Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 20, 1982 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, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Jack Brotherton, Public Works Department; Jim Reichert, Planning Department; Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1982: ~° Commissioner Coontz pointed out a correction to be made to the - minutes on page 8, the bast paragraph - change the word "May" to "many". Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to approve the Minutes of November 15, 1982, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vasquez MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 6, 1982: Commissioner Hart asked for a correction to the statement made on page 10 of the minutes, referring to "60 cities". This should be "16 cities". Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve the minutes of December 6, 7982, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez .~ ";OES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CUIVSENT CALENDAR: Proposed construction within the Orange County Flood Control District (CFD) right-of-way - Orange County Environmental Management Agency: A request that the City of Orange determine whether the proposed construction of a covered reinforced concrete box (R.C.B.) by the G.L. Lewis Company within the OCFD right-of-way (Channel Ell) between the western terminus of Orange Grove Avenue (westerly of Main Street) and the north side of the Orangewood Avenue right-of-way is in con- formance with the City General Plan. Recommendation: Recommend the proposal to be found in conformance with the City of Orange General Plan. Chairman Mickelson turned this portion of the meeting over to Vice- Chairman Hart, as he had a conflict of interest in the matter before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Two ~, Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mickelson MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 987, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1246, REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11401 - THORNE DONNELLEY, JR.: A request to rezone from the R-1-8 (Single-Family Residential) District to the R-D-8 (Residential Duplex) District to allow a 40-unit condominium project to be developed as a planned unit development on land located on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road, approxir+~ately 660 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue (10161 Crawford Canyon Road). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 802 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains two parcels which total 6.34 acres of land located on the west side of Crawford Canyon Road approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue (10161 Crawford Canyon Road). The property is zoned R-1-8 and contains a single- family residence. The applicant requests a zone change from R-1-8 (Single-Family Residential) to R-D-8 (Residential Duplex) to allow a 40-unit condominium project developed as a planned unit development. Mr. Murphy pointed out that access to the development will be one two-way drive off of Crawford Canyon Road and one emergency exit drive only off of Stoller Lane. He further explained that the applicant has not submitted any preliminary building or elevation plans for the development as yet. He said that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property for low density (2-6 units per acre) residential use and the East Orange General Plan reflects a medium low (2-3.5 units/acre) designation upon the property. Mr. Murphy explained that on June 9, 1981, the City Council upheld the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approved a 25-unit equestrian oriented planned unit development upon the property. The East Orange Committee has reviewed the plan and made no comments except for one member, PAr. Moss, who complained of the density of the project. The plan does not conform exactly to the East Orange Plan, but does conform to the Orange General Plan. Staff recommends acceptance of the Board to file Negative Declaration of Zone Change 987 under the Inten compatibility with the surrounding ment plans meet all pertinent City three reasons: findings of the Environmental Review 802. Staff also recommends approval t to Rezone procedure, to insure area and to insure that the develop- codes. Approval is recommended for That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning. 3. That the rezoning of the property to duplex creates a desirable ,buffer zone in relation to the low density single-family residences to the south and west and the duplexes to the north. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract 11401, subject to the 14 conditions listed in the Staff Report and approval of Conditional Use Permit 1246, subject to the l7 conditions listed in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Three Commissioner Coontz asked what the designation to the east meant and Mr. Murphy explained that he believed this was County zoning, which was basically a half acre lot-residential subdivision type of zoning. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Bill Stamphl. of Salkin Engineering, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He explained that sometime ago they received approval for 25 units on this property with an equestrian theme, which would include horse trails, etc. Since that time the market has changed considerably and it is no longer feasible to put 25 units on this piece of property. Also, the equestrian feature which had been proposed is not conducive to this particular area. There are some major cost factors on the property, one of them being a major storm drain which must be placed to run across this property. Mr. Stamphl, pointed out that there is considerable open space in this plan. Essentially, this is a private community with a private park in the middle and many green areas, tennis courts, etc. This will be a private guarded community. He showed the commissioners a scale model of the proposed duplex units as they will be constructed. Herbert Lawson, addressed the Commission, explaining that he owns a duplex adjoining the property to the north. He was not in opposition to the plan, only interested in what will be placed there. Marvin Stoller, 19181 Stoller Lane, Orange, addressed the Commission asking whether a block wall or fence will be placed below the grade where his home is located. Mr. Murphy explained that there would be no requirement fora fence or wall in that area unless the developer c~~ooses to put one there, or the Commission chooses to place a special condition on the property. Mr. Stoller said that he was not happy about the condos and would prefer homes in that area. James Lawson, residing in a duplex just north of the proposed project, addressed the Commission, asking about the density of this project, as compared to their project, He was told that it is approximately the same. ~ Dayton Dargatz, 10203 Smiley Drive, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he owns property to the west of the proposed development. He explained that the property to the north has a block wall fence in front of his property and the adjacent property to the northwest has a wood fence. Half of the wood fence has blown down in the recent winds and he was concerned about the privacy he wishes to retain up to that line. He pointed out that the wind comes through that area from the east very strongly at that point and wood fences do not stay up. He would rather see residential homes in the area than duplexes and did not like the density proposed as the area is already highly populated. If the project goes through, he would like to see some type of permanent block wall there. James Lawson again addressed the Commission, asking whether the 40 units being discussed for this project mean 40 individual units or 40 duples, with 80 units. He was told that this would 20 duplexes with 40 individual units. Mr. Stamphl, again addressed the Commission in rebuttal, and explained that the developers proposed a wooden fence for the area in question. fie felt that it would be of concern to the residents of these units to have a fence repaired immediately if it were to blow down. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Four ~ Mr. Stoller again addressed the Commission, pointing out that along the wooden fence line where there are duplexes, the fence blew down and has not been repair for a long time. He explained that the wind blows sometimes 80 mph and he would like to see a block wall. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSENT AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Vasquez asked a question about the special condition which states that each condominium unit must be equipped with an automatic garage door opener and this condition be recorded on the project's CC&Rs. He wondered what the rationale was for this. Mr. Murphy explained that this was to encourage the residents to use their garages for storage of only vehicles. It is not necessarily for security. He also added that there are three additional special conditions which were suggested by Glen Krieger of the Staff: Special Conditions: 1. That Class B fire retardant roof materials be provided as required per OMC Urgency Ordinance 41-82. Standard Conditions: 15. That a County of Orange Road Encroachment Permit be provided in order to perform the necessary road and storm drain construction on Stoller Lane. 16. That the design of the 72" storm drain across the property be coordinated with the storm drain the County built approximately 300 feet upstream. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 802. Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 987 under the Intent to Rezone procedure to insure compatiblity with the surrounding area and to insure that the development plans meet all pertinent City codes, for the reasons as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1246 and Revised Tentative Tract 11401, subject to the 16 conditions listed in the the Staff Report for CUP 1246 an dsubject to the 14 conditions listed in the Staff Report for Tentative Tract 11401 and adding the three conditions suggested in the Staff memo. Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED 0 Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Five ZONE CHANGE 983 - ANACONDA-ERICKSON c/o LE BLANC AND ASSOCIATES: A request to rezone a parcel from the R-D-6 (Residential-Duplex) District and the adjacent split zoned parcel from the R-D-6 (Residential Duplex) District and the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) District; all to the R-M-7 (Residential Multiple Family) District on parcels of land located on the south side of Palm Avenue ap- proximately 535 feet and 660 feet respectively east of the center- line of Batavia Street. (NOTE: Negative Declaration 805 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Norvin Lanz presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains 3.6 acres of land located on the south side of Palm Avenue at Parker Street (712 West Palm Avenue). The property is zoned R-D-6, R-M-7 and M-1, and is vacant. The appli-cant requests a zone change from R-D-6 anal M-1 to the R-M-7 zone, in order to consolidate the zoning on the property and prepare it for possible multi-family residential use. The applicant has submitted no specific development plans for the site and has indicated intentions to sell the property once zoning consolidation has taken place. s Mr. Lanz explained that the rear portion of the property located to the west of the site will be landlocked in terms of access unless this property is subsequently redeveloped at a future date. Fle further explained that the applicant's proposal represents the second phase in the redevelopment of industrial uses south of Palm Avenue and west of Lemon Street. The applicant is presently processing a lot line adjust- ment with .the City which will then form the property's eastern boundary line. He pointed out that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property for high density residential. Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has several concerns: a. That street improvements and drainage improvements need to be provided along Palm Avenue. b. That a cul-de-sac needs to be provided at Parker Street and be shown at the time of specific plan submittal. In the event that Parker Street is proposed to be made a secondary access street to the site, it should be improved to City Standards. c. That specific development plans need to be reviewed prior to reading of the rezoning ordinance in order to insure that the project is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. d. That the lot line adjustment should be completed prior to the reading of the rezoning ordinance in order to insure legal compliance. Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 983 for two reasons: 1. That the applicant's zoning consolidation proposal is consistent with the general plan designation of the property. 2. That use of the property for multi-family residential is a logical and desirable transition between the lower density residential uses to the south, north, and west and the industrial uses to the east. It is, however, recommended that Zone Change 983 be approved under the Intent to Rezone procedure to insure that the following issues are resolved prior to the reading of the ordinance by the City Council: Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Six A. That the lot line adjustment is completed per Public Works Department requirements. B. That all necessary street improvements along Palm Avenue and Parker Street are satisfied per Public Works Department. C. That specific development plans are reviewed by Staff, Planning Commission and City Council. The Commissioners asked for clarification with regard to the statement about the landlocked piece of property. After a more detailed explanation by Mr. Lanz and further discussion among the Commissioners, it was decided that this piece of land is not landlocked, but is inaccessible. It was explained further that if that particular piece of property is developed it cuts off a certain portion of the ad- joining property, which is not of concern to the Commissioners at this time. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Lou Le Blanc, President of Le Blanc & Associates, 2207 Orangewood Avenue, Orange, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission saying that he had read all of the conditions and accepted them and was in full agreement with the Staff Report. Alfred Walker, 1525 N. Main, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he owns property on Parker from Maple backing into the property in question. He was con- cerned about his piece of property, having owned it for 2U years, and was afraid his property. will be destroyed. He explained that he makes a good living from this property and is very concerned about losing his business. Chairman Mickelson explained that there was no intent to acquire his property. Mr. Walker explained that he has access both from Maple and Parker Street extension. He was not happy at the prospect of this property being sold off and developers coming in, as he will be wiped out if a block wall is placed across his property. Commissioner Hart explained that noone can take his property away without his consent unless it is condemned and then there would be just compensation. Commissioner Coontz asked Staff with regard to llb in the Staff Report, which reads: "That a cul-de-sac needs to be provided at Parker Street and be shown at the time of specific plan submittal. In the event that Parker Street is proposed to be made a secondary access street to the site, it should be improved to City Standards." She wondered if this means widening the street or does it just mean improvement such as street, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Murphy explained that it was his understanding that the improvements would all be on the property discussed this evening. Widening of the street would be another issue. Commissioner Coontz then asked what the present width is at this point and Mr. Murphy replied that it was about 30 feet. Chairman Mickelson explained that this proposed zone change will not affect Mr. Walker's property at this time. The street may never go through and there is no way that his property could be taken away from him. Mr. Le Blanc again addressed the Commission, stating that he was familiar with what Mr. Walker was talking about. They would be very happy not to put a cul-de-sac in but it must be done. He explained that Mr. Walker's property has no dedication whatsoever. It will be no problem for them to put the cul-de-sac in without Mr. Walker's property being involved. He did not see any problems here and there would be no reason to acquire Mr. Walker's property. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Seven Commissioner Master asked Staff if putting the cul-de-sac entirely on the Anaconda property was how they envisioned it and was told that Staff did see it this way. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 805. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Zone Change 983, for reasons as stated by Staff and subject to the Intent to Rezone procedure to insure that the following issues are resolved prior to the reading of the ordinance by the City Council: ~ A. That the lot line adjustment is completed per Public Works Department requirements. B. That all necessary street improvements along Palm Avenue and Parker Street are satisfied per Public Works Department. C. That specific development plans are reviewed by Staff, Planning Commission and City Council. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED ZONE CHANGE 986 - CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NUMBER 2361: A request to rezone the southern portion of a split zoned parcel from the R-M-7 (Residential Multiple-Family) District to the 0-P (Office-Professional) District to allow construction of a two-story office building on the resultant OP and C-2 (Major Commercial) zoned parcel located at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Marks Way (1916 West Chapman Avenue). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 800 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property is a rectangular shaped parcel containing approximate- ly 1.70 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Marks Way. The property is zoned C-2 (Major Commercial) on the northern portion and R-M-7 (Residential Multiple-Family with a 7,000 square foot lot size) on the southern portion. The property is being used for building material storage on the southern portion and a union office and meeting headquarters on the northern portion of the property. The applicant proposes a zone change for the southern 27,708 square feet of this property to Office-Professional. (This portion is cur- rently designated Residential Multiple-Family). The applicant further proposes to construct a 2-story office building on the southern portion of the property with a gross floor area footage of 14,750 square feet. Applicant also proposes to restrict the entire proposed office building to office usage with the use of CC&Rs. No meeting rooms are planned for the new office structure. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Land Use Element of the City of Orange General Plan designates the property as suitable for major commercial development. Planning Commission Minutes December 20 , 1982 Page Eight The Staff has reviewed the proposal and has only one area of significant concern, that of the proposed 2-story office building on the privacy and the esthetic environment of the single-family residences to the south. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the recommenda- tions of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 80 2 . Staff also recommends approval of Zone Change for two reasons: 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning and is consistent with the City of Orange General Plan. 2. The proposal meets all the development requirements of the City of Orange Zoning Code. Should the Planning Commission approve Zone Change 986, Staff recommends that the Resolution of Intent to Rezone procedure be employed in order to permit the City Attorney approval of the CC&Rs restricting the uses of the new structures and the project receive adequate review by the Planning Commission and City Council, both before and after the Design Review Process and so that the issue of residential privacy can be adequstely addressed. Chairman Nlickelson opened the public hearing. Gerald Stedman, 1916 W. Chapman, Orange, representing the Carpenters Local Union No. 2361, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He stated that they have no problem addressing the issues raised by Staff. Commissioner Master questioned the placement of the building, asking whether there was consideration given to placing the building much further north than it is now, se that parking was the intervening space between the building and the residences. Mr. Stedman replied that he did not believe that was a consideration that was made by the architect. They did leave some parking between the building and the residential area and he was sure that the architect considered the building and the use of the property when he designed the building. ~ Victor H. Johnston, 205 Glenview, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that they are experiencing a traffic problem on Almond and this new building will create an added amount of traffic. He wondered whether they are considering widening Marks Way at that point. He explained that when there are carpenters' and teamsters' meetings there at the same time, it causes great traffic problems on the residential streets in the area. He also wondered if additional parking has been considered for this new building. Commissioner Coontz asked if the second building would be used for a union hall, as is the first building. Mr. Murphy replied that Staff's understanding is that this will be primarily offices. It is not meant for large group activity. Paul Clark, 224 Glenview Place, Orange, addressed the Commission, reiterating that there is a traffic problem in the area when there are events in both union halls at the same time. He thought that the matter could be mitigated by having adequate parking provided. Commissioner Coontz asked if the entire plot is marked for parking or just the northern half behind the Chapman building. Mr. Stedman ex- plained that there will be no meetings in the second building. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Nine ~. Chairman Mickelson asked how many additional spaces are being added and was told that there will be 27 additional parking spaces. It was pointed out that these additional spaces would help evening meetings since there would be no office staff using the spaces at night. There being no one else to speak for or against this a~nlication, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Co~~~missi oner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 800. AYES: Commissioners Mickelsc NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner recommend approval of Rezone procedure, for in,-Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart to Zone Change 986, subject to the Intent to reasons as stated in the Staff Report. ~.- Chairman Mickelson pointed out that they seem to be moving further and further south with the 0-P area and felt that there could be an alternative. He thought that the physical layout of this plan is appropriate at this time, however. Commissioner Vasquez agreed with Chairman Mickelson's comments. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1232 - WYCLIFFE ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED: A request to permit construction of a two-story, 3,840 square foot office building addition to an existing office building fora church related non-profit institution in the R-1-7 (Single-Family Residential 7,000 square feet minimum lot size) District on property located on the west side of Prospect Avenue approximately 590 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue (202 South Prospect Avenue). (NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Jere Murphy presented this application to the Commission, stating that this property contains .47 acre of land located on the west side of Prospect Street, approximately 590 feet south of the centerline of Chapman Avenue. The property has approximately 70 feet of primary frontage on Prospect Street. It contains a 5,233 square foot office building and a 1,500 square foot single-family house, used as a storage area. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story 3,840 square foot office building addition to an existing 5,233 square foot building fora church related non-profit institution. Mr. Murphy explained that on March 5, 1973 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 620 to construct a 6,900 square foot single-story addition to the existing office building. The building was .not constructed. The proposed revised addition is now the subject of this staff report). Off-street parking would be provided by the church on adjacent property and, in turn, the church would be permitted to use a portion of the office building for classrooms. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the proposed two-story office addition is a church-related use which would be located on property consisting of a single-story office building and a single-family residence converted to a storage building. The proposed addition will not be used as auxiliary classrooms as they are already provided on the adjacent property. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Ten ~ The project property is adjacent to a property which consists of a church, social hall, Sunday school classrooms and preschool nursery. The two properties have a reciprocal access agreement, with the church property granting 19 parking spaces to the project property. The Staff has reviewed the proposal and expressed several concerns: a. That the second story of the proposed office structure could potentially pose a privacy issue with regard to the residential areas to the north and to the west. b. That the proposed height and location of the proposed addition will cast shadows approximately 20 feet (worst case situation) onto residential areas to the north; and, as such has the potential to impact the amount of sun received which could affect future solar rights. c. Parking should not be allowed in applicant's driveway. ~~ d. The drive to the parking area should be 20 feet wide. e. The trash enclosure should not be adjacent to residential uses. Staff feels that the Commission has three options: 1. Deny Conditional Use Permit 1232 for the reason that the project may have a negative effect on surrounding residential areas from both a view obstructing as well as a privacy and solar access standpoint. 2. Continue Conditional Use Permit 1232 to allow the applicant to redesign the proposed office addition in a one-story manner. 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 1232, subject to the 5 special and 9 standard conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Hart asked what the incompatability is for having a second story next to residential in this particular case. Mr. Murphy explained that Staff has always considered the second story of an office building to be a normal full activity. However, oftentimes the second story of a residence is limited to night time use. Staff, therefore, is concerned about the privacy of the rear yards of the surrounding residences. Commissioner Coontz asked about the buildings wii~ich front on Violet and Mr. Murphy explained that he thought most of the structures on Violet were two story. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Bob Welch, 5608 Crest deVille, Orange, representing Wycliffe Associates, addressed the Commission in favor of this application. He gave a little background on Wycliffe Associates and the parent company, Wycliffe Bible Translators, explaining that there are about 5,000 employees in this organization, Wycliffe Associates is the lay arm of the parent company, which includes construction and public relations. He pointed out that when the original building was built there were about 7,000 members. There are now about 20,000 members and they need the second story on the building to provide room for any additional growth and possibly to take care of present needs. Mr. Welch explained that they are willing to work with Staff to insure privacy for the nearby residents. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Eleven John Glender, 1608 Nlells Lane, Anaheim, Director of Construction for ~ the Wycliffe project, showed a model of the proposed building, pointing out that it is esthetically in conformance with the rest of the com- munity. He explained that by putting a second story on the building, with an interesting roof, it would blend even better into the surrounding community. He said that they are in concurrence with all recommended restrictions. Regarding the solar aspect, they have done a shade study and the building does not affect any solar activity with regard to the neighbors. David Luce, 2328 E. Hoover, Orange, addressed the Commission as a representative of the Orange Covenant Church, immediately south of the property in question. They have no objections, as they enjoy their relationship with their neighbors. The primary benefit is that their church can be unattended much of the time by having security of their premises next door, They share the parking lot, Judith Green, 3208 Almond, Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that they are very much in sympathy with the Wycliffe needs, However, this addition will affect the sun in their back yard. This is a twelve year old neighborhood and they are beginning to feel squeezed. She pointed out that they are not facing all two-story houses, some of them are one-story.,. If they face a blank wall with no windows, that is a lot of concrete to look at, She pointed out that their gardens will be affected by the second story also, Their back yards will lose their privacy from this type of building. Commissioner Hart asked if opaque windows would be preferable to the blank wall and Mrs. Green responded that if it is an "either/or" issue, they would prefer the opaque windows. Chester New, 5218 E. Almond Orange, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application, stating that he lives immediately behind the pro- posed building. It was his understanding that this was a single-family residential area and he wondered why they are allowed to build this building. Mr. Murphy explained that this was a conditional use permit fora church-related use and a church use is permitted in a residential zone, also being permitted by conditional use permit.. Since Wycliffe is church-related, they are allowed to be in this residential area, Mr. New pointed out that if this .two-story building is built there, they will be able to see his family and Mrs. Green's family in their back yards, This will affect them very much, There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Coontz said that she thought the two-story building was being built to be compatible and to be an asset to the one story building. Commissioner Vasquez commented that the proposal as it is outlined would be very difficult. to mitigate the concerns of the obstruction of view and solar problem. He thought that Option A in the Staff Report offers the opportunity to redesign the office addition in a one-story manner, Commissioner Coontz wondered if it would be possible to offset the building so that it would not be so close to the residences. Regarding the windows, she did not think anyone likes to look at a blank wall and she felt that the applicants have tried to make the building compatible with the surrounding area. Chairman hlickelson felt that the building has a pretty low profile and is no higher than another two-story home. He did not see it as too big an intrusion. He found the plan acceptable, with some special conditions. Planning Commission h1inutes December 20, 1982 Page Twelve ~,. Commissioner Hart looked at this as if it were another house and he did not see any difference between this building and another two- story house. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that it is not a house or it would not need a conditional use permit. It has a different use. She felt that perhaps landscaping could be halpful. Moved by Commissioner. Hart, seconded by Chairman Mickelson to approve Conditional Use Permit 1232, subject to the conditions stated in the Staff Report, plus an additional condition that the windows on the north side of the building be opaque in nature. Commissioner Coontz felt that the applicants had indicated that they thought there could be a problem and are willing to try to rectify it. She thought they should ask what the applicants are willing to do. The applicants stated that they had considered building a one-story building, but this would use up too much green area. That is why they are considering a two-story building. Commissioner Coontz wondered i f there was any way i n which the two-story bui 1 di ng could be offset from the one-story building and was told that in order to keep the esthetics of the building the applicants thought they should be in line. Mrs. Green responded to the Commission that this building is not like another two-story house. Usually there are two back yards between two residences. She can reach out and touch the applicants' storage building right now. When the new building is built they will be able to reach out and touch it. Commissioner Hart explained that there is usually 10 feet between houses. That will still be so. The Commissioners then voted on the motion on the floor. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION DEFEATED Commissioner Master asked if the applicant was interested in redesigning the proposed building and the applicant responded that they have met the major criticisms and would like the opportunity to work with the opposition and perhaps make changes th at would give them some privacy. They felt that they would like to try to satisfy the opposition. However, they do need the second story as they need the extra space. Therefore, they would like to come before the City Council with their ~ plan. I~loved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Master to deny Conditional Use Permit 1232, for reasons stated in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE GENERAL PLAN - HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT. A proposal to consider the adoption of a Historic Preservation Element addition to the City of Orange General Plan. (NOTE: Negative Declaration 807 has been adopted in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) Kathy Les representing Heritage Orange County, Inc., 106 W. 4th Street, Suite 503, Santa Ana, and consultant to the City of Orange, gave the presentation on the Historic Preservation Element to the Commission. She began her presentation with a slide presentation, giving an outline of the history of Orange and pointing out the various architectural styles of homes in the city. She pointed out that there are 1400 homes in the city which fall within the four categories shown in the slides. She then explained on a map the components of the Old Towne Historic District which consists of eight square blocks around the Plaza, the spoke street - Chapman and Glassell and the residential quadrants . She then summari zed the hi storic element, stati ng that thi s Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Thirteen ~'' will be added to the General Plan and will be a guiding policy document. In general, it will be guaranteed that every effort will be made to enhance and preserve the historic areas of the city. Ms. Less then capsulized the three goals and implementation of these goals: GOAL #l: While there are many homes and buildings of individual distinction, the greater importance of old Orange lies in the collective contribution and presence of the diverse styles and types of buildings which make up the historic neighborhoods of the City. Special efforts shall be made to benefit and enhance the commercial and residential sectors of these neighborhoods. GOAL #2: The encouragement and incentives to achieve long-term preservation of the historic neighborhoods in Orange will be pro- vided through financial, planning, and zoning incentives which assist property owners in rehabilitating and preserving their homes and buildings. GOAL #3: Community awareness and education concerning the unique and special history and architectural history of the built environ- ment in the older neighborhoods of Orange shall be promoted through the assistance of the City. She explained the Historic Preservation Element is not nostalgic. It is set up to encourage property owners in Old Towne to make a stake in the City. It provides for the long term betterment of the community. By protecting the unique attributes of Old Towne, we can enhance the desirability and marketability of the many historic neighborhoods in the City of Orange. It was pointed out that one of the suggestions by Staff is that there be no overlay zone. Ms. Less stated that the Historic Preservation Committee recognizes the RCD overlay zone as it already exists within the City of Orange, which is primarily in the southeast quadrant. Commissioner Hart asked if it was the intention that the mile square area was to be all encompassed in the overlay zone, or just the homes which were designated as being built before 1940. fps. Less replied that it was intended to be a combination of both . It was the intention that the overlay zone would be developed for the three tiers and that those zones would be developed appropriate to the needs and situations ~, in each of the tiers. Chairman Nickelson opened the public hearing, Jeff Crussell, 176 S. Citrus, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that he lived about 75 feet outside of the historic area. He said that he had purchased a home recently in this area and is very excited about raising a family in this area. Their home is a 1928 Spanish Mediter- ranean design and they have done much work to bring it back to the 1928 standards, He expressed a concern that he and the advisory board have regarding massive remodeling and minor defacing of historic properties. They propose a board consisting of five people, four architects and one lay person. The board would oversee the one square mile which is the nucleus of the city. They would be working from the established guidelines which are currently being prepared by the coordinator. Tf~ey would also monitor and propose properties to tine National Registry. Pair. Crussellfelt that it is important to have a second Design Review Board to cover historic buildings in the one square mile area. 1 Planning Commission Minutes Page Fourteen December 20 , 1982 Philip Brigandi, 2630 E. Hamilton, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he thought there should be a number of things that he felt are important to implement, particularly demolition, rehabilitation guidelines and local registration of historical sights. He would fault the document for its repeated stress on Old Towne as a boundary, or specific area, excluding many historic buildings in the entire City. He felt that the boundaries have been arbitrary and much more thought should go into the setting of boundaries. He would hope that this Element will be accepted and become part of the General Plan of the City, but he would like to see added that this Element, particularly the demolition factor, should be expanded to every part of the City of Orange. Paul Clark, a resident of the City of Orange, explained that he has served on the advisory board and would like to support Ms. Less' statements that the Element is an umbrella document for the protection of historic structures throughout the City, but particularly in the Old Towne area. He explained that we are here to set up a General Plan, not a Zoning Ordinance, pointing out that it is much easier to change the zoning ordinances than it is a General Plan. He felt that even tf~ough the RCD overlay zone needed to be worked on, it could be used as a guidepost in our considerations for what we can apply to the eventual areas in the Old Towne area. He thought that it focuses attention on the fact that we need to meet the challenge of protecting and preserving the historic character of the older neighborhoods in Orange. He explained some of the public worksriops which have been held in the City with regard to the preservation and restoring of historic residences and how well received they were. He felt that reasonable requirements must be applied to the residential areas in order to avoid having the wrong kind of buildings going up around the City, He supports the Historic Preservation Element and feels it merits the support of the Commission, hoping it will be recommended as part of the General Plan. Commissioner Hart asked for more information with regard to enlarging the Old Towne boundaries by an overlay district and P~ir. Clark explained this, stating that he did not think we are quite ready to enlarge tine boundaries beyond Old Towne until more study is done and an inventory of Homes is taken. He explained a few areas in more detail which he felt could be included in the boundaries because they have already been surveyed. He did t'r~ink that we should proceed with the boundaries of Old Towne as possible, but not forgetting that there are other areas in which there are homes which should be preserved. Debbie Sigler, 206 S. Batavia, Orange, commented about a separate Design Review Board, about which the statement had been made earlier that it would establish a new governing body, stating that she was in support of this separate board. One way of counteracting that would be to divest the DRB's authority away from the Old Towne area and have them be responsible for the city at large, with regard to design standards. As far as staffing is concerned, if present staff is used there would be no need to expand the budget. With regard to demolition standards, at present if someone wants to get a permit to demolish, they can go to the Planning Department and do this, without getting a time frame es talibhsed. The basic concern is to have some kind of a time line of perhaps 60 to 90 days set up in some fashion in order that input from the public can be gathered before a building is demolished. They also suggest that notification be placed in the newspapers so that the public be aware of buildings to be demolished. She felt that other cities should be contacted regarding their handling of homes being torned down which should be preserved, in order to get more ideas about how this handled elsewhere. She explained that it is understood that they cannot expect to save .~, every building, but they would like to save as many as possible. Planning Commission Minutes December 20 , 1982 Page Fifteen ~ Kathy Less clarified what was included in the inventory of buildings. The first area was the mile square Old Towne area, which also included Nutwood. Second secion is El N;odena, while the third major listing is about 20 homes which were once large farm houses, usually located on major streets such as Katella, Commissioner Coontz commented that it was her understanding that the Commission should adopt a Historic Preservation Element without getting into the more finite details. She thought that perhaps some of the suggestions which had been made regarding details of the Element could be addressed at a later date. There being no one else to .s peak to this issue, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart asked if the residents have been notified of this Element as he felt that some of them would be severely affected by the plan. It was pointed out that individual r~omeowners are never notified when a General Plan is involved. Usually the newspaper is used to publish this information. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that they had discussed the Design Review Board process at a study session and suggested that if any changes are made to the Element that Goal #1 on page 33 talks about the Old Towne Advisory Committee and she would like to see the wording in that paragraph read: "...rehabilitation and new construction per- formed as part of compliance with the Historic Element shall be given the most professional review possible through the Design Review Board process, assurning that persons with special expertise and knowledge of historic preservation planning will be involved and continue to be involved through membership on the Board," Regarding the overlay zone, she noted that the Staff took exception on page 2 of the Staff Report to wording of Goal #l, Item #3, where they state: "From the beginning, Old Towne has been composed of three seg- ments: core area, spoke streets, residential quadrants. There has also been the principle of a gradient of enforcement - that is to say the core area was originally intended to have standards which would be strongly encouraged, the standard for spoke streets were to be encouraged, the standard for spoke streets were to be en couraged, and the standard for residential quadrants were intended to be advisory only." Commissioner Coontz disagreed with this statement, feel that the whole element could fall because we don't do a little bit more than what the Staff suggests. She felt that the RCD overlay zone has been very successful in the residential combining district in the southeast quadrant. She pointed out that the other quadrants have the same combination of multiple residentia] zoning, even though even though the structures on the lots aren't necessarily multiple dwellings and if we implemented the RCD Overlay Zone on the remaining quadrants, we could do it on a selective basis, which would be according to the listings developed in the existing area.. She felt the Commission should move for adoption of the Historic Preservation Element, making a few suggestions. Commissioner Master asked q question with regard to the subject of demolition and Commissioner Coontz stated that this had already been put into the document. Nothing further needed to be done at this time. She did not agree with a different advisory board and she also felt that an overlay zone should be provided to the rest of the quadrants, feeling that these points should be added to a motion. Chairman Mickelson stated that he would be willing to support the adoption of the Historic Element with some reluctance. He felt that it could create a situation that could get out of hand. He also felt that some of the wording in the Element should be changed and softened a bit. Some of the wording bothered him and he gave some examples. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Sixteen Ms. Les then explained with regard to implementation actions, that the way which the Element was constructed is that the bottom line is the three goals. When you adopt the Element, you adopt the three goals. However, each of those items within the Element would undergo further study and determination as to how it would most feasibly be put together. She pointed out that the wording in the Element is such that there really is not a commitment one way or another on the overlay zones. It simply says that demolition, use and design should be com- ponents of an overlay zone. Her suggestion was that the way the Element is graphically set up it would simply say "implementation actions". Some wording could be included here which conveys to the reader that, in fact, these are the implementation actions in support of the goals. Chairman Mickelson said that he could support this if there were a preamble stating that each of these implementation actions are to be studied before each of them is individually adopted. f~is. Les addressed the demolition control by pointing out that many times people fear the phrase "demolition control" and automatically assume that they may not demolish their building. She thought that the City is prohibited by law to write such an ordinance. Typically, the way this is handled or demolition provisions are put as part of an overlay zone, you simply have a stay on the dmeolition permit. She explained that right now this is an over-the-counter matter. If you owned a house in Old Towne, you could come in and get a demolition permit immediately. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend the adoption of the Historic Preservation Element in accordance with the. recommendations of the Element and the Planning Department Staff Report, except for the following: 1. All implementation actions suggested for the element to be studied for their merits before they are adopted. GOAL #l, Item #4, p. 33 of the Element. Recommend a change of the wording to: "Rehabs station and new construction performed as part of compliance with the Historic Element shall be given the most pro- fessional review possible through the Design Review Board process, assuming that persons with special expertise and knowledge of historic preservation planning will be involved and continue to be involved through membership on the Board." GOAL #1, Item #3, p. 2 of the Staff Report. Recommend investigation of the implementation of the RCD Residential Combining District) overlay zone to the areas in the remaining quadrants on a selective basis, according to the residential listings developed in the Historic Survey. GOAL #2, Item #6, p. 36 of the Element. Recommend retention as written, that the City should adopt a certified local ordinance for the estab]ish- ment of Registered Historic Districts. The recommendation fits well into the RCD overlay zone concept. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Plaster, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none P~10TION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1248 - DR. MARK ARMSTRONG: A request to construct a two-story office building with greater than 40:p of-the parking sta]ls designated as compact stall size on land located on the west side of Glassell Street approximately 93 feet north of the centerline of Palmyra Avenue (2$2 South Glassell Street). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 803 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) '~,, Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Seventeen By consensus of the Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Bob Kristof, 174 S. Orange, Suite D, Orange, designer for the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that this office building is for the Calvary Temple at the corner of Palmyra and Glassell and will be used basically for offices. He explained that they are trying to fit in with the Old Towne theme and make the design more compact. He pointed out that in order to get parking, landscaping, etc. into the entire design they have found it necessary to go to compact parking stalls in excess of 40%. They have dis- cussed the conditions with the Staff and accept them. 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 accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 803. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to approve Conditional Use Permit 1248 for the reasons stated in the Staff Report and subject to the standard conditions listed therein. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED PRE-ZONE CHANGE 988 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed rezone from County C-1 (Local Business) District and R-4 (Suburban Residential District to City of Orange C-1 (Local Business) District or more restrictive zone on land located at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue and Prospect Street (11865, 11871, 11881, 11891 Prospect Street, 17935, 17961 East Chapman Avenue). (NOTE: Negative Declaration 806 has been filed in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report.) By consensus of the Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Michi Walker, 6171 Caya Pantana, Anaheim, addressed the Commission in favor of this application, stating that they own the property in this area and have a nursery there. After purchasing this property, they found out that it was on county property. They must use half city and half county addresses. They wish this to become city property so that the Orange police would be required to answer their burglar alarms, since by being both county and city property at this time, no one answers their calls. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 806. AYES: Commissioners I~ickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Con~issioners none MOTION CARRIED r r Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1982 Page Eighteen Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 988 for the reasons as outlined by Staff. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS: PHASE IV REPORT-HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS: Time set for informal public hearing on Phase IV Report: Housing Needs Analysis prepared by Willdan Associates (referred by the City Council on October 12, 1982). By consensus of the Commission, no presentation was given. Chairman Nickelson opened the public hearing. Dave Dmohowski representing The Irvine Company, reviewed the report and agreed pretty much with all conclusions which Staff reached in their analysis that the projections of future housing demands and population growth in Orange were exaggerated substantially by the consultant. They also agree with the Staff recommendations that the City look into ways of encouraging through incentives the production of more housing and thereby encouraging housing that is more favorable within the City. This would apply mainly to their property in the East Orange area of Orange in the long run as they get into development in that area. He thought that perhaps there needs to be a little more emphasis on rental housing. The consultant, in particular, did not devote any specific attention to the rental issue. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the hearing. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to accept Staff's recommendations as follows, after having reviewed both of their memorandums and the Phase IV Housing Needs Analysis Report and concurring in the analysis of the population projections of the Staff. 1. Accept the consultant's population forecast range as the parameters within which to structure the city's housing strategy, 2. Consider the recommendations contained in the Staff memorandum dated October 29, 1982. 3. Reserve further consideration of increasing overall residential densities to a future date. The Planning Commission recommends approval of those recommendations by the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Nickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The. meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m, to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, January 3, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. n