Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/7/1981 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 7, 1981 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Bob Beardsley, Assistant City Engineer; Bill Simpkins, Fire Department; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1981 f~oved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to approve the minutes for October 26, 1981, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve the minutes for November 16, 1981, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: REQUEST FROM ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT TO FIND ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BASIN WITHIN SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION PITS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution making finding that action is in conformance with General Plan. Commissioner h1aster asked for clarification on the impact of a reclama- tion plan regarding this site. He wondered if there was any possibility of negating that approved plan or putting it in abeyance via this vehicle, Mr. Murphy explained that this use would be in conformance with the actions of the Commission regarding the reclamation plan. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEb! HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 946, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1115, REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 9608 -BROOKS: Request to rezone property from A-1 to R-O, R-1-20, R-1-8, R-1-7, R-1-6, and RD-8 and to allow development of 345 residential units r as a Planned Unit Development at the northerly terminus of Crawford Canyon Road, north of Chapman Avenue. (Note: An addendum to EIR 496 has been prepared for this project.) Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Two Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to rezone 292 acres of land from Agriculture A-1 to R-0, R-1-20, R-1-8, R-1-7, R-1-6 and RD-8 Residential Districts for the construction of a total of 345 units, and to allow residential uses with zero lot lines. The property is located north of Chapman Avenue, north of the northerly terminus of Crawford Canyon Road. It is vacant and is zoned A-1. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: North -single-family homes under construction in the R-1-8 and R-1-10 zones; East - single-family homes in various County single-family zones; South - 680 unit planned unit development (pro- posed) in the RM-7 zone; and West - single-family homes in various single-family zones. It was explained that Crawford Canyon Road is proposed to extend through the site to meet with Cannon Street to the north. It is proposed to be a secondary arterial with an 80 foot width. Mr. Murphy then explained that the applicant received approval of original Tentative Tract 9608 in Play, 1980 which permitted a total of 237 units on the site. Also approved was a Conditional Use Permit to allow private streets as well as a zone change to various residential zones (subject to the intent to rezone procedure). The proposal at that time consisted of a mixture of conventional single-family and condominium units. The applicant now proposes development of 345 units on the site. These units would consist of 87 detached single-family residences, 74 attached (zero lot line) single-family residences, and 184 condo- minium units within four clusters. Also proposed is a public street system throughout the tract (excepting private drives). Mr. Murphy said that approval of a Tentative Tract is requested to create the lots; a zone change is requested to appropriately zone various lots for the lot sizes and densities proposed; and a Conditional Use Permit is re- quested to allow the zero lot line development (under the planned unit development standards). Since plans for the condominium proposals lack adequate details for proper review, a subsequent Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract will need to be filed to process them. Mr. Murphy explained that the applicant generally is proposing to in- crease density by increasing land coverage. This necessitates grading and developing along ridgelines and the use of long cul-de-sacs with emergency access roads. He pointed out that the East Oranae Plan specifies a maximum of 237 units for this site. Also discussed in the plan is an emphasis on the retention of the existing ridgelines and hilltops. The East Orange Implementation Committee has reviewed the proposal and generally acknowledged that less density and preservation of the ridgelines was preferred, but felt that cuts were treated sensitively and feared that if this project is not accepted a worse development alternative could be forthcoming in the future. The Orange Park Acres Planning Committee reviewed the proposal also, since their planning area adjoins the property in question to the east. They stated that the density and topographical impact of the previous proposal (original Tentative Tract 9608) were realistic and did not find the revised plan acceptable. The Staff has reviewed the request and expresses a number of reserva- tions about the proposal. The most significant conclusion was that the proposed grading and density was not in accordance with the objectives of the East Orange Plan. From a functional standpoint, the following was noted: Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Three 1. "A" Street and "I" Street were extremely long cul-de-sacs (approximately 3,200 feet and 1,850 feet respectively) and questions exist as to the acceptability of emergency access alternatives shown. Specifically, a 750 foot long 20 foot wide emergency access road with a 10% grade is proposed to line "A" Street to Chapman Avenue. Staff is not convinced, however, that such a rarely used road would be adequately maintained over a prolonged period by the Homeowners' Association, in order to guarantee long-term emergency access. It is further noted that the emergency access for "I" Street is via a circuitous existing easement through property to the east, while this easement is probably adequate for the few residences it now serves. Staff does not feel that it is adequate to accommodate an additional 36 units. It should be further pointed out that emergency public access should be acquired since the easement may be needed for public evacuation as well. 2. Other than Crawford Canyon Road and "B" through "H" Streets, Staff does not feel that it would be appropriate to accept other streets for dedications of public right-of-way. The streets in question are extremely long cul-de-sacs which functionally serve as private streets and should thus be privately maintained. In addition, parking enforcement problems are anticipated which the Police Department feels should be privately resolved. 3. Street sections show that Crawford Canyon Road is to be partially improved at this time, with the City undertaking full improvements in the future. This proposal is contrary to previous direction from the City Council, which has required full improvements by the developer. In addition, the section drawing for the emergency access road shows partial paving of the 20 foot section. The entire 20 feet will need to be paved. 4. Staff understands that an equestrian crossing across Crawford Canyon Road has been agreed to but none is shown on the map. 5. A reservoir site west of Crawford Canyon Road will be required by the Water Department and should be acknowledged on the map. Mr. P1urphy then explained that the Staff feels that the discussion included in the addendum to EIR 496 adequately conforms to the require- ments of the State EIR guidelines. It should be pointed out that the applicant, as well as the firm which prepared the EIR, were informed that the Environmental concerns of those who may oppose the project should be solicited and discussed in the EIR in conformance with the Supreme Court decision in Woodland Hills. Staff feels that the magnitude of deviation from the East Orange Plan is not acceptable and must, therefore, recommend denial of this proposal. In addition, excessively long cul-de-sacs with questionable emergency access roads and easements render the plan functionally questionable. The applicant claims that the economic demands of constructing Crawford Canyon Road necessitates his request to construct 345 units though the East Orange Plan limits development to 237. He also proposes to only partially construct that arterial for similar reasons. Staff notes, however, that it has long been known that, as a condition of development of this property, Crawford Canyon Road would have to be dedicated and fully improved. Similarly, the East Orange Plan has been in existence for years and it specifically es- tablishes a maximum number of units for the property, as well as outlines development criteria which seeks to preserve existing topographical features. Though some economic variables (such as geological uncer- tainties) cannot be predicted, the cost of providing Crawford Canyon Road vs. the unit yield were available prior to the applicant's interest in the property and Staff feels that the argument of economic hardship does not justify deviation from the East Orange Plan. Staff recommends denial of the proposal for the following reasons: Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Four 1. The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the East Orange Plan, in that the number of units proposed exceed that allowed and extensive grading of ridgelines is proposed. 2. Excessively long cul-de-sacs are proposed for which emergency alternative access is unacceptable. Should the Planning Com- mission feel that the project warrants approval, the following condition is recommended with the Conditional Use Permit: 1) That a grading plan and precise driveway scheme shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to insure maximizing of common driveways on attached single-family units. This shall be done prior to issuance of building permits for Lots 1-38 and 42-77. Staff indicated that if the Commission found the proposal to be acceptable, the conditions of the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet are recommended. Mr. Murphy pointed out that three pieces of correspondence had been received by Staff in regard to this proposed project: one from Shirley Grindle, President of the East Orange Open Space Management Corporation, which includes 4 additional suggested conditions, one from George Rach, Chairman of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, and a third from Tom Anderson, on behalf of Mr. Brooks. Also, the Commission had received an outline by the Orange Park Acres Association on their presentation at tonight's meeting. Commissioner Coontz wondered if a limited access road to Chapman Avenue was considered to be too dangerous in place of the emergency access. Mr. Murphy replied that the traffic engineer is concerned about the visib~;lity standpoint. Commissioner Coontz then read from the condi- tions in this regard, stating that she thought it would be in the best interests of this plan that the road be private or public, but not emergency access. Mr. Murphy explained that the intent of that condition is to insure that if either of the long cul-de-sacs were to be blocked off, that the public would have the alternative of crossing either one of these accesses to a public street. Commissioner Coontz did not understand the Staff's concern over a possible problem on the upkeep of the roads. Mr. Murphy explained this situation in further detail. Commissioner Master said that, in looking at the previous plan, the access in question was a public street with lots fronting on it. That doesn't seem to be so in the present plan. Mr. Murphy agreed that this was so and explained that the traffic engineer didn't feel that there was as much of a problem in the previous plan as what is now being proposed because of fewer number of units in the originally approved tract. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Richard Brooks, the applicant, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that he has worked as a developer and architect on a number of projects in the City of Orange. He explained that his firm has the expertise of working on many large projects. He then went on to explain the exhibits which were before the Commission and the audience. He first showed an aerial photograph of the land in question, explaining that they had photographed the project and superimposed it upon the aerial map in order to better show how the project fits into this area. He then pointed out architects' drawings and explained them briefly to the Commission, pointing out that no matter what is done with this property there can be very little deviation from what is already planned. He explained how they had Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Five worked with Orange Park Acres to try and come up with a plan that was acceptable to the residents around it. He said that it is ironic that in 1981 they are working on a 292 acre property and are completely surrounded by residents who reside in the county, not in the City of Orange. He then made a few comments relative to the Staff Report. He explained that basically they have private streets, although they are designed to city standards. Referring to Item 9, Page 2 of the Staff Report, it talks about density being 1.46 units per acre. He thought that this was a misnomer. It should be looked at on an overall basis and on that basis the density becomes less. These are not just individual lots on a piece of property, there is much open space around them. Item #10 speaks of the cut to the 1 ower area . Mr. Brooks explained that the hill is not a cone and he went on to describe exactly how it is shaped and how it would be cut. Under Item #13, he did not believe that the original number of units was 237. He explained that he has researched the East Orange Plan and is sure that the number of units was in the neighborhood of 300. They are now asking for 345 units. On Page 3, Staff stated one thing and then another on Page 5. Mr. Brooks felt that there are inconsistencies in these statements. Page 4, Item 5, there were again inconsistent numbers quoted. Under special conditions and remarks in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, Condition #2 reads: "Dedicate and construct Crawford Canyon Road to ultimate width per City Standards prior to any occupancy." P1r. Brooks explained that they do not need the road for their project. Condition #4, which states that all public streets shall have a minimum center line radius of 200 feet, he pointed out that they are looking for private streets. Condition #8 - All cut & fill slopes shall be landscaped and sprinklered (including Lots "E" & "F") as soon as water is available. He explained that "E" & "F" are open spaces and will not be planted with anything. Condition #14 - Details of maintenance and ownership of Lot "D" to be reviewed and approved~iby the City Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Pap. Mr. Brooks pointed out that Lot "D" is the 110 acre complete open space which is a backdrop to the City of Orange. He also explained that they have already drafted an open space grant deed which he under- stood is apparently satisfactory and he thought some reference should be made to it in the report. Mr. Brooks then spoke a 1 i ttl e bit about the history of the Jones Ranch, pointing out the projects which surround this property. He explained about the original application for 300 units, pointing out that the original plan had a little less than two million yards of cut and fill. This revised plan has not much more than that. He went on to explain the proposed plan in more detail, pointing out on the architectural drawings where the detached and attached units would be placed. He also pointed out why a mix of different housing is needed on this type of property. He went into detail with regard to the burms and planting which will be effected around the edge of the property. Mr. Brooks then referred to the emergency access, explaining that they are very much under design with regard to traffic on the streets. He pointed out where they plan to place the emergency accesses and that they plan to place maintenance of these roads in the CC&Rs. He said that they had hired a firm to analyze geologically where it would be appropriate to build their units. They then set up a team to study this property and plan what is proposed here tonight. This team has met Zvi th the people i n Orange Park Acres and other residents i n the surrounding areas. ~~~ ~J Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Six Mr. Brooks then placed an overlay over the aerial photograph, showing where the open spaces will be, also pointing out where the emergency accesses are located. He concluded by saying that this property is considered a very difficult piece of property to develop. Develop- ment costs were so tremendous that they had to modify the Tentative Tract Map. This plan is a little more dense than the East Orange Plan, but it is a project which produces the amenities needed and he felt that this plan is the best solution for this piece of property. Commissioner Master asked about the dedication of private streets. If they are private streets, why are they dedicated on the map for public streets? Mr. Brooks replied that they would prefer private streets. However, they are designed to City standards. Commissioner Coontz asked a question regarding the difference between Staff's understanding of the City Council's decision on Crawford Canyon Road dedication and construction to ultimate width vs. Mr. Brooks' statement. She wondered when this took place and in what context. Mr. Brooks answered that this happened about a month or two after the approval of the Tentative Tract Map. He made a formal re- quest to the City Council that they only provide half improvement. Commissioner Hart asked for clarification with regard to Mr. Brooks' mention of a disagreement with the figures quoted in the Staff Report. Mr. Brooks explained that he did not have the material with him to quote from, but he thought if the Commission were to refer to the East Orange General Plan, it allocates 1100 units plus or minus to the whole Jones Ranch. By subtracting out the areas which have already been developed, not all of the units have been taken that were allowed in certain areas. After compiling all of the figures, P~1r. Brooks had come up with 300 units which would be allowed by the East Orange Plan. Commissioner Master pointed out that Mr. Brooks had emphasized the length of the emergency access rather than the length of main streets. Staff had expressed concern over the length of the main streets. Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Brooks about a reference he had made to a difference with Staff in developing Crawford Canyon Road. Mr. 6 rooks explained that what he was ref erring to was that the Staff Re- port has several items included in it that he thought he should have been consulted on. He thought they had looked at things differently than he had and it comes down to a question of interpretation. He had no problem with the fact that basically the revised Tentative Tract Map provides for the extension of Crawford Canyon Road. Joseph Woollett, Trustee of the East Orange Open Space Corporation, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that this is a group who has been very concerned about the open space. They have spoken several times with Mr. Brooks in regard to this project and are very pleased about the open space which is being pro- vided here. He referred to four conditions which had been suggested in their letter to the Commission, reading the conditions as follows: 1. That portion of Tentative Tract 9608 located west of proposed Crawford Canyon Road is to be deeded in its entirety to EOOSMC upon approval by the City Council of the Final Tract Map. 2. Recreational Trail connection(s) are to be shown on the Final Tract P1ap which connect Recreational Trails on properties im- mediately to the east and northeast of Tract 9608 with the Open Space area immediately west of Crawford Canyon Road. (Precise connection points are mutually being determined by Mr. Brooks and Eugene St. Amand - a Trustee of EOOSPIC and a member of the City Trails Committee.) "4 Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Seven 3. A safe crossing of Crawford Canyon Road for users of the Recreational Trail, is to be provided by Richard Brooks, Jr. and Associates. Said crossing may be either an underground culvert suitable for equestrians and hikers, or a controlled signal permitting safe-crossing of Crawford Canyon Road. The precise point of crossing is to provide reasonable access to the Open Space area from the east side of Crawford Canyon Road and the Recreational Trail. 4. The applicant - Richard K. Brooks, Jr. and Associates, have agreed to install landscaping along the west side of Crawford Canyon Road where it is contiguous with the Open Space area, to serve as a physical barrier to hinder motor vehicle access to the Open Space area. This landscaping is to consist of low- maintenance native trees and shrubs requiring minimal watering once established. This landscaping will also obscure the cut slopes required for the construction of Crawford Canyon Road. Chairman Mickel son questioned the suggested Condition #3, stating that he had trouble with this condition and wondered if these are the only two things acceptable to this group. The reply was in the negative. Their concern is to provide for recreational uses. This could be worked out. Barry Cottle, 1440 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that his firm of Hobbs & Allen has interest in the area in question here. He wanted the Commission to know that they approve of the proposed project. Peter McWilliams, of British Holdings, Inc., addressed the Commission in favor of this project, saying that they are doing a map of the area across from the proposed project and he finds this plan to be very creative and marketable. It would be very similar to the Newport and Irvine areas. I~layne Kiley, a resident of the City of Orange and owning the property that is contiguous to the property to be developed, addressed the Commission in favor of this project. He stated that he has purchased and restored the Jones Ranch house. He is excited about this new project because he will not have to be the unofficial policeman of that area any longer. He feels this plan is unique and exciting and is in favor of it. Shirley Grindle, 19051 Glen Arran, Orange, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. She stated that she is the President of the East Orange Open Space Management Corporation and has come before the Commission many times in the last several years, strenuously objecting to many of the proposed plans for these hills. She served on the formation committee for the East Orange Plan. She explained that the Orange Park Acres Plan primarily was to retain as much open space as possible, but they did not intend to retain the ridgeline around that area. The East Orange Plan was very interested in re- taining as much of the E1 h1odena hills in open space as possible. They made many concessions in order to retain these open spaces. She explained how the East Orange Management Corporation was formed and why. In the Orange Park Acres Plan, she thought that everyone should be aware that it showed development on the hills that back up to Orange Park Acres, the Meads Loop (there were supposed to be 72 homes built up on that ridgeline), and it was not a aoal in the Orange Park Acres Plan to retain the ridges around Orange Park Acres. In the East Orange Plan, development is also shown on that same hill. Planning'Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Eight Mrs. Grindle said that when Mr. Brooks first presented his plan, the people compalined about being able to see homes on the hill near the Meads Loop. He went back to the drawing board and changed the design so that the residents will not see any homes. This is the first plan that has left all of the hills which they wanted to save. She sup- ports this plan and pointed out that the original allowance of units was well over 237, Staff having recommended 300 units on the Jones Ranch. She felt that the issue is not the extra number of units. It is whether these hills will be developed or not. Mrs. Grindle requested that the Commission approve this plan and send it to the City Council. She believes that if this plan is denied that it will be because there will be a plan to develop all of the hills surrounding Orange Park Acres. Ted Botens, 10802 Meads, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He explained that he is currently the President of the Orange Park Acres Association, which represents about 1200 homeowners on the east side of the El P~odena hills. He is also speaking on behalf of a group that was formed, called the SUMMIT, which stands for Save Uncut Mountains For Monuments in Time. This group obtained over 1200 signatures opposing the cutting of the E1 Modena hills. He thought that it is possible that a General Plan Amendment is required here and that Mr. Brooks has not instigated the proper land use pro- cedures and maybe required to present a new EIR. His group is aware that the City Council waived the requirement for an amendment to both the city's Land Use Element and the East Orange General Plan. They continue to support the East Orange General Plan and do not believe this project meets the East Orange General Plan. The residents, as well as the city have continued to live with the many difficult decisions that were made when the East Orange Plan was approved. The community entered no objections when the hills to the south of Chapman Avenue, bordering Orange Park Acres were fully developed, because this was one of the compromises that had to be made in order to save the El Modena hills. This new plan involves a significant cutting of the hills and much more density in the project. This is a drastic change from the East Orange General Plan. Mr. Botens explained that his group felt that the concepts and needs of the East Orange Plan are as valid today as they were in 1976. He pointed out that a city councilman has stated that the hills should be saved for future generations. This is what they would like to see. ~ Edward Eberly, 898 Meads Road, Orange (business address: 2601 E. Willow, Signal Hill), addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed site. He called to the Commission's attention what he felt were some errors stated by ~~1r. Brooks. He indicated that there was no city property adjoining the subject property. Mr. Eberly pointed out the northly access to the 1700 ft. cul-de-sac which calls for an emergency access, stating that the emergency access would go over his property an d this property is within the city of Orange. He pointed out that there is a hill 38 ft. in height immediately between his property and Crawford Canyon Road, which the city requires that it remain. Mr. Eberly stated that he has an easement right on that par- ticular hill. for landscape purposes. Therefore, he does not think the hill can be removed. Mr. Eberly th en pointed out that Mr. Brooks had said he had emergency access off of the northerly cul-de-sac. This would be across his property and there will be no public access granted. Chairman Mickelson asked a question regarding the easement for the northerly emergency access. Mr. Eberly replied that at the moment that is a private driveway owned by him. The only reservation granted at this time is an emergency access for County vehicles only, not for the public. Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Nine Scott Richmond, resident of the City of Orange for the past five years, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He stated that he is a member of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. The proposed development would virtually destroy the East Orange Plan, as well as the Orange Park Acres Plan. He explained that this piece of property has two ridgelines on it. They went along with Mr. Brooks' original proposal because there was no development shown on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road. However, the plan which is proposed now would have all of their hills cut off. Mr. Richmond read briefly from the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange Plan, explaining that both of these plans have been on record since 1976. He said that it is not true that the Orange Park Acres residents are only concerned with their one-acre 1 ife style. They live in a bowllike place and have developed it to be pastoral and a pleasant country atmosphere. They do not ~~~ish to see this changed. He spoke about grading plans within the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange Plan. Both of these plans overlap on the eastern ridge overlooking the Jones Ranch. He pointed out the major compromises which have been made already in these areas, one being to agree to some 357 more units than had been initially proposed for the Jones Ranch. The other compromise was to eliminate Tom Thumb Hill. These concessions should not be forgotten. P~Ir. Richmond then said that the density for this area has already been established and the plans call for the hilltops and ridgelines to be preserved. He pointed out that both plans have stated that the ridge- lines are to be maintained and this plan would not do that. It would eliminate the ridgelines, which is not what the plans call for. He pointed out that they have agreed to the original plan, but they find the revised plan unacceptable. Rose Ellen Cunningham, 10911 Meads Avenue, Orange, addressed the Com- mission, speaking with regard to past proposed developments in the area in question. She presented a list of developments which had been pro- posed in the area in the past several years, together with the action which had been taken by the Planning Commission and City Council in each of these proposals. She alluded to the fact that Mr. Brooks' previous plan had been approved by Orange Park Acres and then pointed out the difference between that plan and the proposed plan before the Commission now. She stated that their group does not approve of this plan. Richard Siebert, 1388 N. Kennymead, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He felt that Mrs. Grindle is wrong about what she said regarding the ridgelines. The plans call for the ridgelines to be preserved. He pointed out that you can cut and fill the same amount, but it becomes different where you cut and fill. If this is approved, Mr. Brooks will have the option to come back and ask for more area to be cut and filled. The ridgelines must be preserved. There are rules which have been set up for several years and they must be followed. They are not saying that the ridgelines must not be touched at all , but they should be preserved as much as possible. Juddith Dennick, 700 W. La Veta, A-12, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that she lives in a condo- minium. She explained that this kind of living is very regimented and, to get away from this regimentation, she rides horses. She rides in the Orange Park Acres area and feels that this should be available to everyone and not to just a few. She hopes that there will be some area left untouched so that her daughter can appreciate the area also. Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Ten Betty Spurgeon, 10531 Morada Drive, Orange, stated that she was the chairman for the petition committee for SUP~IMIT. She turned in the signed petitions which had been collected and explained that the citizens of Orange are fighting to save the hills around them. There is a vast majority of Orange citizens who are in favor of the East Orange Plan. She wondered what good city plans are if they can be easily modified for the monetary gain of a few. The people of Orange clearly love their city and the hills that surround it. Chairman Mickel son then read the petitions which had been signed: "Brooks Development - reason for signing petition - The developer is proposing a plan which would cut up to 70 feet off the hilltops of East Orange. This is equal to the height of a seven-story building and amounts to more than one-third of the total hill. This proposed development is in violation of the East Orange General Plan, which provides that those hills are to be left in their natural state as a permanent greenbelt. This petition will be presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission to convince them that the residents of the area do not want these hills cut and do want them to stick to the East Orange Plan, as approved in 1975. (Second range of hills bordering Orange Park Acres within Tract 9608)". Chairman hlickelson further pointed out that each petition states: "We, the undersigned, wish to protest the proposed development that is requiring the cutting of the hills opposite the eastern er~d of Orange within Tract 9608 bordering Orange Park Acres (formerly the Jones Ranch property)." The Chairman then explained that these petitions would go into the record and will be presented to the City Council. Larry Day, 20169 Hillside Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that as a citizen of Orange it upsets him to see the city continually amending the plans. We should modify our plan and work on it. Gerald Podolak, 1186 Ridgeline, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He showed a series of slides, explaining that he had worked on a committee many years ago to preserve the hill- tops. He explained how an entire hill will have to be removed in order to put the proposed road through. He further explained about the hills surrounding Orange Park Acres, as he showed the slides to the Commission. Walter Berkowitz, 7523 Twin Leaf Trail, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out the problems which the Broadmoor Tract has had with an emergency access and saying that he thought that Mr. Brooks could learn from this. He was in total opposition to the project. Mr. Brooks again addressed the Commission, in rebuttal of the statements of opposition. He stated that in essence this is a creative land use plan. The grading concept is one that really proposes nothing like what was presented in the slides. Sometimes when things are taken out of context they are not fully understood. Mr. Brooks said that he did not realize that there was a lot that was in the City of Orange adjacent to the proposed project. He proposed that it be made a condition that they have legal access. It is his understanding that they have legal easement. He tried to show the exhaustive studies and plans that went into developing this creative plan. He felt that there is not another development around that has the creativity of this plan. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Mickelson asked for more clarification regarding private streets vs. public streets. Mr. Murphy explained that Mr. Brooks was asking that the streets shown on the map, lettered A through I be dedicated as public streets. He explained that only the streets in Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Eleven the lower area should be dedicated and the other streets should be kept private with their maintenance as part of the homeowners' responsibilities. Commissioner Master thought that Mr. Brooks had asked that A through J be private streets. Mr. Brooks agreed with this. Mr. Murphy then explained that this is a new proposal, as far as Staff was concerned. Chairman P1ickelson wondered what was so unique about those streets that would indicate that they should be private rather than public, as long as they are designed to public standards. Mr. Murphy felt that it involves both the prolonged length of the streets, as well as the fact that they would have the duplex type of development along most of those streets and also serve condominium projects. They are totally enclosed within an overall planned unit development. Therefore, people along those streets may treat them differently than the standard subdivision does in terms of how they utilize those streets. He pointed out that the Police Department particularly was concerned about the problem with parking and utiliza- tion of the streets for other than normal purposes. Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification on Condition #5 in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Mr. Murphy explained that the area in the southeast corner of the tract abuts Chapman directly for a distance of approximately 500 feet. Staff would like to see the ultimate Chapman Avenue improved in that area, as the Aikens develop- ment has done to the south. Commissioner Vasquez said that it was his understanding that Crawford Canyon Road is a secondary arterial highway and Mr. Murphy agreed that this was correct. Commissioner Coontz asked for clarification from the Assistant City Engineer with regard to the extension of Crawford Canyon Road, pointing out that this is not just something that is part of this particular plan, but it is something that the city is committed to on the Master Plan. P~1r. Beardsley said that as far as he knew Staff had no informa- tion regarding Council's action in this matter. However, Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the extension is shown on the Master Plan and there is a General Plan Amendment, whereby Crawford Canyon Road is shown on the circulation element of the City of Orange. Mr. Beardsley agreed that this was correct. Therefore, this is not something that is just part of this particular plan, it is something that the City is committed to. Mr. Beardsley pointed out that the key thing here is that Mr. Brooks' property abuts both sides of the arterial highway which would require full development. Chairman Mickel son explained that the City Council has gone one step further in this particular road and have adopted a precise alignment which establishes both the horizontal alignment and the vertical curves for the length of that road, making an engineering constraint on the map, which Mr. Brooks must comply with. Commissioner Vasquez asked if we had established that the reference to the 300 unit development had been previously approved. He wondered if this was confirmed. Mr. Murphy replied that he believed the Staff had recommended approval of a previous plan by another developer that was not finally approved by the City Council. This was in the form of a General Plan Amendment and was not discussed in specific numbers. Chairman Mickelson commented that it was his understanding that the proposed plan showed a unit count of 962 as a total number for the Jones Ranch. At that time there was an 8-82 acre commercial site down in the valley alongside of Chapman Avenue, which proposed a little town center with some units above the stores, sort of an old Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Twel v e ~_ town concept, that was deleted later and converted to approximately 120 units as a designation on the plan, for a total of 1082 on the Jones Ranch. He pointed out that so far, Ponderosa is 100 units, Aikens is 647, which gives a total of 747 already developed, leaving 335. Mr. Brooks is proposing 345. So we are talking about 10 or 20 units over what the General Plan originally was approved for. Mr. Murphy said it was their understanding that the Brooks plan for last year showed 237 units and it was his understanding that this was what was called out in the General Plan. Commissioner Master stated that there had been much discussion about the cul-de-sacs and length of streets and he asked for more discussion by Staff in this regard. Mr. P~lurphy suggested that the representative of the Fire Department speak to this question. Bill Simpkins, Fire Department, explained that from what they see, the grades are acceptable. He pointed out on the aerial map the emergency accesses, explaining that they would not have too much problem utilizing the emergency access at the Southeast corner of the project. However, the other one, at the northeast corner, presents a large problem. He then proceeded to explain why. Chairman Mickelson read a portion of a memorandum to Jere Murphy from Frank Page, Director of Public Works, regarding revised wording for Condition #29 in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. Said Condition #29 to include the following wording: "Any reservoir constructed in the open space area west of Crawford Canyon Road would be on the east and south facing slopes, not affecting the view from the west, of the west facing slope. As per conversation with Mrs. Grindle, it was also agreed that the existing small tank currently out of service on the west facing slope would be removed and the scar from this tank site and access would be restored simultaneous with the construction of the new 490 Zone tank and the property owned by the City for that tank would be quit claimed to the Open Spaces Corporation in considera- tion of the property needed from the Open Spaces Corporation for the new tank site." Chairman Mickelson then explained that this would be entered into the record. Commissioner Coontz commented about the East Orange Plan study, stating that this did take a lot of research and study by the residents of that area. However, the plan must be looked at in light of its needs. The report did not speak to circulation. Crawford Canyon Road was ref erred to but negatively. The City had to take a hard look at an extension for Crawford Canyon Road and this is now a reality. Also, the City is requiring that whoever develops that project must provide the road. This is asking a lot of any developer. The City wants the extension but does not want to pay for it. She pointed out that these things change how the Commission looks at these plans. This plan provides the variety of housing which is needed and this developer has handled the problem with sensitivity. Her feeling is that we should uaork with this revision and not dump it. This appli- cant is doing the very best he can to preserve the hills. She has confidence in this plan. Commissioner Coontz also commented that Shirley Grindle has done a good job with regard to her proposal for maintenance of open space. This is something that the Commission has been concerned about and she felt that it should be included with any proposal. Commissioner Hart stated that in reference to the Open Space Agreement that Mrs. Grindle has pushed hard for, he felt that if we lose this plan we will lose the open space. He could see open space being chopped up into small parcels. He did not like everything about the proposed plan, but felt there could be some tradeoffs as far as the open space is concerned. He agreed that there are some engineering Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Thirteen problems that Mr. Brooks has come up against, which no one could have foreseen when they adopted the East Orange Plan. He explained that the East Orange Plan was a surface plan. What was down below was not known at that time. It is known now and there is unstable ground in some areas which he will not be able to build on. Commissioner Coontz spoke to the length of the streets, stating that she felt that this is a difficult piece of ground to develop and we must look at the length of the streets within the proper context. Commissioner Master noted Condition #17, which states: "Access to, and design of, all emergency access drives shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments prior to the approval of the Final Map." He pointed out that this puts the responsibility and control in the hands of Staff. Mr. Murphy did not agree with this statement. The intention of that condition is only to require that the gating design be reviewed by Staff, Chairman P~lickelson asked Mr. Murphy how long the cul-de-sac was on the northerly end. Mr. Murphy replied that the Staff Report calls out 3200 feet on the upper access and 1850 feet on the lower one. Commissioner Coontz remarked with reference to the Broadmoor tract and the problems they had with emergency access barriers, that she felt those problems were brought on by the residents of Broadmoor. Chairman Mickelson explained that we have had other emergency gate systems in the city and the only thought was to provide a barrier. Mr. Murphy explained that this type of problem occurs more in rural areas where the gates are not visible from residences. These problems do not seem to occur in a more urban area. He went on to point out the type of problems which have come up in the Broadmoor. tract. Chairman Mickelson then asked some questions of Mr. Brooks. He won- dered if the proposed private streets, A through J, would be gated for privacy. Mr. Brooks answered in the affirmative and explained the difference between this proposal and Broadmoor. Chairman Mickelson then asked about the 40-50 ft. cut, pointing out on the map where he was questioning. He questioned whether the lots on the Orange Park Acres side would be below the daylight line. Mr. Brooks answered that this was correct. Chairman Mickelson then asked about another area which had been a bone of contention this evening, wondering if there. is any way that the pad could be lowered and still make the project workable. He felt that the statements about cutting off the hills are not true and he explained on the map why this was not so. However, he asked if this one area could be changed. Mr. Brooks explained how they would improve this area with a burm and landscaping. Chairman Mickelson felt that he could support the plan and concept. However, he had a concern about the one area which he had pointed out on the map. He felt that a General Plan Amendment would be an exercise in futility. If the Commission likes this plan, they should not have to go back through the General Plan Amendment process. There has been much public input over the years on this subject and he did not feel that more is needed. He explained that he would support two positions, He would like to see Mr. Brooks redesign the top of the hill. Also, he tended to disagree with Staff in that he felt all of the streets should be public, He did not see a problem with the fact that they are longer than normal. He also did not see a serious problem with the length of the emergency access. Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Fourteen ~= Commissioner Coontz felt that unless Mr. Brooks wanted the streets to be pricate, it seems incongruous that he is providing a north- south route, fully improved, through the property, which is of value to the entire community and the communities north and yet the Staff comments would indicate that they felt it would be difficult for the police department to service the adjoining streets in the development, which are to city standards. Mr. Beardsley commented that the eliptical streets do not meet city standards. They are about 160 feet which is below the 200 foot standards. He also pointed out a typographical error on Item #6 in the conditions, which read "... 1982 assessment" - this should be "1981 assessment". Commissioner Master questioned the statement regarding the EIR and comments made by persons opposing the project in that document. He wondered if the EIR would include comments made at this evening's public hearing. Mr. Murphy answered in the affirmative. 1 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, to accept the addendum to EIR 495 because it conforms to the requirements of the state EIR guidelines. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, to recommend approval of Zone Change 946, for the reason that the East Orange Plan calls for a variety of housing types. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1115 and Revised Tentative Tract 9608, for the following reasons: The plan is in accordance with the intent of the East Orange Plan. 2. The plan is sensitive to the questions of open space, circulation, housing elements and the Land Use Element. 3. The plan is sensitive to the retention of the view for the citizens of Orange and beyond the city boundaries. 4. The plan takes into account the interrelationship of the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange Plan. 5. The plan includes a positive and realistic plan for handling of open space. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 1115 and Revised Tentative Tract 9608 is subject to the 31 conditions set forth in the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet, with the following exceptions, changes and additions: Condition #2 - Dedicate and construct Crawford Canyon Road to ultimate width per City Standards prior to any occupancy. (This condition msut be left in as a standard condition.) ~" Condition #3 - Dedicate and construct "B" through "H" as public streets to City Standards for single or double loaded hillside local streets with standard curb and gutter, Change 'B' through 'H' to "...'A' through 'J'." Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Fifteen Condition #8 - All cut & fill slopes shall be landscaped and sprinklered (including Lots "E" & "F") as soon as water is available. Add: "...as soon as main water line is installed to insure slope stability." Condition #14 - Details of maintenance and ownership of Lot "D" to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the approval of the Final P1ap. Change: "Details of maintenance and ownership..." to read: "Details of open space grant deed...". Condition #29 - That in addition to the prepared reservoir site, Lot "E", the City requires the dedication of a water reservoir site capable of accommodating a 5 million gallon reservoir with a base elevation of 465' and an overflow elevation of 495' located in the open space area west of Crawford Canyon Road. Location and boundaries to be approved by the LJater Department. As per Frank Page memo, add: "Any space area west of Crawford Canyon south facing slopes, not affecting west facing slope." reservoir constructed in the open Road would be on the east and the view from the west, of the Commissioners decided to add the four stipulations suggested in the Grindle letter, as a 32nd condition. Chairman Mickel son asked Mr. Woollett how the group felt about the importance of a crossing in that area. They definitely felt that there must be a safe crossing there, but were agreeable to deleting their description of the type of crossing it should be. Condition #32 - The Trustees of the East Orange Open Space Management Corporation and Richard K. Brooks, Jr. and Associates have agreed to the following stipulations: 1. That portion of Tentative Tract 9608 located west of proposed Crawford Canyon Road is to be deeded in its entirety to EOOSMC upon approval by the City Council of the Final Tract Map. 2. Recreational Trail connection(s) are to be shown on the Final Map which connect Recreational Trails on properties immediately to the east and northeast of Tract 9608 with the Open Space area immediately west of Crawford Canyon Road. (Precise connection points are mutually being determined by Mr. Brooks and Eugene St. Amand - a Trustee of EOOSMC ahd a member of the City Trails Committee.) 3. A safe crossing of Crawford Canyon Road for users of the Recreational Trail is to be provided by Ric hard K. Brooks, Jr. and Associates. 4. The applicant - Richard K. Brooks, Jr. and Associates, have agreed to install landscaping along the west side of Crawford Canyon Road where it is contiguous with the Open Space area, to serve as a physical barrier to hinder motor vehicle access to the Open Space area. This landscaping is to consist of low- maintenance native trees and shrubs requiring minimal watering once established. This landscaping will also obscure the cut slope required for the construction of Crawford Canyon Road. Commissioner Mickel son asked that a 33rd condition be added: ~J Condition #33 - An alternate plan be submitted to the City Council, either lowering the upper pad or burming with landscape, to mitigate the view impact. Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Sixteen Mr.Brooks explained that burming would provide screening of that area in question. He agreed that if it was possible to lower it, they would do so. Commissioner Master commented that he was concerned that this is a unified plan. This is the last piece of property in that area and should not be piecemealed. He was assured that this was a unified plan. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Plaster, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1169 - COATS: Request to allow construction of a two-story second unit in the RCD Overlay District on the west side of Shaffer Street, south of Almond Avenue (224 S. Shaffer Street). (Note: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application to the Commission, stating that this is a request to construct a two-story, two bedroom apartment in the rear of the property. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any two-story structures within the RCD overlay zone. The property contains .12 acre of land, located on the west side of South Shaffer Street, approximately 153 feet south of the centerline of Almond Avenue (224 S. Shaffer). The property has approximately 50 feet of frontage on Shaffer Street and a lot depth of 107 feet. Mr. Soo-Hoo explained that there are a number of two-story units in the area at the present time. There are also a number of two-unit lots in that area. The applicant requests to construct a second unit on the subject property. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 960 square foot, two-bedroom unit over a four car garage (to satisfy parking requirements for both units on the site). The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area for low density residential 2 to 6 units per acre. r.. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed the following ~ concerns 1. That the driveway for the garages of the proposed structure is below the required 25 feet for backing space. 2. That the proposed two-story structure could cause privacy problems with neighboring properties. It is noted, however, that second story windows are only proposed for the west and east elevations which face a neighboring accessory building and the applicant's own property respectively. The Staff, therefore, recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1169 for the following reasons: 1. That all applicable development standards of the R-D-6 and RCD zones have been complied with. 2. That the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1169 with the '~„ 7 conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1981 Page Seventeen Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that there was one letter submitted to the Commission by Mr. and Mrs. Alex Stack, 430 E. Almond, Orange, whose property is located immediately north of the subject property, opposing this proposal. They feel that the two-story project will violate their privacy and also that the density is not compatible with what is in that area. Commissioner Coontz asked if the second unit is compatible with the original unit and was told that it is. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. George Fike, 1333 E. Barkley, Orange, the applicant, addressed the Commission, explaining that they intend to upgrade the original unit and, in effect, intend to upgrade the entire block. He pointed out that the letter of opposition probably came from a tenant in that house who has caused some trouble for him before. He stated that they can comply with all conditions and recommendations of Staff. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1169, subject to the conditions as shown on the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Chairman Mickelson brought up a League of Cities survey of local government that is being done. He had received a questionnaire and turned this over to Jere Murphy, stating that only the Staff could competently complete this. He also announced that there will be a meeting of the East Orange Economic Committee members with the Irvine Company for an update on the Irvine Company planning efforts. A study session was planned for Tuesday, December 15th, at 5:15 p.m. to discuss phases 2 and 3 of the Housing Consultant's Report. Commissioner Master commented that the consultants took a very small sample for their report and he was not even sure any conclusions could be drawn from the report. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m., to be reconvened to a study session on Tuesday, Dec ember 15, 1981, at 5:15 p.m., and thence to a regular meeting on Monday, December 21, 1981, at 7:30 p.m, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Jere P. Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on December 7, 1981; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on December 8, 1981, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which the meeting of December 7, 1981 was held. ~~~ EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1981. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Coontz, Hart, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz, that this meeting adjourn at 11:40 p.m. on Monday, December 7, 1981 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, December 21, 1981 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, December 7, 1981. Dated this 8th day of December, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. re N. Murphy, l;i Nianr~er ana S cretary to the P nning~Commission o~ the City of Orange. Q