Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/1/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California February 1, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson STAFF: Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney ; Gary Joh nson, City Engineer; PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes of January 18, 1982, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1176 -HUMDINGER BILLIARD HALL: A request to permit the operation of 10 coin operated amusement devices occupying over 5 percent of the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 i n the C-3 (Commercial ) distri ct on the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Columbia Place. (Continued from meeting of January 18, 1982.) Jere Murphy explained that the Staff has been in discussion with the applicant and there is still some question as to the actual number of coin operated amusement devices for which the applicant should be requesting approval in the application, both in terms of the existing machines within the building, as well as possible additional machines. Therefore, Staff recommends that the item be continued to the next regular meeting on February 17, 1982. Tom Prenovost, 2082 Michelson Dr., Suite 100, Irvine, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he and the applicant have been meeting with Mr. Murphy since the last Planning Commission meeting and it is their feeling that a continuance would be the most appropriate course of action at this time. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that Conditional Use Perini t 11 76 be continued to February 17, 1982. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED C Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Two IN RE: NEUJ HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1181 - ORION PLANNING AND DEVELOPPIENT COMPANY: A request to allow the conversion of asingle-family residential unit to an office building in the OP (Office-Professional) district on land located on the west side of Glassell Street approximately 140 feet north of the centerline of Culver Avenue (374 South Glassell Street). (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Envi ro nmenta 1 Review . ) Vice-Chairman Hart asked to be excused from participating in this hearing, citing a conflict of i nteres t, due to the fact that the property is owned by members of his family. Commissioner Coontz took over the meeting at this point. Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to permit the conversion and restoration of ~. a residence into an office/professional structure. The property contains ,17 acres of 1 and located on the west side of south Glassell Street between Palmyra and Culver Avenues (374 S. Glassell Street). It has 55+ feet of frontage on Glassell Street and a lot depth of 132+ feet. The property contains a two-story single- family residence on property zoned (0-P) Office-Professional district. Mr. Lanz pointed out that the applicant proposes four offices on the first floor of the building, equalling 1,158 sq. ft., and two offices on the second floor, equalling 848 sq. ft., for a total of si x offices ecJual l i ng 2,006 sq , ft. ; with off-street parking consisting of 3 compact spaces and 5 standard parking spaces, for a total of 8 parking spaces, which is required by Code. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed two concerns: (a) That a trash enclosure be placed along the northern or eastern side of the building. (b) That the 16 foot flared driveway entrance be redesigned, per turning radii considerations, to align as much as possible with the existing drive. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1181 for the reasons that: (1) appl i cab 1 e development standards of th e Office-Professional District zone have been met; and (2) the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning. Staff recommends approval subject to the 22 conditions listed in the Staff Report, 21 of which are standard and Condition #1 reading as follows: Condition #1: That a revised plot plan be submitted that reflects a driveway redesign i n accordance with plans approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning and Development Services ; plan to i ncl ude driveway apron improvement. Plan must include a trash enclosure treatment and location. Commissioner Coontz opened the public hearing. Beverly Adams, 12721 applicant, commented should have been inc graded driveway with She stated that th ey Department. Panorama Place, Tus tin, representi ng the that they had submitted a revised plan which 1 uded i n the Staff Report, which i ncl udes the a 16 ft. fared apron and the trash enclosure. had discussed thi s with the Engineering Upon ques ti oni ng of Staff, the revised plan has not yet been signed off by the departments. However, Mr. Murphy saw no problem with the Commission voting on this i tem since the conditions called out i n the Staff Report wi 11 cover any design problems which might occur. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Three u There being no one else to speak for or against this application, Commissioner Coontz closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1181 for reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the 22 conditions 1 fisted in the Staff Report, which include review of the driveway and the trash enclosure, which the applicant has already commented upon, but which shoul d be further reviewed during the approval process. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1154, VARIANCE 1660, TENTATIVE TRACT 11646 - ORANGE CITY GROUP: A request to allow construction of a 17 unit, condominium, Planned Unit Development in the RD-6 district and to deviate from the 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. Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 1.06 acres of land and is located on the south side of Almond Street 159± feet east of Maplewood Street. The property formerly contained a single-family residence, but is now vacant. The site i s zoned RD-6 . Mr. Murphy explained that on August 10, 1981 the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the implementation process related to affordable housing applications . On August 25, 1981 , the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 2-81 (A) establishing text changes in the General Plan Land Use Element to comply with State 1 aw (Government Code 65925, AB 1151) with the condition that a public hearing or Condi tional Use Permit be necessary i n each i n- dividual case when a density bonus is requested. The Council also instructed the Staff through the Planning Commission to develop interim guidelines for evaluating affordable housing projects re- q ues ti ng density bonus es . Si x areas of concern were mentioned i n the August 25, 1981 memo from Mayor Beam to the City Council. These areas of concern were: (1) affordability; (2) speculation control/continued affordability; (3) location; (4) distribution; (5) economic necessity; and (6) i nfras tructure capacity . P~1r. Murphy further explained that on October 5, 1981 , the Planning Commission reviewed a request by this petitioner fora change of zoning from RD-6 to RM-7 and consideration of a 17 unit planned unit development with tandem parking, which the Commission recommended to the City Council for denial. The City Council has referred the applicant back to the Planning Commission to revise the project and to meet with the Staff to try and provide a more acceptable plan for the property. Mr. Murphy pointed out that Condi tional Use Permit 1154 permit the creation of a 17 Development with six of the and Variance 1660 for devia and coverage standards . the applicant now requests approval of and revised Tentative Tract 11646 to unit air space condominium, Planned Unit units committed to "affordable housing", tion from the maximum allowable density Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Four Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant proposes four structures arranged linearly east to west. One 5-unit structure is located near the south property 1 i ne wi th the other three 4-unit structures spaced to the north. The dwelling unit at the western end of each structure is designed as single-story unit while the remainder of the units are two-story. Each unit is designed with a 10'x 10' un- covered front patio and atwo-car covered garage. Emergency access is proposed from Washington Avenue by a 16 foot turf block drive connecting to the project's main driveway. Mr. Murphy said that Staff has spent considerable amount of time with the applicant, reviewing the question of the six affordable units in this project, this being the first application under the state law of last year with regard to the bonus density program. The Staff has not completed discussions with the applicant wi th regard to the questions about affordability, particularly the questions regarding the sale price of the units, the interest rates relating to those units, and the administration of the affordable units for the period of time depicted as 5 years in the present interim guidelines approved by the Planning Commission and the City "`, Council. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has a number of reservations regarding it. They, therefore, recommend denial because the proposed density and scale of the project is not compatible with the sur- roundi ng 1 and use or zoning. If the Commission feels that they have adequate information and that, due to the shortage of housing wi thi n the ci ty, that this project should be approved, there are 33 conditions listed in the Staff Report, including 10 specific conditions. How- ever, it is the Staff's opinion that the matter of affordable housing portion of the project really has not been explored adequately to date for the Commission to take action, particularly as the first project in this area of affordability. Commissioner Coontz questioned with regard to what had happened at the City Council meeting, reminding the Commission that their recom- mendation was to deny the previous plan. She wondered if the applicant had shown the City Council any plan other than the one the Commission had recommended for denial. Mr. Murphy replied that it was his understanding that the plan shown to the City Council was the same one as shown to the Commission. He further explained that the City Council basically found that the plan needed to be revised; that the intensity of the development was too great and also that the project did not relate well .enough to the surrounding area, which were Simi 1 ar concerns to that which the Commi ssion had voiced. Nothing was said at that time about the density bonus question. Commissioner Master saw nothing really changed in the revised plan, other than additional parking. He concurred with Commissioner Coontz that there are two separate issues here -one is the application itself and the other is whether there is enough information to judge whether there is an incentive to qualify for the density bonus. Commissioner Vasquez also agreed on this point. Vice-Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Floyd Bel si to, resi di ng i n Huntington Beach , representi ng the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. Fie explained that the footpri nt of the plan i n front of the Com- mission has been revised over what was previously presented. The number of units are the same, but the design is much more acceptable than what had been presented before. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Fi ve r Vice-Chairman Hart explained to Mr. Belsito the questions in the minds of the Commissioners and asked if he had any objection to a continuance of this item, in order that the Staff migh t acquire more information i n regard to the affordable housing side of the appl i cati on. Mr. Belsito explained that there was a probl em i n that the applicant was not here to express his wishes. He realized that this is a very controversial issue in terms of its newness and understood why the Commission would wish to move very deliberately i n the matter. He presented his thoughts with regard to why the legislation had been enacted regarding affordable housing. He pointed out what he felt was some incongruity in what the Staff had recommended as a project for this property. He wondered what the rationale was for Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Vasquez said that in view of the circumstances and in order to make a conscious evaluation of both aspects of this situation, continuance of this item would not be out of line for those purposes . Mr. Minshew asked what the direction of the Council had been on this matter with regard to time. Commissioner Coontz replied that it was her understanding that the possible direction was to give the applicant more time to revise the plan. However, at that time i t was not coupl ed wi th the bonus density and the affordable concerns. Mr. Belsito touched on a few of the comments which were made by the Staff, pointing out that the original plan had units on both sides, which would have placed some of them next to single-family residences on the west side of the property. In the revised plan, the developer has reduced the units on that side of the property down to single- s tory even though the zoning permits two-story . The Staff comments that the two-story units which are planned are not compatible with the single-story residences in the area. He wondered why the area was not zoned for si ngl e-story only i f there was this concern by the city . Commissioner Coontz questioned this, as she felt that at the time the Commission denied a zone change that there had been some direction given for studying the zoning in this area. She didn't remember, however, whether this had been an instruction to Staff to proceed with an "A" designation or just to research the area. Mr. Belsito felt that it had just been a research matter. Mr. Belsito pointed out that the developer had, of his own accord, reduced the height of the uni is on the west side of the property. He then drew the Commission's attention to another paragraph in the Staff Report, stating that the proposed density is not in harmony with the existing development. He felt that this goes without saying in a lot of areas where they are undergoing a transition or new development is taki ng place. He pointed out that the area is designated Medium Density (6-15 DW/AC) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Plan as the City has adopted i t. He again reiterated that the City Code does permit 11 units and under the bonus density, as the State would permit, there could be a maximum of 14. The developer is proposing 17, with no profit moti ve i n the additional three units . This is an attempt to try and come up with a proposal to help accommodate what appears to be an increasing demand for medium to low cost housing in the county. He explained that the County already has a program going and he said that the Staff had suggested that possibly that is the direction which should be taken, as far as administering the program and the techniques to be used. He discussed this with the developer and he felt that he had as good, if not a better proposal, which could be as effectively administered and to assure the resale controls that the city was i nterested i n seeing mai ntai ned. He submitted this list and Staff made eight comments in this regard. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Six L He pointed out that if this plan were to turn out to be a good model for this kind of housing, then Orange could be the pace setter in the county. He said that they are amenable to working in concert with the city of Orange. He asked for clarification with regard to statements made in the Staff Report on page eight re the number of units involved,.. pointing out that 14 units are mentioned, with 11 being permitted under the Code and Staff is asking for 4 affordable units, The figures do not agree. Dis- cussion among the Commissioners with regard to these figures. Mr. Murphy pointed out that percentagewise, 3Z units would be in the affordable category. Therefore, the Commission would decide whether three or four units would be affordable. He explained that the Staff could accept either number. There was further discussion among the Commissioners as to whether the affordable housing issue should be discussed further during the public hearing or whether just the density should be addressed. It was decided to continue with the public hearing to get input from the people regarding the density question. Mr. Belsito asked Mr. Murphy for clarification on the 25% figure for the density bonus, wondering if that was the maximum figure or whether there could be deviations over and above that figure. Mr. Murphy replied that the State law of last year permits a 25% density bonus or greater. The i nterim guidelines establ i shed by the P1 anni ng Commission and City Council state that the standard bonus density will be 25% and that any increase above the 25% would be offset by additional public good measures, additional affordable units at a lower price, or some tradeoff. Mr. Belsito then asked if the state law said that it is mandatory that it be 25% and h1r. Murphy explained that it says that a minimum of 25% be granted or three other develop- ment standards. i n 1 i eu of the bonus densi ty. Mr. Belsito then asked a question regarding coverage, stating that i t appears when you put i n some addi ti onal faci 1 i ti es to accommodate the alleviation of traffic problems by putting more on-site parking faci 1 i ti es the developer is penalized, because the coverage takes into consideration open parking, as well as such things as garages. since the city of Orange has a coverage requi rement of 50 %. He pointed out that i n other cities they do not uti 1 i ze the open parking space as part of the coverage requirements. Commissioner Hart replied that Orange has always had that problem as to what is defined as coverage and what is not. He pointed out that the plan in question is calling for 73% as opposed to the 50% normal requirement. He felt that this would be considered a tradeoff. Flo Kinder, 1342 E. Hickory Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission with questions re the application. She explained that she and her husband own a duplex adjacent to the complex on East Washington. She wondered what price range is being talked about when referring to affordable housing. Commissioner Hart quoted from the Staff Report that the i nterpretati on of affordable hous i~mg i s a unit which would cost $80,000. Commissioner Hart then pointed out that an affordable income is considered to be $30,906 median. This would allow someone with $37,000 income to qualify for affordable housing. This would be the highest income for qualification, the least amount being if the party could make the down payment of $10,000 and the ensuing payments. Mrs. Kinder then asked how many bedrooms would be in these units. Mr. Murphy explained that although he didn't have that figure, there would be two car garages provided. Mrs. Kinder wondered what the limitations would be on the people who qualify for affordable housing as far as a time limit on repurchasing is concerned. Commissioner Hart explained that there is a provision i n thi s regard and asked Mr. Murphy to give the detail s of this . Mr. Murphy explained that the guidelines refer to a 5 year resale control program in which during that time period the unit would be occupied by the qualified buyer. Mrs. Kinder wondered who would police this and Mr. Murphy said that this would be a decision to be made by the Planning Commission as part of the review of the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Seven Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the City Council has not had a public hearing on the proposed ordinance regarding the afforda- bility question, nor has the Planning Commission. All that has been done i s to study i t and come up wi th some suggestions . Mrs . Kinder stated that her only objection was to the crammi ng i n of additional uni is , which might end pup strangling the city . She would like to see the plan moved back so that a complete street would front i t and there would be compl ete access i n and out of the complex. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, Vice-Chairman Hart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz again expressed her opinion that she felt the project is too dense for the surrounding area, pointing out that the Ci ty Council had recognized the reasons for the Planning Com- mission turning down the previous application, which really wasn't too different than this one in terms of the number of units. She wondered if the number of bedrooms had been averaged out by the number of parking spaces and could we possibly be looking at a greater parking need than what is actually being shown. Mr. Plurphy replied that it was difficult to answer this question without knowing the actual number of bedrooms i n each unit. However, the project is proposing to include about 2 2 spaces per unit on site parking spaces, which is the normal standard in the lower density condominiums. Commissioner Master thought that this could be used as an incentive to lower the ratio of bedrooms to parking spaces. H e also commented that he thought the applicant had done something commendable i n the area where sensi tivi ties 1 i e regarding separation of the units to the surrounding community. He did feel that the density was too great for his acceptance. Commissioner Vasquez thought that in order to hale the benefit of eval uati ng the element of affordable housing and the new 1 aw that has gone into effect, he felt that a Conti nuance would not be out of order. This would give the opportunity for Staff to review all aspects and for the Commission to wrestl e wi th some of the issues and perhaps put some wheels i n motion. Commissioner Hart felt strongly that the density should be addressed in any further. discussions. He saw no point in discussing only the bonus if the density, as it is presented, is not acceptable. He thought that the Commission should make their wishes known regarding the density expected from a revised plan before granting a continuance. Commissioner Hart then addressed P~1r. Belcito, stating that it was the consensus of the Commission that 17 units is too dense. Mr. Belcito then asked for clarification regarding proper density, stating that i f th ey were using the 25% figure, i t woul d come to 3.75 units , or 15 units, as a compromise. The Commission pointed out that their figures came out to 14 uni is . 11 units , plus 3 bonus density units would be the breakdown and the Commission felt that this would be appropriate in that area. There was discussion among the Commissioners as to whether or not this should be studied in a study session and possibly come up with a firm program that might be the groundwork for future projects. Commissioner Coontz brought out that her understanding was that the Commission would handle each request for affordable housing on an individual basis. She didn't think it would possible to generalize. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1982 Page Ei ght Commissioner Hart felt that the mechanics of the affordability program have not been worked out and agreed to the need for a study session. Mr. Murphy said that if there were a continuance of a couple of weeks, he thought the Staff would be able to answer the few issues 1 eft to address . He felt that the two main issues left to be addressed are the administration of the units over the 5 year period of time and the resale controls and the other area of the maximum cost established for the units based on the current interest rates, i.e. monthly maintenance costs, down payment, etc. Commissioner Vasquez also felt that a work session was needed to resolve these issues, stating that the County already has a variety of mechanisms in operation which precisely address some of the concerns expressed here. .There was more discussion among the Commissions regarding the pros and cons of a study session, wi th comments being made that perhaps the Staff could work out resolution of those issues which they see as obvious at this point and bringing them back to the Commission. Mr. Belsito stated that since it didn't look as though the density his client was requesting would be approved, he thought that the applicant would probably just develop the 11 units allowable on his lot, rather than going to the 14 suggested. He did not feel that a continuance would be in the best interests of the applicant. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to continue this item to February 17, 1982, on the basis that Staff be directed to address those concerns which they believe to be the primary issues and the applicant to have an opportunity to revise his plans. AYES Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED AMENDMENT 1-82 REVIEW OF THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE SAME PREMISES WITH THE SALE OF VEHICLE FUEL: A request by the City Council to consider an ordinance prohibiting the sale of Alcoholic Beverages on the same premises with the sale of vehicle fuel . Gene Minshew presented this review to the Commission, explaining that this issue was handled about two years ago as a zoning matter and the procedure became that the zoning administrator could approve conditional use permits for this type of sale, provided that he could make two findings: (1) that it was compatible with surrounding 1 and use; and (2) that the person who was to purchase ei ther gasoline or al cohol i c beverages had to remove h imsel f from his vehicle. Mr. Minshew pointed out that the City Council has never been satisfied wi th the procedure provi ded by these code sections and, i n fact, has enacted an urgency ordinance banning the issuance of CUPs and has instructed Staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit their issuance permanently. This is a zoning matter which requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to enactment of such an ordinance by the City Council. The City Council has wrestled with this problem and it appears that a tentative conclusion has developed that the matter is deeper than any mere procedural change--that the selling of alcoholic beverages on the same premises with vehicle fuel , i n itsel f, serves no useful public purpose, no matter how it is administered. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Nine Mr. Minshew pointed out that under the urgency ordinance there has been a 120 day moratorium i n effect and they are just beginning a second 120 day moratorium and, to his knowledge, during that time there have been no requests for this type of establishment. He explained to the Commission that there are less than 10 of these type of establishments in the city now. He said that notice has been sent to all oil companies operating service stations in Orange, in order to give them an opportunity to be heard at this public hearing. He then explained the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code which would el imi Hate the issuance of CUPs for these types of sales, pointing out that those CUPS previously issued would continue as 1 egal ly non-conforming uses. Vice-Ch airman Hart opened the public heari ng. Dave Holloway, representing Thrifty Oil Company, 10,000 Lakewood Blvd., Downey, addressed the Commission, stating that they have what they feel are some very good ideas about what they would like to do with the several locations which they have in this direct area. They wish to open convenience stores at Cambridge and at Hudson, where there are now boarded up buildings which are an eyesore. He explained that they would not plan to sell hard liquor, only wine and beer, in these locations, along with selling gas. They are planning to landscape and maintain what is now a rundown area, also creating 6-10 jobs per unit. Their feeling is that this type of commercial venture will blend into the community. He then showed a sketch of what is planned to the Commission members, explaining that these will look like a typical three-bay gas station. Speaking to the issue at hand, he claimed that he did not really understand the problem of selling alcoholic beverages in the same place where gasoline is sold. He felt that Thrifty Oil does not plan to sell liquor to intoxicated persons or to minors, that their employees are highly trained and counseled in this area. He then explained the sketch in greater detail, as to exactly what they would put up on the properties. Commissioner Vasquez commented that one of the problems he has noted with the convenience stores which have been converted from gas stations was the frequent occurrences of thefts, robberies, etc. because gas stations are typically located in very prime locations with fast in- gress and egress to and from freeways and public thoroughfares. He asked Mr. Holloway to explain what Thrifty does to prevent these very common types of occurrences. Mr, Holloway explained, securitywise, that Thrifty advertises the fact that there is no large amount of money available on the site. All of the stores are on armoured car pickup so the money is in a safe and there is no way the employees can get at it. They have made it very unattractive for their stations to be robbed because there is only $50.00 available. As far as beer runners are concerned, they have designed their floor plans so that the coolers are located away from the front door, making people a little more aware of the fact that they must go through the entire store to escape. Their studies show that this has cut down 35% of all the beer runners. He felt that they have taken every precaution to make it very unattractive for robberies to occur. Commissioner Coontz felt that the City Council is rather tired of trying to administer the CUPS, since each one was a problem. She pointed out also that for all the training given employees of fast food stores, they get hit regularly. She explained to Mr. Holloway that what the building looks like is not the question. She also felt that the local citizens do not want these older markets updated into fast food convenience markets, with the problems that go with them. Planning Commission Minutes February 1 , 1982 Page Ten Mr. Hol 1 oway said that he did not think that robberies only occur in fast food or convenience type stores. Lately there has been a rash of bank robberies, and robberies and thefts of every kind of business. Commissioner Hart felt that competition should not be limited be- cause of possible robberies. He believed that robbery is the cost of doing business, unfortunately. He did not like the fact that they are possibly operating under a condition of fear. Commissioner Vasquez did not agree with Commissioner Hart's comments, statinghe considers the Commission`s comments as good reasons for consider- ing changing the ordinance. He felt that enforcement is certainly part of the issue here, as i t is i n many other thi nc?s ~ahi ch are reviewed by the Commission. The cost of enforcement in this type of area is significant enough to be considered. Mr. Minshew explained that ABC has jurisdiction in these things except that they have very few investigators and it falls upon the local jurisdiction to take care of the problem. The Council has never been satisfied that we have found a way of handling the matter. Bob Thielen, 811 Handy, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that California is at the bottom of the list when it comes to gas station/convenience store conversions. Part of the reason for this is because of the number of supermarkets which are available in this state. However, the rest of the country has determined that it is the convenience that the American public wants. He pointed out that the city of Orange can hold out against thi s type of con- version and the revenues from this type of operation will go to other cities. He went on to explain that Thrifty Oil presented a program to the City Council not too long ago on the corner of Cambridge and Katel l a . He di d not agree with the Counci 1 's arguments about drunk drivers and the possibility of their getting their liquor from convenience stores converted from gas stations. He did not think whether or not the city fathers decide upon gas station con- versions, it would make much difference in how many drunk drivers are out on the streets of Orange. He pointed out that even with robberies increasing around the country, because of ti ghter securi ty, robberies at 7-11 Stores have decreased 60 %. All of the Thrifty Oil convenience stores have put in the same security system as is in 7-11 Stores. Consequently, he did not see a security problem. He said that if people are going to decide to purchase liquor, they will do so, whether it be at a liquor store, a super market, a convenience store, or whatever. He did not find this a valid reason for denying oil company conversions in this city. Commissioner Coontz asked Mr. Thielen who he represented when coming before the Commission and he replied that he works for the Golden West Equipment Co. who service these types of stores. A division of his firm has done many of these types of conversions and he explained that Thrifty conversions are by far the highest quality ones they have done. His concern was the basis of why the city is so totally against this kind of thing. Commissioner Master stated that he travels many states for his business and cannot recall seeing any convenience store/gas stations mixed together. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that Orange has been a leader in a lot of respects and he felt that if they are willing to grasp an issue like this, which has caused the State Legislature to enact new laws, this is not to say they are going against the business com- ~- munity. The Commission and Council have a responsibility to the overall community, both social and financial. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1982 Page Eleven Mr. Thielen again reiterated that California is far behind other states in oil company conversions, according to the statistics which his company has. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Holloway if the ordinance is conditioned so that conversions would be permissible, but would prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages from those outlets, woul d thi s be acceptabl e to the i ndus try? Mr. Holloway did not think it would be. Commissioner Vasquez asked why not and Mr. Hol 1 oway replied that, unfortunately, society dictates that peopl e will drink alcoholic beverages and that is where the profit is. It was his opinion that if an ordinance prohibiting alcoholic beverages being sold where gasoline is sold, the city would end up with empty convenience store/gas stati on conversions . Vice-Chairman Hart closed the public hearing, there being no one else to speak to this issue. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend to the City Council the amendment of Orange Municipal Code 17.44.0106, by revising Subsection on liquor stores to read as follows: Liquor stores; except that no sale or delivery of any alcoholic beverage, whether conducted i n the C-1 or any other district, shall be permitted in any manner whatso- ever by any firm, person or entity conducting a drive-in dairy or any other drive-in operation or offers motor vehicle fuel for sale on the same premises. Also to amend Section 17.44.020 by deleting Subsection L in its Subsection M to read Subsection of the Orange Municipal Code by AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Master, V NOES: Commissioner Hart ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: of the Orange Municipal Code entirety and re-lettering L; and to amend Section 17.94.060 deleting Subsection E. ~squez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1078 - GERALD WILLMON: Staff request to the Planning Commission to seta revocation hearing on Conditional Use Permit 1078 approved for property on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Lester Street (1111 W. Chapman Avenue) for failure to comply with conditions of the permit approval. (Continued from the meeting of January 18, 1982. ) Mr. Murphy explained to the Commission that this was a request for a conversion of a house at the northeast corner of Chapman and Lester to an office-professional use fora contractor's office and storage yard. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the applicant presently has occupied the property with an office, but has not completed all of the conditions except for the dedication of the street frontage on Chapman Avenue. Staff has been in contact with the architect for the applicant, who indicates that he is working on plans to complete the conditions for the property. However, those steps to comply with the conditions seem to be taking an extremely long period of time. Vice-Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1982 Page Twelve Joseph Ricton, 2047 Rainbow Drive, Santa Ana, architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that. he was just made aware of the problem two weeks ago. He pointed out that he has been working with Mr. Lanz, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Nash and others on the city Staff and is awaiting information from Mr. Nash in order to go ahead on some of the conditions. He explained that they have no objection to any of the requests, it is a case of getting the proper informa- tion and getting the plans prepared to be approved by the Staff. Commissioner Hart pointed out that this permit was granted over a year ago and apparently nothing has been done to meet the conditions set forth at that time. He asked fora timetable as to when the conditions will be met. Mr. Ricton explained that the applicant is working out in the desert at the present time and does not get back into Orange to take care of this type of situation. He admitted that the applicant has been negligent in meeting these conditions, but all they want to do now is to straighten things out and satisfy the Staff and the Commission. He then explained that he must have information from the Public Works Department before he can go forward on this project. That is why nothing was done within the last two weeks. Mr. Ricton then told the Commission that the item concerning angled parking would be taken care of immediately. Commissioner Hart stated that the Commission needed to know the "bottom line" - when this project would be completed, as specified a year ago in January. Mr. Ricton replied that the completion of the work will be determined by the requirements received from the city. Mr. Murphy suggested that the Commission request a report from the applicant to be given at the next regular meeting, in writing, in- dicating the time lines which the Commission has asked for. Mr. Ricton agreed that he would try to comply with this request. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Paster, to continue this matter to February 17, 1982. Commissioner Master felt that it should be made very clear to the applicant that if the Commission is not satisfied with the time table, or the response, that revocation is still a possibility. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED SEWER MASTER PLAN: Gary Johnson presented a sewer master plan to the Commission, after which questions were asked of the Staff by the Commission. The report was received and filed. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a special meeting on Monday, February 8, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, in order to continue the public hearing on consideration of the revised Lamplighter Plobile Home Tenant Relocation Plan; and thence to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Wednesday, February 17, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. r 0 EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 1, 1982. The regular meeting of the Orange Ci ty P1 anni ng Commission was cal 1 ed to order by Vice-Chairman Hart at 7:30 p,m, PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Mickelson Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master, that this meeting adjourn at 11 :00 p.m, on Monday, February 1 , 1982, to reconvene at a special meeting on Monday, February 8, 1982 at 7:30 p.m, 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 Monday, February 1, 1982. Dated this 5th day of February, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. Je-~e .Murphy, Ci t~~Nianne~ and Secr ary to the Pla Wing C mmission of e City of Orange. io v 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 1 , 1982; sai d meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on Feb ruary 5, 1982 at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspi cuous place on or near the door of the place at which sai d meeting of February 1 , 1982 was held. `J