of difference then that they were coin operated. He felt that the applicant is entitled to grandfather these six pool tables in. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Five Mr. Minshew spoke to the 1978 amended ordinance, stating that there was a permi t needed at that time and i t has never been met. The ci ty does not agree with the applicant's observations i n this area. Chairman Mickelson asked if the Commission opted for his second request to approve a total of 14 devices, would this not be made i n conformance with the ordi Hance. Mr. Prenovost stated that he specifically requested that the Com- mission not approve the Conditional Use Permit of the original six tables . He would accept a Condi ti onal Use Permit for eight additional tables . Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the Commission does not make 1 egal decisions and felt that they should vote on a total of 14. Commissioner Hart was uncomfortable with the remarks made by Mr. Prenovost regarding abandonment and felt that this was not clear. Chairman Mickelson replied that he was i n agreement wi th Com- missioner Hart's remarks, feeling that it was not the Staff's intent to provide St. Joseph Hospital with a club to hold over the applicant's head, but he could see something like this be- coming areality and thought that was a legitimate argument. He thought that the abandonment question would be more properly handled at an abandonment hearing. The other commissioners agreed with this statement. Mr. Minshew suggested some kind of statement to the effect that in the event that Columbia Place is abandoned the applicant shall provi de a second access which would be satisfactory to the Di rector of Public Works. Their concern is that therewould not he two separate access roads, one by St. Joseph Hospital over their property and one by Humdi nger over their property . Mr. Prenovost felt that it is the applicant's concern, not his, but to the applicant, i t i s a very real concern. As he understands i t, the city would not abandon unless an agreement had been reached for access between the hospi tal and the Humdi nger. The economic reality is that if the city abandons and will require that this look like a private driveway rather than a public street, there will have to be a narrowing of the road, replacement of curb and gutter, all of which will be very expensive. St. Joseph Hospital will use 95% of this driveway and Humdinger will use 5%. There is also a possibility that the Humdinger will be torn out and some kind of medical complex be bui 1 t i n its place. H e would not 1 i ke to see any mention of thi s and he again requested that Condition #2 be struck. He felt that something will be worked out between St. .Joseph and Humdinger. Commissioner Coontz asked i f Condition #6 was a standard condi ti on for coin operated devices and was told that it was. She commented that this ordinance was not an easy one to make decisions on and she did not think the Commission should back down on the condition. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding this condition. Commissioner Hart felt that he would like to see this placed on an annual basis. Commissioner Vasquez stated that he believed that this condition is an appropriate one. He felt that if the Commission deviates from their standard it sets a bad precedent. This kind of control is needed. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Six L~ Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1176 to permit operation of up to 14 coin operated amusement devices, occupying over 5% of the floor area accessible to the public; subject to Condition #1, delete Condition #2, Condition #3 to remain unchanged, Condition #4 to be revised to read: "That exit door on the northeast side of the building is to be kept closed and locked and only used for emergency exiting. This door is to be equipped with an audible alarm that would sound if anyone enters or exits. The door is to have a deadbolt/panic hardware locking device approved by the Police and Fire Departments." Condition #5 to be revised to read: "That a revised floor plan be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department depicting the loca- tion of all coin operated amusement devices up to 14 units as authorized by Conditional Use Permit 1176." and that Conditions #6 through #15 remain unchanged. Mr. Prenovos t protested the 14 number, explaining hi s reasons , and saying that if this motion passes, the Commission has not accepted hi s argument that the 6 pool tables have been grand- fathered in. He also protested the conditioning allowing the police department to review the property periodically. Com- mi ssi over Coontz did not agree with Mr. Prenovos is arguments . Mr. Prenovost stated for the record that they would withdraw the 6 amusement devices from the permit application. Chairman Mickelson agreed with the logic presented by the applicant that by taking action on thi s motion, i t 1 eaves him open to revo- cation by a police review which has been established by this use permit and not under the previous one. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1154, VARIANCE 1660, TENTATIVE TRACT 11646 - ORANGE CITY GROUP: A request to allow construction of a 77 unit, condominium planned unit development i n the RD-6 district and to deviate from th e maximum allowable density and coverage development standards on a parcel located on the south side of Almond Avenue, beginning at a point approximately 159± feet east of the centerline of Maplewood Street. ( Continued from meeting of February 1, 1982.) (Note: Negative Declaration 734 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Mr. Murphy presented thi s i tem to the Commission, stati ng that this application had been reviewed at the February 1, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. It was continued to the February 17, 1982 meeting to give the applicant and the staff an opportunity to respond to four concerns: a. That the project density with 17 units was too high for the neighborhood. b. That 14 dwellings on the site might be more acceptable with 4 units affordabl e which would also meet the minimum requirements for affordable projects under State law. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Seven c. That the applicant should evaluate the effect of interest rates and homeowner fees on the monthly payments to insure the units sales prices remai n wi thi n the affordabl e category. d. That the staff work with the applicant to formulate an acceptable administrative procedure to qualify buyers and handle resale controls; all prior to review by the Planning Commission. C~ Mr. Murphy explained that on February 4, 1982 the applicant and his representative met with Staff to discuss what the applicant wished to do in response to the comments made by the Planning Commission on February 1 , 1982. Subsequent to this discussion, the applicant's representati ve contacted Staff and restated that the applicant desired to continue with the 17 unit project, as previously designed and submitted. The representative expressed that the applicant had some philosophical problems with Staff's position on the use of the County Housing Authority screening and resale programs. He feels that these programs are costly to the taxpayers and should not be the role of Government. However, he would be wi 11 i ng to accept the Housing Authority 's program for administration of the affordable units if non-acceptance of this program becomes an impediment to approval. Mr. Murphy commented that except for the statements made this eveni ng, the Staff position is the same as contained i n the original Staff Report, since the project has not been modified. He said that if the Commission were to find the application acceptable, they would suggest removing Conditions #3,.8, 9 £y.1.0, and i n thei r place, the developer shoul d employ the Housi nq Authori ty to administrate the affordable units. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that their reasons for continuing this item were not just questions of density, but also affordability, sale price, interest rate and down payment, etc. None of these questions which were raised were addressed since the last meeting. She wondered if this were correct. Mr. Murphy replied that the only answer they received from the applicant was the reluctant agreement to accept the Housing Authority if the project might be approved. The Staff has reviewed the matter of the price of the units and their findings are that the price as indicated is basically in the right area as far as the 120% of median income is concerned, The monthly payments to the Homeowners' Association is almost negligible and, therefore, would not affect the total price of the unit. The Staff did not attempt to address the subject of a down payment on these units. The interest rate falls into line with the price of the unit at $80,000. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Floyd Belsito, 5382 Beck Circle, Huntington Beach, representing the applicant, Ron Davis, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that he and Mr. Davis had met with the Staff and the issues were discussed at that time. The applicant acquiesed to having the Housing Authority administrate these affordable units. However, he felt that this was one more govern- ment control. The reason for proposing the six units over and above the units permitted by code was based on the economy to scale by being able to bring in the materials necessary at a lower cost, to be able to construct all of the units, including the affordable ones . He fel t that any thing less than the 17 proposed units woul d be impractical costwise, particularly with ]4 units 10 would be of a standard nature and only 4 would be affordable. Commissioner Hart asked what the square footage would be for the affordable units and Mr. Murphy replied that it was his understanding Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Eight that all of the units would be 1200 square feet. Mr. Belsito was inclined to agree with this figure. He explained that the affordable units would have less of the amenities, i.e. no carpeting, no fireplaces, etc. Flo Kinder, 1642 E. Hickory Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she is not really opposed to the project, but she opposes 17 units. She asked that the Commission look at the emergency access to this project, par- ticularly the access to East Washington Street. She then read a statement to the Commission, asking them to look carefully at the magnitude of such a project as this in the type of area such as E. Washington Street. She realized that it is the right of the owner to make a profit on his piece of property, but not at the expense of those surrounding that property. She pointed out that with the access set the way it is in these plans, it wi]1 destroy proper access to the duplexes which she and her husband own nearby. She felt that profit shoul d not be made by one at the expense of someone else. She felt that E. Washington should be cut through without restrictions or remain as it is without access . James Orr, 1018 E. Washington, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking how many units would be allowed on this amount of ground under the present zoni ng and was told that 11 units would be allowed. He pointed out that, in view of the fact that there is no parking on Alaple, Almond and Washington, if 17 units are placed on this lot the parking situation would be quite intolerable. This would also bring quite a few children into the area with no place provided for them to play, other than the street. He did not see how one person can come in and try to change all of the rules. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master pointed out that the question of an emergency access had come up at the last meeting and that comments had been made by Chairman Mickelson and himself to the effect that those concerned about this access could look at the emergency access at the end of Culver, which is a cul de sac. He felt that the treat- ment there is similar to what is proposed on E. Washington. Ch airman Mickelson pointed out that a wal l 16 feet i n width coal d be needed here and if that it so, it could eliminate possibly two on street parking spaces in an already crowded situation. He asked Mr. Johnson a question regarding the claim by the church that the property did not go to the center line of Washington Street. He did not know if that had ever been verified. Mr. Johnson thought that it did go to the centerline. However, a survey will have to be done before the final map is drawn up. Commissioner Hart was concerned about the hardship that would be necessary to show approval of the variance. Commissioner Coontz thought that the variance is there because of the affordable housing density bonus being a part of this application. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. P~urphy if the zone change is still pending before the City Counci 1 and he replied that part of the action of the Council should be to address the zone change. There was further discussion between Chairman Mickelson and Mr. Murphy in this regard and Chairman Mickelson commented that he was dis- appointed that there is not more information tonight. He could favor a higher density and move- forward with thi s type of program but we need more facts. Commissioner Coontz felt that things have not changed since this application was turned down and sent to the Counci 1 . She felt that the density is too high. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Ni ne 1 Moved by Commissioner Plaster, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 734. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 1154, Variance 1660 and Tentative Tract 11646 for reasons as stated by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW FIEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1186 -CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC. A request to permit operation of a sandwich shop that serves beer and wi ne i n a n exi s ti ng industrial park complex i n the M-2 (Industrial) district at a site located on the south side of Katella Avenue approximately 580± feet west of the centerline of Glassell Street (525 West Katella Avenue). (.Note: Negative Declara- tion #749 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) It was the consensus of the Commissioners to dispense wi th the Staff Report. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Russell Hildebrand, representing California Commercial Services, Inc., addressed the Commission in favor of this application. ~~ He spoke to Condition #8, reading: That a 6-foot view obscuring trash enclosure of anon-combustible material be provided along the uni is southern perimeter; or, such other trash enclosure as approved by the Sanitation Inspector of the Department of Public Works.", stating that they realize they must do this. However, the location is on the south perimeter wall, which is adjoining access for other businesses. Beyond their building is a trash area and i t woul d be much better i f they could bui 1 d an enclosure i n that area. Chairman Mickelson explained that this is a standard condition and this could be worked out with the Staff. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson questioned Condition #9, reading: "That fi refi gh ti ng faci 1 i ti es be provided as approved by the Fire Depart- ment, i ncl udi ng the fol 1 owi ng special requi rements 1. That there be necessary occupancy separations between units on ei ther side of subject unit per Fire and Building Department regulations. 2. That subject unit is required to meet all public assembly requirements per State Fire Marshal regulations ." asking why this is necessary. Mr. Murphy responded that the occupancy of a building changes when it goes from an industrial- use to a restaurant use. This condition puts the applicant on notice that he must take care of the occupancy separations . Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Ten Chairman Mickelson then questioned Condition #11, reading: "That CC&R's, if applicable to Orange-Ka tella Industrial Park, shal l be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. " Mr. Lanz explained that this being an Indus trial Park, i t shares parking with numerous other businesses. The city wishes to insure that they have agreed to this parking arrangement. Their understanding is that the owner of the park has allocated 20 parking spaces to this use. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration #749. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1186, for the reasons as out- lined in the Staff Report and subject to the 4 special conditions and 13 standard condi tions set forth i n the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1188 - DAVID E. MILLER, AIA ARCHITECT: A request to allow construction of a 2,163 square foot, pre-school classroom addition and a future 742 seat sanctuary to relocate from the existing sanctuary in the R-1-7 (Single Family Residence, 7,000 square foot minimum l of size) district on a parcel l ocated on the south side of Taft Avenue approximately 140± feet west of the centerline of Nordic Drive. (Note: Negative Declaration 752 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) It was the consensus of the Commissioners to dispense with the .Staff presentation. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. David Miller, architect, 796 N. Shattuck, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that they agree with all conditions set forth in the Staff Report. He also wanted the Commission to know that Fred Buss had been very helpful to them in preparing their application. 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 Vasquez, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration #752. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1188 for the reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: , Commissioners none ,~ ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Eleven IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS: REVIEW OF LAMPLIGHTER RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING APPROVAL ACTION TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 8, 1982. Mr. Murphy presented this item to the Commission, explaining that this is a confirmation of the action taken on February 8, 1982. He pointed out that at the continued public hearing on February fi, 1982, the Planning Commission acted to approve a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan for the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. Because the additional materials submitted for this particular meeting related primarily to the repurchase option as outlined in the overall plan, the Commission instructed the applicant to consolidate the approved repurchase option (Alternative #2) with the balance of the Relocation Plan, and resubmit the en- tire document to the Commission for final review this evening. Mr. Murphy explained that the Staff has received and reviewed the final document. It appears that the contents conform with the Commission's action taken on February 8th. It is, therefore, recommended that the Commission agree that the Plan as submitted is consistent with their February 8, 1982 approval . Mr. Murphy pointed out that after taking this action, it is now appropriate to move forward with hearing the Lamplighter General P1 an Land Use E1 ement Amendment item that was with drawn from the third amendment package of 1981 and carried over to the first amendment package of 1982. The complete package will consist of the Lamplighter property, the Fletcher Avenue area, and an area on the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Manchester Street. Staff suggests that the Commission set March 15th as the public hearing date for General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 1-82. Chairman Mickelson then explained to the audience that this is not a public hearing. It is a review of the action which was taken at the meeting of February 8th . John Nicks addressed the Commission, stating that he thought that there was a statement that if the moving costs exceed $2,000 for single wide or $3,000 for double wide coaches that the owner guaranteed that it would not exceed that amount. He wondered if thi s statement should be i n the agreement. He said that he sti 11 objects to the final date. He was also concerned about how a tenant would go about selling his coach to the applicant if they want to move out immediately. H e did not believe any money would be forthcoming until the General Plan is approved. He also wondered if a tenant were to move from the park and leave their coach until such time as the applicant would purchase it, if that tenant would have to pay rent. Mr. Minshew responded, pointing out in Plan B, #4, it states that if you sell your mobile home to the applicant, the sum of $3,000 of your relocation allowance will be paid as soon as the mobile home and other property are removed from the park. The remaining $1 , 700 wi 11 be pai d wi th i n 15 days of adopti on of the Orange City Council of a resolution giving final approval to the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment which redesignates the Lamplighter as "Major Commercial". He thought that the $3,000 would be paid as soon as the tenant moved out. However, Mr. Nicks disagreed, inter- preting this statement to mean that the $3,000 would not be paid until the mobile home was actually purchased by the applicant. v Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Twelve Brent Swanson, representing the applicant, Mr. Kennedy, stated that it is true that prior to approval of the General Plan Amendment, the tenants will not receive the additional $1700. However, the $3,000 will be paid when the tenant moves out. With regard to the purchase of the coach , that would go i nto effect after the approval of the General Plan Amendment. Chairman Mickelson asked if they could opt to move now, take the $3,000, leave the coach on site and not pay rent. Mr. Swanson replied that they would have to pay rent if the coach stays. Commissioner Master asked if there had been any dialogue between the applicant and the tenants regarding an explanation of the plan. Mr. Kennedy has spoken individually with about 15 people, but there has been no formal meeting. It was Mr. Swanson's under- standing from Mr. Jantz that the people did understand the plan. He further explained that Mr. Kennedy had the 14% depreciation on each coach run through a computer and had discussed prices with some of the tenants. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the Commission has before it either affirmation or denail of the package reviewed the previous week. She did not think the questions being asked were relevant. She felt that we should not drag out the long session which was had at the previous meetings. We must get back on track as to what i s to be done. Commissioner Vasquez understood Commissioner Coontz' concerns. However, in view of the relocation concerns of the tenants, he was concerned still that communication still seems to be a problem. Mr. Swanson explained why he had been contacted regarding getting in touch with Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Mickelson then explained that the Staff is recommending that the General Plan hearing be set for March 15, 1982. Mr. Swanson explained that his wife is expecting a baby on that date, however, he did not wish a continuance. Mr. Murphy pointed out that this is a regular meeting date and there are three other minor hearings scheduled for that same night. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to set March 15, 1982 for the General Plan hearing on this item. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Chairman Mickelson asked what should be done about Mr. Yamasaki's memo regarding the Housing Consultant's Fourth Phase report. Mr. Murphy responded that the Commissioners should make individual comments with regard to the report. Chairman Mickelson commented that this is a pretty good shopping list, but he would hope that the consultant would be able to give them a more detailed explanation of each of those opportunities, because he felt that the big problem has been that in the past they have often rejected an option because no one has done an objective job in setting forth the benefits and lack of benefits for that particular option. He hoped that the consultant could make an objective evaluation of such things as bias reports and elaborate on them so that the Commission could truly understand them. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Thirteen Commissioner Coontz felt that most of the things mentioned are familiar, but she agreed with Chairman Mickelson that there could be further explanation. Chairman Mickelson then explained that further comments by the Commissioners could be given to the Staff tomorrow. Mr, Swanson read the last page of Plan "B", inserting the changes that should be made in that paragraph. Line 6, strike the words, "...up to a total of an additional $1,.000. If we do so, however, then the additional payment will be deducted from the $2,700 pay- ment referred to later in this paragraph." Add: "...as long as we are given the opportunity to pick the moving company." Line 13, strike: "The extra $600.00 would then be deducted from the $2,700.00 payment which is to be made when the General Plan Amendment is approved.) Line 15, insert: "You will also be paid... (insert) in the case of a mobile home that is not 20' wide... Balance of sentence would remain the same. At the end of the paragraph, add: "In the case of a mobile home 20' wide or wider, a payment of $1,700 will also be made under the same conditions." Chairman Mickelson noted that two letters, one from Mr. Jantz and one from Mrs, Cays, plus an anonymous clipping from a newspaper, have been received after the public hearing and will be made part of the public ercord. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, for affirmation of the revised relocation plan of February 8, 1982, with appropriate amendments and deletions as made by Mr. Swanson. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz felt that it should go without saying that the plan should be disbursed with exceptions and that every effort should be made to explain the plan to the residents. Mr. Swanson explained that the changes will be made and the final plan will go out to all tenants. Commissioner Master explained that his "no" vote was not a reflection of whether it is fair or not fair, He thought that the tenants did not understand the plan and was not sure that the Planning Commission understands it. REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 9608 - RICHARD K. BROOKS, JR. Mr. Murphy presented this item to the Planning Commission, explaining that the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 9608, with revisions, on December 7, 1981, along with a zone change and a conditional use permit. On January 12, 1982 the Council held a public hearing and continued the item to February 9th for the Staff to prepare a synopsis of that public hearing. The applicant was encouraged to submit a compromise plan. At the February 9th City Council meeting, the Council continued the matter to February 23rd, which is next Tuesday, this continuance being at the request of the applicant. Mr. Murphy explained that revisions to the plan primarily involve the north end of the project, which he pointed out on the map in front of the Commission. The original plan approved by the Planning Commission basically showed duplex development along the northeast side, with an undeveloped area separating the project to the east and eliminating any access from the property to the east. Mr. Murphy said that the proposal basically does not change the Staff's original concerns regarding the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Fourteen The City Council has asked for the Commission's review of the changes in the plan and comments regarding same to come back before the Council meeting on February 23rd. Commissioner Vasquez asked what the final disposition was on the question of a right-of-way for the emergency access. Mr. Murphy responded. Applicant has a right-of-way across the property to the east, which was established some time ago. Richard Brooks, 17500 Red Hill, Irvine, addressed the Commission, explaining that the item had been heard by the Council on January 12th and because of the size and scope of the project, Council had extended for 30 days. During that time he met with several of the Councilmen and three representatives of the Orange Park Acres Committee and reviewed the plan which had been unanimously approved. In order to make an effort to resolve the concerns of the Orange Park Acres residents, they modified the project, primarily on the north end. He pointed out that the Tentative Tract Map, as reviewed by the Commission, illustrates the double cu l: de sac and access. They have planned to basically leave the natural hill with a continuous bank and berm, with a landscape screen hiding the cluster behind i t. He explained that they can provide emergency access if it is needed. Mr. Brooks then pointed out on an enlarged map how all of the hills in front of the project will remain intact. He also pointed out another drawing which illustrated a very nominal cut and their development on the other side. He explained another drawing to the Commission, pointing out the differences between their original plan and the alternate plan, showing that if they would drop the cut down to 770 feet all dwellings would drop out of sight from Orange Park Acres. He said that they have done their very best to hide the questionable area from Orange Park Acres. Chairman Mickelson asked if the City were to decide an emergency access would be necessary, how much grading would be necessary on the Orange Park Acres side of the hill. Mr. Brooks replied that there would be very little. It would be quite insignificant. Commissioner Coontz wondered if the Commission was expected to make comments on al l options presented. Mr. Brooks felt that comments shoul d be made. Mr. Brooks commented that he was affected by the fact that the Commission had reacted with sensitivity to the difficulties of this site and he wished more people could see it that way. He felt that his plan showed great sensitivity to the privacy of surrounding areas. Richard Siebert, 1388 N. Kennymead, Orange, representing the Orange Park Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to this plan. He addressed the meeting which was had with Mr. Brooks, two Councilmen and three members of the Association, stating that they had asked Mr. Brooks if he could alter the hill at the top of the project. Mr. Brooks stated that he could do nothing. Later, how- ever, he thought about what he could do to change this hill and he then approached Mr. Siebert with his new plan. He admitted that this new plan visually hides the structures from Orange Park Acres from certain lines of sight. Mr. Siebert explained that he then went back and presented this new plan to the Association. The Association's position is that this is a visual problem and they feel that this is a violation of the East Orange Plan. It is their contention that visually it is more pleasant but it still violates ~ the Plan and there is still cutting of the hills. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Fifteen Mr. Siebert explained that Mr. Brooks purchased this property, knowi ng the plan that i s on i t. He knew of al 1 of the problems involved with this land. The bottom line is that he cannot develop the property according to the East Orange Plan and make it work. The Association feels that years ago there was a plan drawn up. Several hills have been developed and knocked out since that plan was developed. Al l of the developments that came i n sai d that these hills would be saved and they have been told again and again that these hills would be kept as is. He pointed out some of the projects which were put through and the people were told that the density would not be increased in this area. Lastly, Mr. Si ebert stated that even though Mr. Brooks has altered the plan and has made some visual corrections, it still violates the East Orange Plan to too much of a degree. What he is promoting is more than what was planned for that area. Chairman Mickelson commented with regard to the statement about high spots where the development can be seen, stating that he did not agree with this statement and explaining why he did not agree. Mr. Siebert agreed that 99% of the project will be hidden. However, there are some areas which will be seen. Chairman Mickelson felt that it is important to note that he was on Staff when the Orange Park Plan was set up and he did not agree with some of the state- ments made in that regard. There is real disagreement as to what constituted the open space. He had envisioned it quite differently than what the City Council finally agreed upon. There is always that disagreement in interpretation as a general plan goes forward to a specific plan. Commissioner Coontz felt that Mr. Brooks has been most cooperative in this whole matter and has tried hard to please everyone concerned. Edward Cunningham, 10911 Meads, Orange, addressed the Commission, speaking with regard to the emergency access which Mr. Brooks states that he has on the north end of the property. He explained that his property borders on the emergency access and comes up off the Meads Loop. The owner of 2/3 of that access guaranteed easement to seven lots for emergency vehicles. He did not think you can grant an easement over an easement. He did not think there is emergency access through Mr. Brooks' property down to the Meads Loop. He also commented with regard to the project, pointing out that if the project is passed as it is now by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council and Mr. Brooks sells part of his land off for another project, someone else can come in and ask for more density. It is not the visual impact of the project that is in question, but that the hills are not supposed to have been developed. Chairman Mickelson spoke to the comment regarding easement, feeling that if a fire truck is fighting a fire, they will drive where they must drive. Mr. Brooks commented that Mr. Eberly is aware that the emergency access exists. Commissioner Coontz commented that the people forgot that the basic purpose for the emergency access is for health. and safety purposes. Mr. Minshew commented that there is a refer- ence to access right dedication, which he read to the Commission. If the City has an easement coming in from the Crowther side, he does not see a problem with Mr. Brooks giving one from the other side. Mr. Brooks said that as far as the record is concerned, they do ~ have an easement. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Sixteen There being no one else to speak for or against this plan, the Chairman closed the informal public hearing. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that the Council has asked the Commission to review the revised plans and comment on them. His opinion was that this is an improvement over the original plan. However, it does not seem to be fully acceptable to Orange Park Acres. He would favor the option on the south end that leaves the natural daylight line and keep the skyline and ridgeline as near original as it is practical to do. \~ Moved by Chairman Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to respond to the City Council by stating that they feel that changes to the north end of the project are an improvement, inasmuch as they retain much of the original skyline and ridgeline, reducing the cut on top of the hill and hiding the development down on the westerly side of the hill; and that the Commission would favor the option on the southern end where the daylight line of the cut retains the highest elevation to come as close to approximating the natural ridgeline as possible. Commissioner Master asked Chairman Mickelson to entertain an addition to the motion regarding the desirability of an emergency access, which Chairman Mickelson accepted. He then explained that he felt that they need to review their hillside standards for length of cul de sac and talk about the loading on the street compared to the length, as opposed to just an arbitrary length. Commissioner Coontz asked for an addition to the motion, stating a reaffirmation of the Commission's original position, which Chair- man Mickelson also agreed to. Chairman Mickelson then asked Mr. Johnson how strongly the Staff feels about providing emergency access on the end of that now revised trail at the north end. Mr. Johnson responded that he thought the Fire Department could speak better to this subject. Bill Simkins, of the Fire Department, stated that they would rather have an emergency access, pointing out that what we have is an isolated situation which must be served. If those units are cut off, the Fire Department must have a second access. They would recommend the option of a second access. Commissioner Master asked that the motion be amended to encourage the development of the emergency access. This was accepted. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez none none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, March 1, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. J ~. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p,m, PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this meeting adjourn at 10:45 p,m, on Wednesday, February 17, 1982, to recon- vene at 7:30 p,m. Monday, March 1, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P, Murphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and ~"" correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Wednesday, February 17, 1982. Dated this 18th day of February, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. Jeri P. Murphy, City anner ana Secretary to the Plann ng Co mission of the City of Orange. ^; L STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on February 17, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on February 18, 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p,m „ I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of February 17, 1982 was held. C